Topic: #metoo as I say, not as I do - Bill C-51 - Sexual Assault Law In Canada (Read 438 times)

@techshare

Can not find fault with anything your last post said. I agree.

You seem to have run the entire gamut in this statement. If justice were truly blind, a man would be found innocent even if he could not defend himself. Unfortunately though we do not live in a perfect world, and these standards of evidence were (the original ones) created to ensure by no means will an innocent person be convicted. The balance is SUPPOSED to always slightly favor the accused as it was often said "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". People naturally want to punish the guilty, and most of all in the cases of rape as in some ways it is more brutal than murder.

Essentially they are trying to turn the law into the standard that any woman for any reason can accuse and convict a man of rape with zero physical evidence, and this is now manifesting in the legal code itself. Allowing people to send others to prison on their word alone is not an acceptable standard no matter how many rapists it puts away. The problem with that is it makes it really easy for innocents to be accused and swept up into this, and often the circumstances surrounding consensual sex and surrounding rape are often indistinguishable without these vital physical records.

In effect a rape might look exactly like a date, and a date might look exactly like a rape. So seeing an innocent man be convicted for rape is not such a far fetched thing when you look at what we are actually working with here. In the VAST MAJORITY of cases the only determining factor is physical evidence such as this legislation seeks to be allowed to be excluded.

"I think the papers would have a field day and destroy the victim if I the rapist could provide a video of them the victim riding on top cumming their brains out then after going nuts in the room saying they were raped and calling the cops. I think that this law will not hold if ever such a thing came about."

The problem with your logic here is that releasing such a video itself is probably a crime in Canada, and I can assure you rather than rallying behind the man they would rally to lynch him as yet again violating this "poor victim" by exposing her to the world. Canada is being taken over by feminists, and their misandry is now increasingly bleeding though into law.

Kind of reminds me of when the feminist Swedish government said that more women walk and more men drive, so lets plow the sidewalks of snow completely before we plow the roads for "equality". As you can imagine it was a complete disaster (who knew you needed roads to get to sidewalks to clear them right)? Plus who is doing all the clearing? Except this law is less funny and more of a total fucking nightmare.

Hmmm 2 smart people here debating. I like reading it.

Let's not fall out and put each other down and therefore spoil future interactions between you both.


I will add my view (perhaps incorrect ). Let's see.


So to me it is quite complex ....

However I have to disagree - you are not guilty until proven innocent although kind of tipping the scales toward the accuser heavily in the presentation of what I believe are sensible and reasonable data to the jury to digest. So although you are not guilty they are making it very hard to prove you are innocent even when you are.

I say this still you are not guilty until you prove innocent though because...

If there was only an accusation but 0 evidence or corroborating events  from either side then you would be set free as an accused rapist.

That seems therefore you are still innocent until the accuser brings some sensible and corroborating evidence? I mean if i just say you raped me but then no evidence or corroborating events to bring at all I am sure that my rapist will still be set free even if he just says didn't happen with no evidence.

However this does seem a clear attempt to tip the balance in favour of the accuser from where it has been before I believe in a negative way to finding optimal outcome.

They seem to be making it easier for someone to accuse and removing the sensible and credible ways that you could ever defend yourself.
However they will still need something to suggest it was you and that you raped them. Else just their word against your own.

I think the papers would have a field day and destroy the victim if I the rapist could provide a video of them the victim riding on top cumming their brains out then after going nuts in the room saying they were raped and calling the cops. I think that this law will not hold if ever such a thing came about.

I mean it does seem as if they are saying it is down to the accused to prove their innocence and at the same time as saying will remove sensible and reasonable ways that you could  prove your innocence. However with no evidence from either side at all then you will be set free I am certain.

I firmly believe if you are giving out punishment then the strong onus should be on the accuser to provide a conclusive and reasonable case that the punishment is deserved. The physical evidence (hospital records) is a strange one. I mean in the case of rape how would they not be relevant ?

Anyway so in this case my (perhaps incorrect view) is that it is a damaging and unfair move but still you will be innocent until it is quite reasonable that you are guilty... so no corroborating evidence from accuser then you will walk.

If I am wrong then that is because i have zero understanding of the law ... however would like to see an analogy or hypothetical scenario that demonstrates this.

Good battle and I really liked this pyramid techshare presented demonstrating the levels of rebuttal during debate. Very good.

I still accept techshare may give me a scenario that makes me see he is correct but just at this minute I am saying still not guilty in light of zero evidence from both sides.






............


although hmmm now I think about such a scenario perhaps it has happened already ....


How do these celebs get banged up for girls they are accused of  showing their dick to many many years ago?

I mean there can be little evidence or zero from either side and still they do get banged up sometimes it seem on the weight of a couple of others presumably with zero evidence corroborating their story. Then it does seem if there was no evidence either way and you can get banged up perhaps it is guilty until proven innocent ?  or if examining those cases would you find some kind of corroborating and convincing evidence other than some extra people coming with the same accusation with zero evidence?

Does seem worrying though the direction in which things are going....

I think it is a negative change in the law if you are really interested in finding out the truth.

If they keep going in that direct the next step is just saying you are guilty and you can not respond at all and the accuser gets to state his accusation and you have to just be quiet.

Seems I must take extra precautions to not get tagged in the first place and stick to having sex in public for payment from the female for my service. Of course brain control can not be ruled out and with no medical records admissible , witnesses memories contaminated and adjusted and no contact at all with jury or judge (because those magneto hats are out of stock)you will probably just get robbery added to the rape charge...

Then again prison isn't so bad for horny devils I was told... so long as you can manage your sexist, racist, ageist, xenophobic,  prejudices, and are not some kind of hypochondriac.

I posted a summary of the issues. I went over several specific hypothetical scenarios to illustrate why this is a problem. I referenced specific portions of the law supporting my statements within YOUR OWN SOURCE, and then even found a video of a woman breaking it down in digestible little spoon fed bites for you.

Your childish demands to see specific language you think is the only way to validate my claims are irrelevant. Your inability to understand the source material is not my responsibility, especially when I have already explained in simple language why this is an issue. You seem to be of the view that if you simply declare I have not supported my argument, then it never happened. Your authority of course all hinging on your so called understanding of the law, which you have demonstrated already repeatedly to be lacking.

And you would see that the modifications made don't change the nature of the section...
[/quote]
Basically you are cherry picking a legal document (lol) and on top of that the cherry you picked was actually a rock. You can't just take a small excerpt of it and ignore the rest. That is not how the law works. Every claim I made is supported within that text.


Here is something a bit more your speed: https://youtu.be/r9Wx0w0VZfw?t=548

[/quote]

Ok I'm done.
You make a claim without any kind of basis to support it and I'm the one who knows nothing.
There is nowhere in this whole freaking bill, written anything like "guilty until proven innocent".
There is nowhere in this whole freaking bill, writtent anything that can lead to such situation.

Either quote the sentence(s) that you see as responsible for such claim or stop blattering in the void.

And for me, I'm done. Sorry I wasted your time as you don't seem to have, even by the slightest, tried to read or think.

This is the part where your ignorance of the law matters. Lets start with the fact that this is the SUMMARY of the law. Meaning that is not the exact language of the law, that is this authors impression and review of it.  Also if you had any clue about what you were reading, you would see you quoted the previous version of the standards that have just been modified, as described just below that.

Basically you are cherry picking a legal document (lol) and on top of that the cherry you picked was actually a rock. You can't just take a small excerpt of it and ignore the rest. That is not how the law works. Every claim I made is supported within that text.


Here is something a bit more your speed: https://youtu.be/r9Wx0w0VZfw?t=548

Current section 276(2) of the Code bars an accused from presenting sexual activity evidence unless the evidence:

    is of specific instances of sexual activity;
    is relevant to an issue at trial; and
    has significant probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the proper administration of justice

And nothing about being 'guilty until proven innocent' of course. Don't see how that's proving me wrong....

Thanks, that was very helpful.

https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/LegislativeSummaries/421C51E#a33

You just proved yourself wrong with your own source. As you said. Case closed.

For fuck's sake just go read the damn law:
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/LegislativeSummaries/421C51E

IT NEVER SAYS THE ACUSED IS GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT

NEVER

It's never stated, never suggested, never written in any way.

Stop saying pure bullshit and start actually reading please.


And next time you want to make a point about a law, instead of opening a thread with a useless 10 lines vague article go check the law for yourself and state clearly which parts of the law you disagree on.

Case closed, next please.

I have however answered your question already. Perhaps you should take the time to read the previous posts in the thread completely? BTW its not an article it is just a summary of the bill. Also, your lack of knowledge of law is quite relevant to the subject and is more than a simple personal attack. If you do not understand the overarching concepts which determine the outcome of these events, then how can you claim to know anything about the outcome?

You haven't answered me at all.

Where in your article does it state that now rape accusation will be "guilty until proven innocent"?

This is YOUR claim:

Because appart from your personnal attacks about me "not knowing a damned thing about law" I don't see any fact in your claim or post or answers.

What is relevant are facts. What you THINK you understand is irrelevant. The FACT is that this will make innocent people suffer by making it more difficult to defend themselves from false accusations. It is a total debasement of foundational concepts of law.

Can you tell me, where in this quote is the number 4?

"2 + 2 =    "

We can all see the equation.

Just because it hasn't been abused YET doesn't mean it will not lead to abuse or even other unintentional issues. The fact is you don't know a damned thing about law, and therefore have no comprehension of why this is a big problem. Hundreds of years of legal precedent are being overturned here. That is a problem.

Wow, slow down.  By "you" I meant you, I and every other man alive.

I don't think they will indiscriminately imprison men.  That is a stretch.

BTW, I do feel sorry for all the women that were raped.  How about you?

If you (you, I and every oner man) are in a situation and she is not into it, get up and walk away.  

There is plenty of fish elsewhere.

PS. "Personal attack"?  WTF, I don't even know you.

I don't even know why I answer you as you don't read me...

What I understand is irrelevant but what you understand is?

In YOUR article, there is NEVER written that "What is reality is this standard now forces the accused to prove their innocent in order to be able to defend their freedom."

It's as simple as that, you provide a source and state a claim, I go read the source and don't see this claim.

I'm pretty aware that this concept is French and quite proud of it thank you. Fact is that you're stating it's no longer applicable and I don't see it in your source. I was merely being polite by saying "How I understand it" but I can be more direct if you wish:

Excuse me if I don't take your legal advice very seriously. What you understand is irrelevant. What is reality is this standard now forces the accused to prove they are innocent in order to be able to defend their freedom. You think it is acceptable to set a standard where people can send others to prison on their word, and then be forced to prove your innocence in order to remain free?

Kind of funny, "innocent until proven guilty" originated from the French as a concept. I guess this is just another case of you being ignorant about your own nation lol.

I don't see the problem here, it seems far from "guilty until proved innocent" as you claim at least in the article you posted:


"Unless the accused can prove that these records are vital to disproving the allegations"

How I understand it means that you can't ask for all the personal records without a good reason, this reason being that there is a proof of consent in it. Hence you no longer can ask for records to be able to prove that the "supposedly raped person" was a depraved someone who had a poor moral, heavily drinking and partying which would mean that she probably asked for it.

If you have any kind of "let's do it" in the personnal records they are still perfectly admissible right?

Well it's law so I might not interprete it right, especially as it's not a European law and AngloSaxon laws are quite different.

A whole caravan of people has been marked as criminals wirhout an honest examination of all of the evidence or an impartial hearing.

That is a pretty sad personal attack, not even an argument. You aren't refuting any of the information presented you are just making more accusations that it is justified because you think it was designed to do XYZ. The fact is it does these things regardless if you think it is justified to turn the state into an indiscriminate system of imprisonment of men for little more than the crime of being male.

Rapists should go to prison. Imprisoning people is a serious act and requires an honest examination of all of the evidence in order to have an impartial hearing. This bill totally demolishes that and opens the door to rife abuse with false accusations, mistaken identities, and just general fuck ups. You keep pretending subjecting men to indiscriminate imprisonment and preventing them from presenting evidence to defend themselves is acceptable. Hopefully it is not you who ends up in a cage getting raped over a false accusation. Of course it always happens to some one else right?

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/cuol-mgnl/c51.html

Well, not really.  The rape provisions are really related to "she asked for it" type of defense, which is no defense if you ask me.
It is like saying, I killed her because she was too old anyway.

I guess you will have to walk into these dating situations with a well-written contract.

The other provisions that they want to drop are kinda funny:

Challenging someone to a duel (section 71);
Advertising a reward for the return of stolen property “no questions asked” (section 143);
Possessing, printing, distributing or publishing crime comics (paragraph 163(1)(b));
Publishing blasphemous libel(section 296);
Fraudulently pretending to practice witchcraft (section 365); and,
Issuing trading stamps (section 427).

That is kind of the problem. Law doesn't work too well in "grey zones". Law is a protocol or a code we operate by, which by definition requires it be predetermined, defined, and prerecorded available for all to review. There are lots of implications of this law I am not yet familiar with as I just now came across it, but from what I understand it would make it extremely difficult for innocent people to defend themselves from rape accusations, and could very well end up sending them to prison, where they are likely to be actually raped.

One clear implication of this law, is say you ask a person to record a short video stating they consent to sexual activity, or you film sexual activity, even if it shows the parties are engaging in consensual activities, this can not be used as evidence to exonerate the accused without the permission of the accuser. This would apply even when the accused is already in possession of such evidence. This also would according to this language extend potentially for example, to hospital records documenting the lack of injury, or perhaps a rape kit which shows that the accused person's DNA does not match. There are tons of implications to this that are just totally ass-backwards and are going to turn into a nightmare VERY fast.