# The Ghomeshi trial: does it matter to you?



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

In one sense, _every _sexual assault trial matters to me; it's a matter of dignity, rights, and safety. In another sense, for me this particular trial is the sort of thing that really should be relegated to one of those little side column things you see in the paper, like off-season sports hiring contracts or trades, or who is slated to direct/produce the film version of some best-seller, a 3-car pileup yesterday that sent one person to hospital (as in "Yeah, keep me in the loop but it's not front and center in my life"). I'm interested to hear how it turns out, I suppose, but a detailed account of each day's testimony is not on my radar...not in the sense that the Duffy trial was.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Hmmm....I was totally on board with you until you mentioned the Duffy trial. Why was that so much more important?
To me, it was much, much less interesting, just because to the scale of it. If it were a trial over amounts in the millions (insert expensive provincial Liberal fiascos here), then it might have caught my attention.

Ghomeshi isn't interesting to me, because I never really saw him as much of a celebrity. didnt think of him as much of a musician, never listened to/watched his show, and his name wouldn't be recognized outside of our borders. so it may as well be a trial for someone who managed a McDonalds.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

I'm sure it matters to lots of people, I'm just not one of them.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Diablo said:


> Hmmm....I was totally on board with you until you mentioned the Duffy trial. Why was that so much more important?


Wasn't so much that the Duffy trial was "important", as much as the details emerging from each day brought some insight into the workings of the PMO and Senate. In the case of the Ghomeshi trial, there's no real insight to be gained AFAIC.


----------



## garrettdavis275 (May 30, 2014)

Yep, same here. From a human rights perspective it definitely matters to me (as in I care about the people involved, on both sides), but I don't think I'll be going thru the testimonies/evidence with a fine tooth comb. From a personal side of things, I tend to invest much more time into the "unsolved mysteries" type bullshit, I suppose it appeals to me more from a conspiracy nutter standpoint.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

I'll probably read the lurid details. I was a big fan of him and Q with him hosting....if it says anything, I haven't listened to or watched a single episode since he's gone. Not fair perhaps, but there you have it. On the other hand, reading the accusations turned me from a fan to a hater.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

The interesting thing to me will be how much CBC brass knew about what was going on and helped cover it up. Of course they won't be reporting that particular aspect of the trial, if it's mentioned at all.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

I hope he gets what he deserves whether he is innocent or guilty.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Steadfastly said:


> I hope he gets what he deserves whether he is innocent or guilty.


Im not sure I understand what this means.
If hes innocent, he will still always have a stigma around his name and his career will most likely still be over.

Rather than Duffy, a better comparison might be Cosby. Is anyone more or less interested in that situation?
To me, its far more interesting for 2 reasons 1) scale: the guy is a huge celebrity internationally...not a Canadian Indie d-lister.
2) the hypocrisy....all those years, portraying himself as a mild mannered, squeaky clean family man, and role model for the black community.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

mhammer said:


> Wasn't so much that the Duffy trial was "important", as much as the details emerging from each day brought some insight into the workings of the PMO and Senate. In the case of the Ghomeshi trial, there's no real insight to be gained AFAIC.


fair enough. the ghomeshi story , if true, is probably the same story that we've heard about lots of slimey celebs who try to use their status to satisfy their urges.

its still important its out there, for those that are interested.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

So important I forget what it's about.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

keto said:


> I'll probably read the lurid details. I was a big fan of him and Q with him hosting....if it says anything, I haven't listened to or watched a single episode since he's gone. Not fair perhaps, but there you have it. On the other hand, reading the accusations turned me from a fan to a hater.



I actually listened to part of an episode without knowing what I was listening to, until the host said "This is Shad and that was Q, thanks for tuning in" or something to that effect. What drew me in was the subject and the Q&A. I was also focused on driving so I don't remember the exact topic. I think the CBC chose a great replacement who will probably outshine Gomeshi.

As for the trial, I agree that it is important, critical to those involved, and that most people want to know the outcome and highlighted facts more than every minute detail.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

any kinda man that gets turned on by beating someone ain't no kinda man. he's already admitted he likes that stuff. afaic, the only way he'll get what he deserves is if he goes to jail and someone beats him, and f**ks him right in the brown eye. i don't care if he raped someone or not. he's a woman beater, and that makes him almost as low as a child abuser. consensual or not. 

as for cosby, i said it before. when i worked for the "escort agency" in philly they knew all about him back in 92 or 93. he was barred from the client list for the behavior he is finally being brought to trial for. if you're so bad even a whore won't take your money, that's bad. cosby isn't news to me, but i would like to see him get what's coming to him


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

davetcan said:


> The interesting thing to me will be how much CBC brass knew about what was going on and helped cover it up.


That is the only thing that might, remotely, interest me. Gomeshi himself is meaningless to me and I had no idea who the hell he even was until he was charged.

What I did find interesting though was all of the people who immediately leapt to his defense crying that his private life was none of the CBC's business. When the lurid details came out those people shut the hell up _really_ quickly.




> Of course they won't be reporting that particular aspect of the trial, if it's mentioned at all.



Other media outlets certainly will though!


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> I hope he gets what he deserves whether he is innocent or guilty.


What punishment do innocent people deserve?


----------



## Lola (Nov 16, 2014)

Cosby and Ghomeshi! I hate them both!! They make me sick!  Those two are absolute slime balls!

I have a real gut feeling! My gut is always right! Not to mention Cosby's wife! A sick enabler! No, that's beyond sick! Don't tell me Cosby's wife didn't know? I am sure she didn't know everything but I am sure she had some knowledge! She just shutup! Protecting her ass!


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2016)

He probably had her drink from the same cup.


----------



## Lola (Nov 16, 2014)

Gian Ghomeshi is a narcissistic piece of work! For CBC, they took a way too long to notice the damage this asshole was doing! Their "golden child" or so they thought!


----------



## skilsaw (Nov 4, 2014)

The only good thing that I can see coming out of this trial is it might stimulate a positive discussion on what constitutes consent. The line will be much clearer if the verdict is "guilty".
There are some pretty bad jokes that suggest that this discussion is long overdue. For instance, "No" means more beer.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Steadfastly said:


> I hope he gets what he deserves whether he is innocent or guilty.





Diablo said:


> Im not sure I understand what this means..


It means if he is guilty, he gets the maximum penalty the law gives out, which are often lacking in my opinion. If he is innocent then he is totally exonerated, and all damages are paid and public apologies are made by his accusers. Will that ever happen? Not under any judicial system I know of but that is what should happen when someone is innocent. 



colchar said:


> What punishment do innocent people deserve?


They deserve to be totally exonerated and compensated fully.


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

It matters to me because, in my opinion, CBC radio is the most critical, politically correct and self-righteous institution in the country. Seeing their inactions and willful blindness placed under a spotlight will give a small degree of solace to those persons they have browbeaten, humiliated and disgraced in the past.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I am much more interested in the Bosma trial. This was one of the most disturbing and bizarre murders I have ever heard of.


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

Like GC I'm more interested in the Bosma trial. At least now we will get more info on what actually happened. Gian Ghomeshi I don't care about, he is just one sick perverted dude.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> It means if he is guilty, he gets the maximum penalty the law gives out, which are often lacking in my opinion. If he is innocent then he is totally exonerated, and all damages are paid and public apologies are made by his accusers. Will that ever happen? Not under any judicial system I know of but that is what should happen when someone is innocent.
> 
> 
> 
> They deserve to be totally exonerated and compensated fully.



OK, that I understand. You previous post made it sound like you thought he should be punished whether innocent or guilty. 

As for being compensated, those who are acquitted are not normally compensated.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Too funny...

http://www.thebeaverton.com/nationa...-as-he-sees-trial-judge-is-billy-bob-thornton


----------



## R.S.Fraser Sr. (Aug 15, 2009)

Krelf said:


> It matters to me because, in my opinion, CBC radio is the most critical, politically correct and self-righteous institution in the country. Seeing their inactions and willful blindness placed under a spotlight will give a small degree of solace to those persons they have browbeaten, humiliated and disgraced in the past.


Krelf, with an opinion like that, it makes me think you work(ed) at CBC?


----------



## skilsaw (Nov 4, 2014)

R.S.Fraser Sr. said:


> Krelf, with an opinion like that, it makes me think you work(ed) at CBC?


 I watch the National on CBC because I think Wendy Mesly is hot. She sends me secret messages each night by telepathy. Messages like what she really thinks of Donald Trump. I tell her what to say next. I control the CBC news.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

colchar said:


> OK, that I understand. You previous post made it sound like you thought he should be punished whether innocent or guilty.
> 
> *As for being compensated, those who are acquitted are not normally compensated*.


exactly. And it makes sense. Just because you were acquitted doesn'tnecessarily mean you didn't do it (OJ Simpson). It just means they didn't have enough proof that you did it.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Diablo said:


> exactly. And it makes sense. Just because you were acquitted doesn'tnecessarily mean you didn't do it (OJ Simpson). It just means they didn't have enough proof that you did it.



In Scotland there is a great verdict that deals with those cases - 'not proven'. So there is not guilty, not proven, and guilty. 

'Not proven' basically means "we know damned well that you did it, but just weren't able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt".


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

colchar said:


> In Scotland there is a great verdict that deals with those cases - 'not proven'. So there is not guilty, not proven, and guilty.
> 
> 'Not proven' basically means "we know damned well that you did it, but just weren't able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt".


That doesn't strike me as particularly fair. It basically means "You're tainted but we can't sentence you", which is not exactly justice. Methinks there are other outcomes to choose from.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

Just heard on the news that the first woman that's accusing Ghomeshi of assault had sent him 2 emails after the alleged assault.


_In a dramatic development that set the courtroom on edge, Ghomeshi's lawyer produced two emails that appeared to contradict the woman's statements that she had been so traumatized by what happened, she'd even turn off the TV or radio when he came on. The first email was written in January 2004, about a year after she said he had yanked her to the floor by the hair during a "sensuous" kiss in his living room and then punched her in the head.
"Good to see you again! Your show is still great," it says.

She goes on to provide a website address for him to watch a video of her "when you take a break from ploughing snow naked," gives her email address and phone number and asks him to get in touch.
Defence lawyer Marie Henein, known for her no-holds-barred cross-examinations, pounced.

"You're now inviting the man who traumatized you to get in touch with you?" she asked incredulously.
"The email was bait," the witness responded. "It was bait to call me so I could get an explanation as to why he would violently punch me in the head. I had no interest in him."

Six months later, she sent a second email, also shown to the court. She writes she had been watching a show of his. Attached was a revealing bikini photo of her on the beach.
"I wanted him to call me," she explained. "I sent a photograph, again, as bait."

_
The plot thickens.


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

Defence will likely use these later contacts to suggest that the rough play was either consensual or greatly exaggerated.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

mhammer said:


> That doesn't strike me as particularly fair. It basically means "You're tainted but we can't sentence you", which is not exactly justice. Methinks there are other outcomes to choose from.



It originally meant that the accused was not guilty. Two verdicts were available - proven (ie. the prosecution's case was 'proven' so you were guilty) and not proven (ie. the prosecution's case was 'not proven' so you were acquitted). Not guilty came to be used when juries felt that the verdict of not proven did not adequately express the accused person's innocence.

The verdict of proven fell out of favour and was replaced by guilty so there were then three verdicts - guilty, not proven, and not guilty, the latter two being acquittals.

The not proven verdict means that there is insufficient evidence to convict, but that the jury is not sufficiently convinced of the accused person's innocence to return a verdict of not guilty.That being said, a not proven verdict has the exact same effect as a verdict of not guilty and the accused walks out of court (this speaks to your comment about it not being fair or just).

While there have been some calls for the not proven verdict (also called the Scottish Verdict or the Bastard Verdict) to be abolished, many people believe that the not proven verdict serves a purpose. It is often used when there is no corroborating evidence (ie. only one witness whose version of events cannot be corroborated by anyone else). Some people also feel that it serves a purpose in preventing people being found guilty even though the prosecution had not fully met the burden of proof required in criminal trials (ie. they had gotten close, but weren't quite there, and the jury voted for conviction out of expediency or a preponderance of the evidence which is the lower standard of proof used in civil cases, but not in criminal ones).

And it hasn't just been used on Scotland. It used to be a verdict that was used in Canada during the colonial era. And Italian courts actually have five possible levels of acquittal. In the U.S, a Senator tried to vote 'not proven' during Clinton's impeachment. I cannot remember off hand whether that vote was allowed to stand as not proven or if he was forced to choose a verdict of either guilty or not guilty.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

As much as I think he's guilty I don't buy that bait argument one little bit.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

colchar said:


> It originally meant that the accused was not guilty. Two verdicts were available - proven (ie. the prosecution's case was 'proven' so you were guilty) and not proven (ie. the prosecution's case was 'not proven' so you were acquitted). Not guilty came to be used when juries felt that the verdict of not proven did not adequately express the accused person's innocence.
> 
> The verdict of proven fell out of favour and was replaced by guilty so there were then three verdicts - guilty, not proven, and not guilty, the latter two being acquittals.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the background. Helpful.
I think the difficulty with the "not proven" verdict is that it likely evolved before e-mail, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and all the rest of the e-nonsense that can so easily subvert the judicial process. It makes sense for any cases that do not have a high social profile, but for anything that could appear on a TV show as a news item, it likely does not accomplish anything good for either the defendant or the justice system.

I suppose it is worth noting that charges are often not pressed if the Crown/State does not feel it can make a strong enough case to achieve a guilty verdict. That doesn't mean their a priori assessment of the likely outcome is necessarily accurate. But I imagine the implications/connotations of a "not guilty" verdict or acquital weigh heavy on them. At that point, reputation management starts to play a role.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

mhammer said:


> Thanks for the background. Helpful.
> I think the difficulty with the "not proven" verdict is that it likely evolved before e-mail, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and all the rest of the e-nonsense that can so easily subvert the judicial process.



Yes it did, it is hundreds of years old (1728 to be exact). Prior to that the options were proven or not proven (so guilty or not guilty). The not guilty option started to be used in 1728 (as I mentioned, that was used to express in the strongest possible terms that the jury thought that the accused was not guilty) at which time not proven morphed into a third possible verdict that still exists today.



> It makes sense for any cases that do not have a high social profile, but for anything that could appear on a TV show as a news item, it likely does not accomplish anything good for either the defendant or the justice system.


Actually I would argue that it makes _more_ sense in light of current media (both social and news media) as those and their influence on public opinion can easily sway jurors. Having the choice of a third verdict helps to minimize the effects of the media on a jury's decision.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

colchar said:


> Actually I would argue that it makes _more_ sense in light of current media (both social and news media) as those and their influence on public opinion can easily sway jurors. Having the choice of a third verdict helps to minimize the effects of the media on a jury's decision.


Also a cogent point. Not _quite_ compelling, but certainly worth considering.
Good debate! Me likey.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

mhammer said:


> Also a cogent point. Not _quite_ compelling, but certainly worth considering.
> Good debate! Me likey.



I should also point out that, so far as I can remember, Scottish juries are not required to return unanimous verdicts and only need a majority. There are 15 people on Scots juries so if 6 are voting guilty, 6 are voting not guilty, and 3 are undecided the not proven verdict gives them an option that isn't available to our juries which require anonymous verdicts.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

One would think, though, that some sort of unanimity or form of majority would be required to indicate "not proven". That is, "not proven" should not simply reflect the inability of a jury to form an opinion.

Perhaps you can clarify what sorts of appeal rights exist when a jury finds "not proven". Is it the same thing as "case dismissed" or "mistrial"?


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

mhammer said:


> One would think, though, that some sort of unanimity or form of majority would be required to indicate "not proven". That is, "not proven" should not simply reflect the inability of a jury to form an opinion.


Well that is not all that that verdict does, it can also indicate that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof.




> Perhaps you can clarify what sorts of appeal rights exist when a jury finds "not proven". Is it the same thing as "case dismissed" or "mistrial"?


From the prosecution's side I don't know. From the accused person's side there isn't one as 'not proven' has the same legal effect as 'not guilty'. After a verdict of not proven the accused walks out of court completely free, just as they would had they been found not guilty, so there is nothing to appeal.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I am much more interested in the Bosma trial. This was one of the most disturbing and bizarre murders I have ever heard of.


id just like to understand his motivations. cold-blooded killing of an innocent person over what seems like such a small amount of value doesn't make sense to me.
But I don't need to hear any of the other gory detail of this senseless tragedy.
If convicted, I hope another inmate shanks him.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

mhammer said:


> That doesn't strike me as particularly fair. It basically means "You're tainted but we can't sentence you", which is not exactly justice. Methinks there are other outcomes to choose from.


meh...fair isn't always fair. Getting off scott-free for killing someone when most of the evidence pointed that you had *something to do with it* isn't exactly fair either. Id think the accused in this case would thank their lucky stars that the "not proven" result is all they got.
I think you believe there are far more truly innocent people found guilty than I do. On that, we will likely never agree.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

I think he is undoubtedly guilty but why these women let him slap, punch and choke them several times, I have a very difficult time understanding. Why didn't they say "stop it" right away and walk/run away. Maybe it was incredulity that it was happening or perhaps there was fear involved if they opposed him.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2016)




----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

davetcan said:


> As much as I think he's guilty I don't buy that bait argument one little bit.


sounds entirely fishy to me as well.


----------



## garrettdavis275 (May 30, 2014)

davetcan said:


> As much as I think he's guilty I don't buy that bait argument one little bit.


Exactly, my good man.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

garrettdavis275 said:


> Exactly, my good man.


Based on the first 2 accusers he's likely going to walk.


----------



## Alex (Feb 11, 2006)

It is an interesting debate and many aspects are quite grey including the one that i am most interested in is the concept of "consent" and how does consent fit in the rule of law.

From the small amounts I've read on this trial - it is clear there are two sides to this story and i'm somewhat happy to see that the system works in that Ghomeshi is innocent until proven guilty. Although, his reputation is done by de-facto and even if acquitted, it will be a difficult road to recovery.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

I'm also interested in the failure of CBC management to address possible concerns. But I think this is now water under the bridge.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/cbc-inquiry-concludes-management-mishandled-jian-ghomeshi-1.3035574

"In an interview with CBC's Ioanna Roumeliotis, Conway said what concerns her the most is that "there was a persistent pattern of behaviour that wasn't dealt with, because that is a series of missed opportunities, and over a period of years."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/08/cbc-helpline-for-staff-ghomeshi_n_8266436.html


----------



## Alex (Feb 11, 2006)

One thing that has clearly come out of this fiasco is the failure to act (by all parties) on a timely basis especially on judgemental and subjective matters.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

The shredding of the complainants continues:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...th-ghomeshi-taken-hours-after-alleged-assault

It seems likely that Ghomeshi has done what the complainants say he has done, and maybe on that basis alone he must be found guilty regardless of the complainants' long-standing failures to complain. I dunno, I'm not a lawyer.

However we all know, at least anecdotally, that some women accept and even enjoy the alleged treatment and the excellent defence counsel has already established that the first two complainants might be among them. Should that mean that he gets acquitted?

One thing noteworthy from reports of testimony so far is that Ghomeshi did not persist in his rough treatment of either woman after their claimed reactions to his alleged assault. If he had, that's an easy ticket to the slammer IMO. However the first complainant persisted in attempting further personal contact and the second continued affectionate personal contact for the rest of the evening of the alleged assault and the weekend and maintained friendly email contact for years afterwards.

Reports so far indicate that neither woman acted as though they felt much aggrieved until long afterwards when, maybe not coincidentally, the man who had not continued relationships with them was very famous. The article linked above, in case some don't read it, includes reports of chilling recent email communications by the second complainant which make it seem as though professional and personal jealousy may be as much a part of her impetus to complain as the alleged assault itself.

So, at this point in the trial (before possibly-more-damning evidence of the third complainant) if I'm the judge I say he walks with my fervent hope that he has trouble getting a job on the local cable channel in Fort McMurray and has even more trouble getting a date. If he disagrees, he can come and try to slap ME around.


----------



## GWN! (Nov 2, 2014)

The lawyer for Ghomeshi is very smart. She never really questions that the slapping or chocking occured without consent. She usually lets the victim's statement drop deniing procecution the ability from re-directing after she is done with the witness. Instead she usually works on all the circumstances leaving and following the events attempting to show that the witness was not as traumatized as what she says. 

Ghomeshi has acknowledged that he likes it rough and domineering. So far it appears the he did not push it after the victims showed surprise and a lack of interest in that type of sex. But assault is assault and his defence lawyer has so far not shown any evidence that he asked for consent or even express an interest in rough sex before starting to get into it. He was smart not to pursue it but dumb to do it in the first place. 

Unfortunately it is not uncommon for woman to live with or return to abusive relationships. So the witness wanting to continue a relationship with him after the event does not surprise me. 

I'm think it all comes down to consent. The victims did not expect to be assaulted even if some would consider it minor. A predator is a predator.


----------



## garrettdavis275 (May 30, 2014)

davetcan said:


> Based on the first 2 accusers he's likely going to walk.


Just read the updates. Wow. I wouldn't have guessed it would go down like this.


----------



## TheYanChamp (Mar 6, 2009)

garrettdavis275 said:


> Just read the updates. Wow. I wouldn't have guessed it would go down like this.


He has the best defense sharks in Canada backing him. I couldn't see it going any other way. I remember reading that there are less than 5% of sex assault convictions deemed guilty by the time they go through due process. Abusers get off. No pun intended.


----------



## CocoTone (Jan 22, 2006)

He is going to walk. No question. His lawyer's record defending and winning tough cases is impressive.

http://torontolife.com/city/crime/marie-henein-jian-ghomeshi-lawyer/


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

The fact that there is no jury involved makes me skeptical that he will walk. He obviously assaulted the witnesses, regardless of their illogical conduct and their substandard testimonies, which will likely attract a finding of guilt. The judge, being a legal professional, will concentrate on the actual committal aspect (actus reus) opposed to the recollections of peripheral events and the questionable actions of the witnesses after the fact.

Henein is very good at making the women look like naive simpletons, but the judge should be aware that these are the kind of women that Ghomeshi would likely prey upon.

High priced lawyers are always aware of their future prospects and earning capacity. Even when such defenders lose high profile cases but perform brilliantly in the court room, they can raise their retainers and attract a lot of lucrative clients for years to come. This case is a textbook example of this.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

I have a feeling that he'll get off....well not literally but, oh nevermind.....


----------



## Lola (Nov 16, 2014)

My god these last couple or 10 comments have been a lesson in history! lol


----------



## Lola (Nov 16, 2014)

He's going to walk! I have that very sick feeling!

He's a piece of garbage!


----------



## skilsaw (Nov 4, 2014)

Lola said:


> He's going to walk! I have that very sick feeling!
> He's a piece of garbage!


 Less than garbage!!!!!
Come on people. Make suggestions here about what he really is.


----------



## jb welder (Sep 14, 2010)

Krelf said:


> The fact that there is no jury involved makes me skeptical that he will walk. He obviously assaulted the witnesses, regardless of their illogical conduct and their substandard testimonies, which will likely attract a finding of guilt. The judge, being a legal professional, will concentrate on the actual committal aspect (actus reus) opposed to the recollections of peripheral events and the questionable actions of the witnesses after the fact.


Agree. Seeing now the material the defence had at their disposal, I think they will regret not choosing a jury trial. Jian can punch himself in the head for that.
I think the judge will see it as Lucy has stated, what happened after does not change what he did.


----------



## Lola (Nov 16, 2014)

He's sick and needs to be hung by his balls on a picket fence while someone pushes him to the other side!

He is just a very sick predator!


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

what happens if he does walk? Does that open the door for him to sue the CBC and everyone else involved in "ruining his life/job/reputation"?


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Unlikely. if the evidence was strong enough to proceed with a trial, then unless the CBC et al falsified evidence, they have done nothing wrong.

theres limits to what you can sue for....otherwise ppl wouldn't report crimes for fear of legal repercussions if the accused isn't convicted.


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

Lincoln said:


> what happens if he does walk? Does that open the door for him to sue the CBC and everyone else involved in "ruining his life/job/reputation"?


The burden of proof differs for criminal and civil matters.

In criminal cases the prosecutor must prove the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt."

In civil cases it's merely the "balance of probability."

So if Jian gets off criminally, it is in a venue where there is a much higher level of scrutiny, rather than in the civil courts where its really decided on the "more likely than not" criteria.


----------



## Lola (Nov 16, 2014)

Krelf were you a lawyer in this lifetime or another?


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2016)

Big Matlock fan is my guess. lol.


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

Lola said:


> Krelf were you a lawyer in this lifetime or another?


 I wasn't a lawyer. I worked for the Feds penalizing non compliant corporations both criminally and civilly. Hence a bit of legal knowledge.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Krelf said:


> I wasn't a lawyer. I worked for the Feds penalizing non compliant corporations both criminally and civilly. Hence a bit of legal knowledge.


Was that you that called me the other day and said the CRA was going to file charges on me if I did not call back within 30 minutes with my credit card number?


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Was that you that called me the other day and said the CRA was going to file charges on me if I did not call back within 30 minutes with my credit card number?


No, that's just my retirement project!


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

I think he's going to walk. How the prosecution did not know, or allowed, 2 of the witnesses to essentially collude is beyond me. 5000 emails, sheesh.


----------



## jb welder (Sep 14, 2010)

Yep. The situation is deteriorating very rapidly.


----------



## Lola (Nov 16, 2014)

davetcan said:


> I think he's going to walk. How the prosecution did not know, or allowed, 2 of the witnesses to essentially collude is beyond me. 5000 emails, sheesh.


That ladies and gentlemen is my new word for today! lol I can't just skip a word if I don't understand it's meaning, I am obsessed with finding out the meaning!

Collude: To act together through a secret understanding, especially with harmful or evil intent!

Now the question arises, will I remember that word a month from now? Nah! lol


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2016)

Unless you collude with one of us to remind you? lol.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

What I'm wondering is, how did this even go to trial with such little evidence in the first place? All three complaintants testimony equals virtually nothing, not to mention their collaboration outside of the trial before hand. To me, this sounds like three jilted women out to get vengeance. What woman's going to call the guy again and send flirty emails after he's punched her in the head? I doubt the punch in the head actually happened. To me it sounds like an embellishment to make it more serious. Don't slag me, I am NOT on this guys side but something isn't adding up here


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

its unfortunate that this will likely taint credibility for accusers in future cases.
sorry ladies, 1 step forward, 2 steps back.

otoh, if there wasn't much substance to these charges, then im glad justice is being served. hopefully karma takes care of the rest.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Scotty said:


> What I'm wondering is, how did this even go to trial with such little evidence in the first place? All three complaintants testimony equals virtually nothing, not to mention their collaboration outside of the trial before hand. To me, this sounds like three jilted women out to get vengeance. What woman's going to call the guy again and send flirty emails after he's punched her in the head? I doubt the punch in the head actually happened. To me it sounds like an embellishment to make it more serious. Don't slag me, I am NOT on this guys side but something isn't adding up here


I thought I heard originally that there were 8 women making complaints, 3 of which were willing, or chosen by the prosecution, to go to trial. I'm sure he's done some of this stuff but it's appearing more and more like it wasn't originally a big deal to any of these 3 women. Which I really don't understand btw. No one in a position of power or strength should be allowed to abuse that position.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

I dunno. Anytime I've done something a woman didn't like, I've gotten bucked off pretty quick. 
Somebody dropped the ball on this one.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

They're allowing the 4th witness - a friend of Lucys who will not appear, but via statements, will confirm that Lucy said JG put his hands on her neck. I'm not sure I see the point of this myself.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

What I'm getting out of this is that the guy has some strange proclivities and he's chosen to act on those things with the wrong women. Bill Cosby was a predator, this guy was just stupid. If he had chosen to date women who had the same interests, he wouldn't have had this problem. Or maybe he did and they decided to smear him because he's a douche bag. Who knows.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

davetcan said:


> I thought I heard originally that there were 8 women making complaints, 3 of which were willing, or chosen by the prosecution, to go to trial. I'm sure he's done some of this stuff but it's appearing more and more like it wasn't originally a big deal to any of these 3 women. Which I really don't understand btw. No one in a position of power or strength should be allowed to abuse that position.


I agree with you however I wouldn't call him a person of power or trust. He's just a celebrity or an ex-celebrity. not like a person of the law or clergy. A person of influence perhaps


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

allthumbs56 said:


> They're allowing the 4th witness - a friend of Lucys who will not appear, but via statements, will confirm that Lucy said JG put his hands on her neck. I'm not sure I see the point of this myself.


I'm an expert on this because I watch American television courtroom dramas... isn't that 4th person's testimony as you've reported it objectionable on the basis of it being "hearsay"?

An article in today's National Post opines that the prosecution could not have done much more than it did to ensure the solidity of its case. That's awfully hard to believe since the defense has so utterly shredded the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses. Even if Ghomeshi is a nasty little shit - and he probably is - cops and prosecutors are looking like clay-footed morons at this stage.

Let's hope that the judge has allowed this unusual eleventh-hour witness to head off any accusation that he didn't give the prosecution every chance to make its case, and not to join with the prosecution in trying to find *something* to hold the case together. A fine line, I know.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Scotty said:


> I agree with you however I wouldn't call him a person of power or trust. He's just a celebrity or an ex-celebrity. not like a person of the law or clergy. A person of influence perhaps


Power or "strength". By which I mean that just because most men are stronger than women they should not be allowed to do what they want to with them. A side note but one of my major problems with Islam.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Scotty said:


> What I'm getting out of this is that the guy has some strange proclivities and he's chosen to act on those things with the wrong women. Bill Cosby was a predator, this guy was just stupid. If he had chosen to date women who had the same interests, he wouldn't have had this problem. Or maybe he did and they decided to smear him because he's a douche bag. Who knows.


From what I can tell he was bringing this stuff to work with him though. But anything I have heard sounds like an HR matter not a criminal matter. Have I missed something? The guys a scumbag and stupid as someone else mentioned, and deserved to lose his job (which happened). But the criminal case seems to be getting thinner.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

What "the case" consists of is foggy for us, but perhaps clearer for the court. Much of the press coverage has made much of the continuing contact between the women and Ghomeshi. The subtext is that we're unconvinced the events really and truly impacted on them; as if what is designated as a criminal action in this instance can only BE criminal if it has a clear and pronounced psychological or medical impact.

But let's give it a twist. Suppose you're stinking rich and I've stolen $1000 from you in some manner. In the grand scheme of things, the loss is far from devastating for you, so you let it slide. Now, a year later it bugs you, and you press charges. Is it a crime only if it outraged and/or impacted on you immediately, or is it a crime simply because the law says that if you take an amount that large without permission, you've crossed a legal line that can be prosecuted?

FWIW, an interview with a sexual assault victim and her lawyer on CBC Radio this afternoon indicated that Ghomeshi's lawyer's tactics are pretty much boilerplate for sexual assault cases. The plaintiff gets worn down by badgering - often on irrelevant details - and their credibility is called into question. I say this to point out that folks are treating the events of the court proceedings as somehow informative, simply because most of us are unfamiliar with such cases, so we think what we have learned MEANS something. It may well be that what we have learned so far is typical of what transpires in the majority of cases where somebody has themselves a decent defense lawyer, and doesn't really convey something distinct about this case.


----------



## GWN! (Nov 2, 2014)

It is considered an assault when a person attempts to apply force or just threatens to apply force without the consent of the other person. Although an injury does not have to occur in order for the action to be considered an assault, the force used needs to be offensive in nature and used with an intention to apply. That means that the types of assault defined by the Criminal Code of Canada may range from tapping, pinching, or pushing someone with intent and without their consent and up to the use of a weapon that results in serious injuries.

So far I have seen nothing that indictes that consent was given.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Based on the law he must be found guilty of some level of assault. He will be. His lawyer would have faired much much better with a jury. Bad move on their part. A judge is not interested in the potatoes only the meat.


----------



## GTmaker (Apr 24, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Based on the law he must be found guilty of some level of assault. He will be. His lawyer would have faired much much better with a jury. Bad move on their part. A judge is not interested in the potatoes only the meat.


Little bit surprised at this response....
Would there be a small wager on the outcome perhaps just to make things interesting...
My vote is not guilty on all counts...
G.


----------



## Lola (Nov 16, 2014)

What about Mr. Teddy?


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

What I find annoying about this is I know women who socialized in the same circles as him and were warned about him constantly. And from what others told me his work conduct was very well known and just covered up. I don't know what will happen to the guy but I am glad to see him exposed at a minimum.


----------



## ronmac (Sep 22, 2006)




----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Does the Ghomeshi trial matter to me?

In a word, yes.

It matters to me that the charged get a fair trial, that the innocent go free, and that the guilty get what society has set out as justice.

It seems to me that the guy has already admitted to being a slimeball, and it matters that some part of his being a slimeball might be illegal. 

I do wonder if he would be further ahead to cut a deal than to finish the trial, but it's his roll of the dice, so to speak. In any event, it's my belief that he's not innocent and that some mitigation will be provided by weak witness accounts and the judge's perception of the witnesses, fair or not. I suspect he got away with bad behavior for so long he got overly confident and smug about it. I also suspect there's some form of mental illness involved with those who would do harm to others in a sexual context, though I don't believe that's a defence. 

What we don't know is whether his behavior would have escalated to even worse effect if he hadn't been stopped when he was.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## GTmaker (Apr 24, 2006)

boyscout said:


> I'm an expert on this because I watch American television courtroom dramas... isn't that 4th person's testimony as you've reported it objectionable on the basis of it being "hearsay"?
> An article in today's National Post opines that the prosecution could not have done much more than it did to ensure the solidity of its case. That's awfully hard to believe since *the defense has so utterly shredded the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses.* Even if Ghomeshi is a nasty little shit - and he probably is - cops and prosecutors are looking like clay-footed morons at this stage.
> Let's hope that the judge has allowed this unusual eleventh-hour witness to head off any accusation that he didn't give the prosecution every chance to make its case, and not to join with the prosecution in trying to find *something* to hold the case together. A fine line, I know.


a statement that actualy speaks of the facts of the case..congrats.
G.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

mhammer said:


> <snip> FWIW, an interview with a sexual assault victim and her lawyer on CBC Radio this afternoon indicated that Ghomeshi's lawyer's tactics are pretty much boilerplate for sexual assault cases. The plaintiff gets worn down by badgering - often on irrelevant details - and their credibility is called into question. I say this to point out that folks are treating the events of the court proceedings as somehow informative, simply because most of us are unfamiliar with such cases, so we think what we have learned MEANS something. It may well be that what we have learned so far is typical of what transpires in the majority of cases where somebody has themselves a decent defense lawyer, and doesn't really convey something distinct about this case.


This seems intended to dismiss revelations about the credibility of the witnesses as just defense tactics, not fair, not meaningful, not relevant. Some feminists seem to believe that since the offense (allegedly) occurred it justifies almost any behavior required to convict the (alleged) offender.

Others (including some feminists) think that those making charges must be credible and trustworthy or risk bringing all of their claims into reasonable doubt. According to reports I trust these witnesses have got facts seriously wrong, have told outright lies, have misrepresented by omission, have colluded together in shaping their testimony (and lied about that), and have revealed motives for making their claims which may not be connected as much to the alleged offenses as to events (and/or lack of events) which occurred after the alleged offenses.

I feel something of what Lola here and other women have expressed. Mr. Ghomeshi might indeed be a dangerous little shit who might feel empowered by an acquittal of these charges and might really hurt a woman. We'll certainly regret an acquittal if that happens and no, that won't seem like enough then. However that's not a reason to convict on the "mights". We should convict if we are certain that the persons making charges against him are credible and trustworthy and motivated primarily by a determination to see the law upheld and justice done right.

Also, by most accounts Ghomeshi is a smart guy. Surely he's going to be disinclined to the behavior of which he has been accused, since just a whiff of an assault in future will bring a more-determined and hopefully-better-prepared prosecution for it.


----------



## rollingdam (May 11, 2006)

From the beginning the prosecution knew it would be a high profile case. They should have done more homework regarding the complainants than they probably did.

Now they are paying for their incompetence.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

boyscout said:


> *This seems intended to dismiss revelations about the credibility of the witnesses as just defense tactics, not fair, not meaningful, not relevant*. Some feminists seem to believe that since the offense (allegedly) occurred it justifies almost any behavior required to convict the (alleged) offender.
> 
> Others (including some feminists) think that those making charges must be credible and trustworthy or risk bringing all of their claims into reasonable doubt. According to reports I trust these witnesses have got facts seriously wrong, have told outright lies, have misrepresented by omission, have colluded together in shaping their testimony (and lied about that), and have revealed motives for making their claims which may not be connected as much to the alleged offenses as to events (and/or lack of events) which occurred after the alleged offenses.
> 
> ...


No. I'm saying that we judge the meaning of what we see in the media, with respect to this case, in isolation. Folks more intimately familiar with the normal defense tactics in such cases may well draw very different inferences. It's a bit like the difference between following a soap opera, and being invited to watch a single episode. Watch one episode and one is likely to think "What a piece of crap dialogue writing!". The person with more background knowledge draws something very different from the very same dialogue. Those of us who aren't criminal defense lawyers, or familiar with court proceedings in sexual assault cases, are in the same position.


----------



## CocoTone (Jan 22, 2006)

Krelf said:


> The fact that there is no jury involved makes me skeptical that he will walk. He obviously assaulted the witnesses, regardless of their illogical conduct and their substandard testimonies, which will likely attract a finding of guilt. The judge, being a legal professional, will concentrate on the actual committal aspect (actus reus) opposed to the recollections of peripheral events and the questionable actions of the witnesses after the fact.
> 
> Henein is very good at making the women look like naive simpletons, but the judge should be aware that these are the kind of women that Ghomeshi would likely prey upon.
> 
> High priced lawyers are always aware of their future prospects and earning capacity. Even when such defenders lose high profile cases but perform brilliantly in the court room, they can raise their retainers and attract a lot of lucrative clients for years to come. This case is a textbook example of this.



All they have to establish in this instance, is reasonable doubt that the complainants MAY NOT be telling the truth. That's all, that's it. He is going to be free as a bird. Then, he's gonna sue somebody's ass.


----------



## CocoTone (Jan 22, 2006)

The mere fact that he kept emails and letters from someone he dated casually 13 years ago speaks volumes. I mean, who keep emails that old, unless you may need them for future reference??


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

IMO as long as the judge believes that Ghomeshi assaulted at least one of the women and no major technicalities taint the case, he should be found guilty. Whether the victims chose to call him afterward, or the fact that they can't remember the colour of his car does not impact on his guilt. Henein may be trying to get the charge dropped down to common assault, and by showing the willingness of the witnesses to remain in contact, she is attempting to lighten the impact of his actions and thus have the ultimate sentence mitigated downward.

My guess? Guilty with a light penalty. (His biggest penalty will be his legal bill and public disgrace.)


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

nkjanssen said:


> Agreed. Unless anybody here is actually sitting in the courtroom through this trial, I'd be hesitant to draw many conclusions about anything from media reports. I haven't actually been following it, but I do know that any trial I have ever attended in the past that was reported in the press has been seriously misreported and misinterpreted by the press. I've been stunned in the past by how things that are completely unimportant get picked up by the media as being important and vice versa.


Easy to quell discussion by saying, in essence, "If you haven't seen it yourself, you know nothing."

I'm certainly not trusting of today's fourth (or fifth) estate and agree that in trials and most other things they too-often get it wrong these days. However my comments are based significantly on the reports of Christie Blatchford, arguably one of Canada's most reliable reporters on many subjects - especially courts - and someone whose reports I've almost* never had cause to doubt in over 30 years of reading her, including those of two trials I attended.

I don't believe that she would be at all inclined to play on Ghomeshi's behalf in this situation, and in fact her columns are communicating her surprise about the meltdown of the case's prosecution. I believe her reports about the witnesses and the defence's examinations of them to be factually correct, and feel confident advancing opinions about them.

* (I say "almost" only because she occasionally seems to favor police more than I like, but I'm very critical of them so maybe it's me who is being unfair. I was not, as you may want to point out, in the court as she was during trials in which I felt she was giving too much benefit to the police.)


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Lord-Humongous (Jun 5, 2014)

CocoTone said:


> The mere fact that he kept emails and letters from someone he dated casually 13 years ago speaks volumes. I mean, who keep emails that old, unless you may need them for future reference??


I've never deleted an email at work or at home. I'll bet I could scrounge something up that's just as old. Not sure why I'd need to but that's beside the point.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Some of us just hang onto stuff.

At my previous job, that I left in Nov 2014, I had e-mails from 1999. It took me until about 2008 to finally throw out some lab data from 1977. I have what I gather is a birthday card, still in its envelope addressed to a housemate in 1976. I had stuck it in a book (Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logicus Philosophicus) so that it wouldn't get bent, and simply forgot it was in there, stumbling onto it about 8 years ago. If you know a Lewis Bernstein, who lived in St. John's in the mid-late 70's let me know. I have his card.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Does it matter: No


----------



## Lola (Nov 16, 2014)

It matters to me substantially! Being a victim myself and knowing how greatly it impacted my life and still does! It is a nightmare that I have to deal with the fallout but at times I can't! Ghomeshi is a smug little arrogant piece of shit much like my brother! You will never know the hell it creates unless you have experienced this for yourself!


----------



## Alex (Feb 11, 2006)

That is very unfortunate Lola. My wife and I are having dinner on Friday with close friends one of them being a Crown prosecutor for sex offences. I'm pretty sure the answer I will get from our friend will be petty much the same if I had asked the question 3 months prior to the trial. In court cases of "She says - he says", it's a very low conviction rate.


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

Alex said:


> That is very unfortunate Lola. My wife and I are having dinner on Friday with close friends one of them being a Crown prosecutor for sex offences. I'm pretty sure the answer I will get from our friend will be petty much the same if I had asked the question 3 months prior to the trial. In court cases of "She says - he says", it's a very low conviction rate.


But there is no "he says" in this case.


----------



## Alex (Feb 11, 2006)

Krelf said:


> But there is no "he says" in this case.


At this point, he may not even have to testify.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

We just need to stay out of peoples' lives. I can't see how following this trial is beneficial to anyone. I would love to find a stat that shows the relationship between people interested in the trial and people who rubberneck during auto accidents.


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

I would love to find a stat that shows the relationship between people_ not interested_ in this trial and people who beat the shit out of their wives.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

adcandour said:


> We just need to stay out of peoples' lives. I can't see how following this trial is beneficial to anyone. I would love to find a stat that shows the relationship between people interested in the trial and people who rubberneck during auto accidents.


Uh-oh! I *hate* rubberneckers, but I'm interested in the way our justice system is working (or not). Shouldn't we all be?!


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

boyscout said:


> Uh-oh! I *hate* rubberneckers, but I'm interested in the way our justice system is working (or not). Shouldn't we all be?!


Sure, but this is the People magazine way of doing it. I believe learning is secondary to enjoying the drama

I'm in the middle of a lawsuit myself, but I read the acts to get an idea about how our system works


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

adcandour said:


> Sure, but this is the People magazine way of doing it. I believe learning is secondary to enjoying the drama.
> I'm in the middle of a lawsuit myself, but* I read the acts to get an idea about how our system works*


The acts/laws describe how our justice system *should* work. When there's apparent incompetence in police and/or prosecutors and/or judges administering the laws, or when police / prosecutors / judges ignore or circumvent the laws, we should be paying attention to that.

Since we can't all be sitting in the courtroom through every trial, we choose our sources of information and engage with others in discussion about our system. Maybe we don't *always* get it right, but IMO the discussion is preferable to saying, "The cops and the courts are looking after this for us, leave them alone."


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

boyscout said:


> The acts/laws describe how our justice system *should* work. When there's apparent incompetence in police and/or prosecutors administering the laws, or when police and/or prosecutors ignore or circumvent the laws, we should be paying attention.


Yes, but the incompetence is not a constant. So it isn't really representative of our justice system.

If we were all really interested in the justice system, we would be watching all lawsuits as opposed to these ones where celebrity is involved


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

adcandour said:


> Sure, but this is the People magazine way of doing it. I believe learning is secondary to enjoying the drama
> 
> I'm in the middle of a lawsuit myself, but I read the acts to get an idea about how our system works


This might be of interest.

*Ghomeshi *was formally *charged* with four counts of sexual assault and one count of overcoming resistance, choking. 

*Sexual Assault Criminal Process, Canada*

*Pressing charges, Consent, Rape Shield, Evidence and Sentencing*

One of the most difficult questions facing victims is whether or not they choose to report the crime to the police. Often this is referred to as "pressing charges" against the accused. In reality, it is not the accused who presses charges, nor is it their decision. This is a decision of the Provincial Crown Prosecutor. The victim is merely a witness to the crime itself.

If charges are pressed, you may be forced to take the stand and testify under oath or affirmation. Generally, prosecutors are reluctant to force victims to testify against their will, however they do have the power to force your testimony and will do so if they feel it is in the public interest.

*Definition of Sexual Assault in Canada's Criminal Code*

Canada's Criminal Code has no specific "rape" provision. Instead, it defines assault and provides for a specific punishment for "sexual assault". In defining "assault", the Code includes physical contact and threats. The provision reads:
265. (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or

(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.

(2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault.

Interestingly, the definition 'appears' to include threats of sexual assault as a sexual assault itself. This suggests a person could be convicted of sexual assault without physically touching the victim if they make a threat of sexual assault (for instance, "I'm going to rape you"). One should check with their local Crown Attorney for information on how the Courts have interpreted this and whether such a Prosecution is possible.

Please note there are other specific sexual offences codified in the Criminal Code, such as sexual exploitation, invitation for sexual touching, child pornography, voyeurism, etc. An individual charged with sexual assault could be convicted of additional sexual crimes as well depending on the circumstances.

*Consent
*
Consent is the critical issue in many sexual assault crimes. This is a question of fact and law that will be determined by the trier of fact in court. There are few set rules in terms of defining what constitutes consent and what doesn't. The code does specify some instances which do not constitute consent:

*266 *(3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of

(a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(c) fraud; or

(d) the exercise of authority.


Consent gets even more complicated when alcohol and drugs are involved in that it becomes a question of whether the victim had the capacity to consent. Again, the court will look at the totality of the evidence and decide.

Another issue is whether the accused reasonably believed that the victim consented to the sexual act. This is dealt with in the Criminal Code follows by instructing the trier of fact to consider the "reasonable grounds for the accused's belief" (see s. 266 (4)). Obviously, again we have a subjective question with very little criteria to go by.

The question of consent is thus determined by looking at the totality of the circumstances. There are no magic words or actions that automatically determine the issue of consent. In the end, it's going to be decided based on the testimony of the victim and (usually) the testimony of the accused and who is the more credible/believable witness.

*Sentencing
*
The sentencing of the accused, if convicted, depends on the severity of circumstances and the presence and details of the accused's prior criminal history. The Crown Prosecutor decides whether to proceed summarily or by indictable. Summary conviction is a less serious route and will carry a lesser punishment than an indictable. The Code specifies the possible sentences for sexual assault as follows:
271. (1) Every one who commits a sexual assault is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

These are the maximums for both a summary and indictable prosecution. Keep in mind an assailant can receive much less of a sentences that the prescribed maximums. See our sentencing table for information on real sentences given to assailant's based on particular prior records and circumstances.

Please note, in circumstances of aggravated sexual assault a stricter penalty is possible.

_Aggravated Sexual Assault_ 

The Criminal Code also allows for increased penalties for sexual assault where the accused "wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant", see:
273. (1) Every one commits an aggravated sexual assault who, in committing a sexual assault, wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.

Aggravated sexual assault

(2) Every person who commits an aggravated sexual assault is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

Note that where a gun is used, a conviction will result in an automatic sentence of at least 4 years.

*Evidence in Sexual Assault Trials
*
_Testimony_

In most sexual assault or childhood sexual abuse trials, the evidence presented largely consists of witness testimony. This generally includes the victim, the accused, and any other potential participants or witnesses. Unlike the victim, the accused has a right not to take the stand and testify under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

If there is physical/medical evidence (trauma, collection of bodily fluids, etc.) expert witnesses may also be called to testify in regards to this evidence.

_Physical Evidence
_
Bodily fluids and other DNA producing evidence may be used to prove the identity of the accused. Further, physical evidence may be used to prove a sexual act took place. The purpose of physical evidence will depend upon the issue of trial. Where both the victim and the accused agree that sexual acts took place, and only dispute whether there was consent, proving that a sexual act took place is less important.

_Video and Photographic Evidence
_
The use of this evidence is rare, but becoming more common. There have been cases built on video taken by the accused (generally on unconscious victims).

*Rape Shield
*
At one time the sexual history of a victim could be extensively brought up and elaborated on at preliminary inquiries and trials. This was used mainly as an intimidation tactic to discourage victims from wanting to testify. It was also used to suggest that since a victim had a "promiscuous" past, or had consented to sex with the accused before, that she was more likely to have consented during the time in question. 

Parliament reacted to this by changing the criminal code to forbid testimony of prior sexual activity except under very specific circumstances. This change to the criminal code is what is commonly referred to as the "rape shield" law. The actual provision of the Criminal Code reads:
276. (1) In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155 or 159, subsection 160(2) or (3) or section 170, 171, 172, 173, 271, 272 or 273, evidence that the complainant has engaged in sexual activity, whether with the accused or with any other person, is not admissible to support an inference that, by reason of the sexual nature of that activity, the complainant

(a) is more likely to have consented to the sexual activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge; or

(b) is less worthy of belief


The Code also contains an exception to this rule, which is quite narrow in scope. Evidence of prior sexual behaviour -may- be allowed in if it meets three key criteria: 
(a) is of specific instances of sexual activity;

(b) is relevant to an issue at trial; and

(c) has significant probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

Some may argue that the rape shield law does not go far enough in that no prior behaviour should ever be allowed into evidence.


* More information on the criminal offence of sexual assault can be found at Accused.ca


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2016)




----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

adcandour said:


> Yes, but the incompetence is not a constant. So it isn't really representative of our justice system. If we were all really interested in the justice system, we would be watching all lawsuits as opposed to these ones where celebrity is involved


There may be more incompetence than you know, especially if you don't watch much.

For me, at least, the celebrity aspect of this case means *almost* nothing. The "almost" qualifier arises out of the possibility that police and prosecutors *might* - repeat, *might* - have pursued this case a little too eagerly because of the celebrity of the accused; wouldn't be the first time in history.

As for other cases, to the extent that people with working lives can do so, some of us *do* pay attention to many more cases. For me, just keeping up with cases of alleged police and other official misconduct around North America is a fairly-taxing interest; there's quite a bit to follow. However I feel that we should follow it, and comment on it, and complain about it when due, since an un-watched, un-bridled justice system can so easily be misused for purposes other than justice.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Krelf said:


> I would love to find a stat that shows the relationship between people_ not interested_ in this trial and people who beat the shit out of their wives.


I don't think that's a fair conclusion to come to.
That's like inferring that those that are disinterested in the situation in Syria supported Hitlers Holocaust.

I don't think this is the same as spousal abuse really.
its more akin to rough sex which may not have been consensual, which IMO puts it closer to rape than spousal abuse, esp since these women were more like strangers to him than wives.
contrary to your previous statement it wouldn't surprise me that a case like this would be of particularly keen interest to those with a a fascination with rough sex/rape...for several reasons.


----------



## Alex (Feb 11, 2006)

Godwin's Law has been proved again...


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

ohhh....so clever....the Godwins law comment on the internet yet again.....in your next post you can also throw out other over used forum expressions like "ad hominem" and "straw man" and we'll all be really impressed.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

Alex said:


> Godwin's Law has been proved again...


Hardly; quite a stretch for this well-worn saw. Don't worry, be happy, right Alex?


----------



## Alex (Feb 11, 2006)

My comment was tongue in cheek. Using comparisons to Nazi or other related themes is a bit over the top and what I would call "well worn". I'm not going to argue further over this. YMMV.


----------



## Lola (Nov 16, 2014)

adcandour said:


> We just need to stay out of peoples' lives. I can't see how following this trial is beneficial to anyone. I would love to find a stat that shows the relationship between people interested in the trial and people who rubberneck during auto accidents.


I am not going to stay out of people's lives until justice had been served! It's important to me! I need to live vicariously throughout this trial!

I was told NOT to take my brother to court because of the emotionality of the situation. Could I endure a lengthy trial charged with high emotions? My brother is a bank CEO and would get the best lawyer that Canada has to offer! I don't have the financial viability!

So many unknown variables in my situation.

I just hope Ghomeshi and my brother become friends in hell! I am sure they will have a lot to talk about!


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

greco said:


> This might be of interest.
> 
> *Ghomeshi *was formally *charged* with four counts of sexual assault and one count of overcoming resistance, choking.


Hi Dave, thanks. I'm not too interested in these things to be honest, but I appreciate you taking the time to find the information. My primary reason for disinterest is that I'm not a fan of learning things that 1) don't help me or my loved ones in any particular way, or 2) I can't help fix. I always have a lot on my plate, so I can't afford to go down these roads.

Now, if you could find me some information on potential retaliative charges that may require someone to perfect a pre-existing lien...


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Krelf said:


> I would love to find a stat that shows the relationship between people_ not interested_ in this trial and people who beat the shit out of their wives.


yikes


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Lola said:


> I am not going to stay out of people's lives until justice had been served! It's important to me! I need to live vicariously throughout this trial!


I realize that you're watching this from a different perspective, but to live vicariously through it? I don't understand, but if it helps, it helps.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

Lola said:


> I am not going to stay out of people's lives until justice had been served! It's important to me! I need to live vicariously throughout this trial! I was told NOT to take my brother to court because of the emotionality of the situation. Could I endure a lengthy trial charged with high emotions? My brother is a bank CEO and would get the best lawyer that Canada has to offer! I don't have the financial viability! So many unknown variables in my situation. I just hope Ghomeshi and my brother become friends in hell! I am sure they will have a lot to talk about!


Lola, there's probably a limit to how much you want to discuss this in a public guitar forum but you've been very frank. I hope that this doesn't cross your limit.

This is an understandably-emotional subject for you. One suspects, though, that your brother did more to you than Ghomeshi allegedly did to the witnesses at his trial. Ghomeshi is said to have momentarily held one by the throat and slapped her, briefly pulled the hair of another, etc., but reports I've seen have described the abuse as brief and it apparently ceased when it was not welcomed rather than being persisted. In the instances when sexual activity began or continued after the abuse, reports have made it seem as though it was consensual sexual activity. I have not seen any indication in the reports that the women felt pressured into sexual acts by a threat or fear of further abuse. In fact I've formed the opposite impression from reports, that the women were willing to engage in those acts despite the brief assaults on them.

As a couple of people have pointed out I wasn't there and I'm not even in the courtroom after the fact. Perhaps the impressions I have formed are incorrect because the reports I've read are incomplete. In these politically-correct times I further feel obliged to assert that I wouldn't have the slightest interest in doing the things Mr. Ghomeshi is accused of doing, even to a partner who requested them. It was *at least* extremely rude and inappropriate for him to do them without better-gauging the interest of his partners in them. When other reports extraneous to the trial are included he seems even more like a disturbed little prick.

But did he commit criminal sexual assault? Even after reading greco's helpful post recent in this thread I think there's reasonable doubt. Again, based on reports I've read and again, I'm not a lawyer or expert.

I can understand that this trial and this discussion here raise furious memories and open painful wounds for you. Maybe you need to persue charges against your brother despite that he might be able to evade them in court... sounds like he might suffer just for being accused, as Mr. Ghomeshi has done and probably will do. But if my guess is correct that your brother pressed alleged assault(s) against you longer and further than Mr. Ghomeshi did to the witnesses at his trial, is it reasonable to be calling for Ghomeshi's head because his alleged actions remind you of your experience(s)? He may be like your brother in some or many ways, but if he hasn't done what your brother allegedly did why must he pay as though he did?

You are of course free to ignore this most-personal of discussions with a strange (very strange!) man. I truly hope that you can find peace somehow, someday.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

adcandour said:


> Hi Dave, thanks. I'm not too interested in these things to be honest, but I appreciate you taking the time to find the information. My primary reason for disinterest is that I'm not a fan of learning things that 1) don't help me or my loved ones in any particular way, or 2) I can't help fix. I always have a lot on my plate, so I can't afford to go down these roads.
> 
> Now, if you could find me some information on potential retaliative charges that may require someone to perfect a pre-existing lien...


I don't blame you for not going down too many roads that don't help you/loved ones or that you can't help fix. I can only imagine how much you have on your plate on a daily basis (meant with total sincerity) .

I'm a kind of data, facts, rules, definitions person. Unfortunately, interpretation is where I can easily become overwhelmed. The information I posted was my way of contributing to this thread (and because I thought you made an excellent point).

Regarding..._"potential retaliative charges that may require someone to perfect a pre-existing lien" ..._I read one short article on the web...MUCH too complicated to even consider researching. I assume this is the type of legal issue you are facing. All the best with resolving it quickly and as much in your favour as possible (legally and financially)._ 
_


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

adcandour said:


> I realize that you're watching this from a different perspective, but to live vicariously through it? I don't understand, but if it helps, it helps.


+1
the problem with "living vicariously" through this trial is, what if you don't get the outcome/satisfaction that youre looking for?

TBH, Lola, as much as ive been a a huge detractor of Ghomeshi since this whole thing started, I don't think you should align yourself with these accusers. Even if he is guilty of everything hes been accused of, theres something real fishy/manipulative/opportunistic to their roles in this situation, and Im sure that wasn't the case with you.
And stop hogging up all the exclamation points, leave some for the rest of us!


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

I don't condone violence against women in any form, and I believe women should be given every legal tool possible when bringing the guilty to justice. Unfortunately, those same tools & guidelines used to protect innocent women in a court of law during sexual assault cases can also be used as a weapon by women to harass, bully, and victimize men. All a woman has to do is say "he hit me" or "he raped me" and the male is automatically hauled off by police and charged with an offence. Not just guilty until proven innocent, but guilty for ever more.

My family is going through a version of this right now with a 14 year old grandson. He was accused of rape by a 14 year old former girl friend, over a year after "it" happened when they were both 13. A case of a young girl feeling like she wasn't getting enough attention, telling a lie, the lie blows up into something she never imagined it would, and a young boy paying the price. The whole thing is so stupid and wasteful it boggles my mind.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

boyscout said:


> But did he commit criminal sexual assault? Even after reading greco's helpful post recent in this thread I think there's reasonable doubt. Again, based on reports I've read and again, I'm not a lawyer or expert.
> 
> .


Assault, yes. He has admitted to slapping one of them. Definitely assault if the punch in the head did happen. Sexual assault? I'm not so sure. I believe he ceased all his actions when they all reacted against it. I do not envy this judge, I think he has a very difficult decision to make as he's going to be setting precedence from here on in. 

Generally speaking, where does the line of consent start? For instance, when a couple is having their first intimate moment, should there be spoken consent whether it is OK to touch? What about the sex scenes in many movies where it gets hot and heavy and Mr. Hollywood hero takes the girl up against the wall or pins her down. There's no verbal consent in those scenes, so could that technically be sexual assault or abusive? I believe the answer would be only if there was a "no" or "stop" involved, and the act continued. 

This world is becoming exceedingly complex. What is normal anymore? Look at that book 50 shades of grey. Something like 1 1/2 million copies in circulation, the majority bought and read by women. Everyone of us knows somebody who's read that book. If we knew two people that read it, there's bound to be several more that read it and won't admit it. So what is that saying about our society today? What is it saying about what millions of women want? It seems to contradict. Did these women want something like that and decide they didn't like it after? 

Again I'm not coming to this guy's defense, but we really do need to look at all angles of this thing and impartially in order to really understand it. 

And if we take anything from this whole thing, it's that women should be more educated and more careful with the guys that they choose to bed. Their personal safety is just as much their responsibility. I'm not saying that to be a chauvinistic jerk... I would very much like to see physical violence against women be eradicated (or violence against anyone who is physically weaker). This whole matter though I think is going to be very difficult to define


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

Scotty said:


> Assault, yes. He has admitted to slapping one of them. <snip>


Yup, I'll buy that. Unfortunately he hasn't been charged with assault, he's been charged with sexual assault, of which he may not be guilty. Even "overcoming resistance, choking" seems to be a stretch.

If prosecutors had simply charged him with assault instead of going for the gold and the bigger headlines with witnesses that don't seem convincing enough for it, maybe this thread would be pages shorter. Just because his victims were women shouldn't automatically make it "sexual" assault.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

It's an interesting question whether the criteria for sexual assault are established on the basis of the specific act committed, or on the basis of the intent. Let us say a dentist accidentally drops an instrument while working on a female patient, and reflexively grabs for it, without thinking, and unintentionally grabs a bosom in the process of trying to quickly retrieve the instrument. The dentist may apologize profusely, and the action may have been as far from sexually motivated as possible. Would that legally preclude the patient from launching a complaint about "sexual touching"? I suspect not.

I'm not judging either party here, and I'm not saying whether any such complaint would be deemed actionable or any liability found. But the complaint would not be dismissed out of hand by the police or any dental college, because the action itself is presumed to be intrinsically sexual. I'm saying that some actions are treated as intrinsically sexual, under the law, independent of their motivation. And conversely, one cannot necessarily construe an action as "sexual" by virtue of the claimed underlying motivation. "Hey officer, is it a crime to rub against a hydrant?"

I may be wrong, but as far as I know the charges regarding choking are not part of sexual assault, and can be judged as having occurred or not, regardless of motivation. Whether I robbed your convenience store to pay for my mom's hip replacement, or to buy that Zoot Suit SG to impress my friends, I still robbed the store, I'm on security cam doing it, and robbery is illegal.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Like I say, I'm not assuming it would go very far, and it would likely be tossed out. But even possibly considering charges for a moment is based on the naive assumption that intent accompanies the act because of the nature of the act.

And in your addition to your post, you illustrate something where the act and the intent are VERY clearly linked.

In any event, I'm glad I probably don't have to hear anything more about this for another 5-6 weeks.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Lola (Nov 16, 2014)

I am just going to politely lock the door on this thread! It just strikes to many nerves in me to continue! I am very sorry but I will withdraw any further comments!


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

You have to realise that "offences against the person" are strict liability offences, not absolute liability. Mens Rea need not be evident to convict.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

Your right I'm wrong. I read it wrong somewhere n the web! I can't even find the site I visited. Anyway this enlightened me.

"Most crimes, other than those called “strict liability offences” have some form of required _mens rea_. For assault, theft, and fraud, it’s usually the “intent”, for other crimes in certain jurisdictions, (such as manslaughter) recklessness can make up the _mens rea_...."


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

Christie Blatchford's column at the following link offers an explanation for the meltdown of the prosecution in Mr. Ghomeshi's case. She argues that social movements urging that sexual assault accusers must always be believed by police may have retarded more-rigorous police investigation of the allegations.

She also references other sexual assault cases in which accusations have not been scrutinized and tested enough by investigators, with very serious consequences for accused innocents, including the utter debacle of the case against staff of the McMartin Preschool in California.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...se-started-falling-apart-right-from-the-start

Another column is at the following link, in which Ms. Blatchford deftly scrapes at some of the feminist varnishing and posturing around events at the trial.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...-delicate-view-of-women-around-ghomeshi-trial

The judge delivers his verdict on March 24th.


----------



## Distortion (Sep 16, 2015)

What I find to be a farce about the whole trial is this forth witness could not make it to testify because of a snow storm in N.B. Ever think of getting her hear for Tuesday and have her stand up in the witness box , instead of some statement she gave years ago at a police interview being allowed as evidence. I mean this ain't no J walking trial.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Krelf said:


> I would love to find a stat that shows the relationship between people_ not interested_ in this trial and people who beat the shit out of their wives.


That would probably be about the same amount of people who are interested in this case and beat the shit out of their wives. And that begs the question, "Do you still beat your wife?".


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

Electraglide said:


> That would probably be about the same amount of people who are interested in this case and beat the shit out of their wives. And that begs the question, "Do you still beat your wife?".


So are you are implying that everyone involved in this thread is a wife beater?


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2016)




----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

Obviously an old ad, no zip code.

My 15 cents keeps coming back!


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

I've noticed that this story has received no press at all in these parts since the prosecution's case started to fall apart. Is the case still before the courts?


----------



## jb welder (Sep 14, 2010)

The case has wrapped up. The judge has yet to release his verdict.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

Lincoln said:


> I've noticed that this story has received no press at all in these parts since the prosecution's case started to fall apart. Is the case still before the courts?


Tune in March 24th when we should hear from the judge in the case.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Krelf said:


> Obviously an old ad, no zip code.
> 
> My 15 cents keeps coming back!


Quit looking at the back cover of your comic books. And I think it's funny that here, I mean the forum, is my "news channel". That and the wife.....she just told me that Ron Wood's 30 something wife is expecting twins. Hell if it was me and I had a 30 something wife I'd be double strutting.


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

Are you telling me that I won't be receiving my fake windshield crack, whoopee cushion or x-ray glasses?


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Krelf said:


> Are you telling me that I won't be receiving my fake windshield crack, whoopee cushion or x-ray glasses?


You will, with about $15 owing on postage and if you don't I might still have the 50+ year old x-ray glasses and whoopee cushion and a real rubber chicken. That and a whole bunch of stamps and coins from countries that no longer exist. How you doing for these guys?


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

I already ordered them back in '59. The eggs never hatched. They sat there in the water for weeks until my mother flushed them down the toilet in disgust!!!


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Krelf said:


> I already ordered them back in '59. The eggs never hatched. They sat there in the water for weeks until my mother flushed them down the toilet in disgust!!!


You're lucky....the ones I ordered about the same time, I think they were 10 or 15 cents then, hatched and in a short period of time took over a gallon jar. A couple of goldfish took care of them. Shortly after the goldfish got flushed.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

Seems quiet out there, but doesn't Mr. Ghomeshi hear his verdict today? Here's a summary of the events to date:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ghomeshi-verdict-what-you-need-to-know-1.2829605


----------



## ronmac (Sep 22, 2006)

CBC is running a live blog of events inside and video feed outside the courtroom. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jian-ghomeshi-judge-ruling-1.3504250

The last two blog posts



> Mar 24 2016 12:22 PM
> Ghomeshi did not testify. Nor did the defence call any evidence, the judge notes.
> 
> This is something many members of the public emailed me about, asking why the Crown did not call him. I'd mentioned before, but it's worth stating again, that the accused has the right not to testify. And Horkins -- or any judge -- cannot hold that against them.
> ...


----------



## ronmac (Sep 22, 2006)

Mar 24 2016 12:26 PM
Ghomeshi is found not guilty on all charges.

Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn

Laura Fraser








Mar 24 2016 12:25 PM
The judge said that a reasonable doubt exists in this case.

Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn

Laura Fraser


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

The National Post reports on the Ghomeshi verdict:

http://news.nationalpost.com/toronto/jian-ghomeshi-ruling


----------

