A voice of reason in the form of a female legal expert). It points out what needs to be done to help turn the tide of women being victimized by sexual predators ... while stopping short of demanding a "lynching" of the judge before the case is even reviewed.
"An appeal in this case appears warranted to ensure that the judge used appropriate legal standards and properly assessed the evidence. We also need to develop a legal, medical and social consensus around the line for capacity to consent. Men have been acquitted in cases where complainants have been staggering, slurring, even vomiting.
And it is time to amend the Criminal Code to require written reasons from judges in all sexual assault decisions."
T.T.FoBo said "Let our voices be heard! Misogynist judges like this piece of reeking excrement deserve to be kicked off the bench."
First of all, I think I have made it clear I disagree with the judges logic and decision in this case. The discrepancy between levels of sobriety made any "consent" irrelevant and so the victim was not capable of giving consent. So, I agree with the first part "Let our voices be heard!". If the public disagrees with a decision that has been made then they should speak up. Maybe it will result in changes to the laws or at least some discussion that will change the precedent. Our legal system is based on precedent and to a large extent judges follow the precedent set by previous similar cases.
The second part, "Misogynist judges like this piece of reeking excrement deserve to be kicked off the bench." is very lynch-mobby and jumps to a conclusion that may not be correct. It is appropriate to question the judge's logic and judgement but the leap to him being a misogynist is not supported. I suspect he would have made the same decision if it had been a male who was drunk in the back seat and the driver had wanted to have homosexual sex with him. So, the judge's logic was clearly a flawed and moralistic one (the victim brought it on themselves/ was capable of consent at any time while conscious ) but may or may not have been biased by the victim's gender. One would have to review many of the judge's past cases to establish a trend of misogyny. So, it may be appropriate to call for the judge's history to be reviewed but lighten up on the lynch-mobbing until we know more.
The reason this case is so contentious is that the judge may have been biased to accept the word of the accused. Here's an excerpt of interesting article on this topic:
The Criminal Code says its a crime to have sex with someone whos too drunk or high to consent, even if the person doesnt resist or fails to say no.
How drunk is too drunk to legally consent to sex? Theres no clear answer, and case law suggests judges and juries can be biased by traditional standards of how women should behave when it comes to drinking and partying."
Janine Benedet, a law professor at the University of British Columbia, has studied Canadian sexual assault cases involving intoxicated victims. Her research found that judges and juries were much more likely to determine a woman was too intoxicated to consent if the accused drugged her without her knowledge.
Legally, it shouldnt make a difference what the source of incapacity is, Benedet said. I think it really does reflect a very deep-seated, a very longstanding tradition of holding women responsible for getting themselves into trouble when they drink and take drugs. Its very much an idea, even when its not expressed that way, that well, you were kind of asking for it.
Tickle, I have to respectfully say that you are wrong. There was no "evidence" that the driver had consent. Evidence is something tangible - DNA, video, audio recording, written material, objects, etc. The driver saying that he had consent is "testimony" - not "evidence".
Evidence, on the other hand is the victim's DNA on the driver's person - most likely urine - which indicated that he probably removed her clothing - and considering the testimony of the police - just before they arrived and while she was unconscious.
Taxes! Taxes! Taxes! In my experience it's usually the folks who make the most money who complain the most about taxes. If you make 60K/yr. or more (like most of my acquaintances) you are in the top 20% of wage earners. You should consider yourself to have won the lottery already and stop your bellyaching.
Besides, taxes have already been cut to the bone over the past few decades. That's why our infrastructure is crumbling.
"You hear today that tax cuts are going to be paid for by cutting gravy trains, by reducing waste, by cleaning up government. Its what the philosopher Joseph Heath calls magical thinking. We so desperately want this bargain; we want it to be free, Himelfarb says. We want Swedish-style services and American-style taxes so badly that were ready to believe that we can have these tax cuts for free.
Theres never enough gravy to pay for the tax cuts, Himelfarb says, and therefore cuts always have some impact on services.
And the consequences of the extraordinary level of tax cuts weve had over the last 15 to 20 years is austerity forever, he says. Cutting programs, forgoing investments, deferring the kind of maintenance we need on infrastructure. One of the reasons why we have unbelievable traffic gridlock in all the cities is because that big investment we should have been making has been cut. "
The particulars of this case aside, the anger surrounding it is justifiable due to the precedent it sets. The judge in this case is basically saying that if a person is intoxicated then they are fair game for any predator laying in wait.
I remember a waiter in a certain bar years ago that I suspected used to short change people who were drunk. Was that also their fault for being drunk? Did they consent to theft?
Any one of us can have a bad day (suffer a breakup, get fired, whatever), go out to drown our sorrows and overdo it. That doesn't mean we deserve to be victimized.
Hopefully, this case will provoke enough protest that there will be some sort of change to how these cases are prosecuted and tried.
The key issue here is whether an intoxicated person can give consent to a sober or much less intoxicated person and, more importantly, to what point of intoxication they can give consent under any circumstances.
IMHO, the judge should have taken into account the fact that the driver was (or at least should have been) completely sober while the passenger was extremely drunk (enough to have been denied entry to a bar) and when in the cab was so incapacitated that she passed out shortly afterward. Even if the driver had been able to solicit something akin to consent the difference in sobriety levels must have been obvious. I look at it a lot like the law that an underage person is not capable of legally consenting to sex with an adult - even if they have sex willingly. The passenger was not capable of legally consenting and, being sober, the driver should have recognized that.
All Comments »
Halifax's sex secrets revealed
Features from The Coast
Search 100s of Halifax restaurants, bars and cafes
The Coast's Well Being Guide
Designers, stores and fashion, all locally-sourced.
All the beer, all over town
Interior design and home accessories in Halifax.
The couple's guide to everything.
The official handbook to student life in Halifax.
Coast Publishing Ltd.