Who’s the bigger scumbag, the taxi driver or the judge? I say they both are big scumbags! — Frankiewasadog
This article appears in Mar 2-8, 2017.
Clearly a drunk can consent???
Leave a comment
Subscribe to our newsletter
Be the first to know about breaking news, articles, and updates.
True. But there’s nothing funnier than watching SJW’s focus all their blame on the Judge, becasue they are too damned afraid of being labelled “racist” to condemn the perp.
The judge and the scumbag taxi driver have some hard lessons to learn about the definition of consent.
An unconscious drunk can not give consent.
Apparently, Oceanchick feels differently Buster…
We can call them all the names we want, it doesn’t change the fact the driver had consent and that the judge ruled accordingly.
I’m not sure why there is this sudden surge to vilify men; it does little to change behaviour or opinion…
Anyone has the right change their mind even when the consent is legit, (in this case not, as inebriation was a factor.) Lack of consciousness negates consent. Every. Single. Fucking. Time.
Failure to comprehend this is indicative of a HUGE lack of morality.
agree, both terrible. Let’s put both signature and voice to this issue
https://www.change.org/p/chief-judge-of-th…
In addition, lack of consciousness deprives one of the ability to change their mind, even if legitimate (non-incapacitated) consent was given. E.S.F.T.
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.
An unconscious person – Sober or drunk – can not consent to sex.
‘An unconscious drunk can not give consent’-100% true, obvioulsy. What asshole DISLIKED that post? Get off of the earth.
It takes a special kind of asshole to fuck an unconscious woman, consent or not. That alone is predator type behavior, and he deserves to be sodomized in jail.
Consent is negated the moment unconsciousness occurs.
That is a moot point beca use anyone with half a brain knows that consent was not given to this scumbag.
This guy, innocent or not, is a fucken douchebag, he should be sweeping parking lots in the rain. Here’s a question, where the fuck were her friends? I’m a guy and I’ve seen my buddies through their fucken door so they didn’t get rolled or kicked out of a cab…come on people, look after your mates!
If you drink and drive and kill someone you’re responsible, so if you get wasted and say yes to so someone you normally wouldn’t fuck you should have to own that action too. The idea that when someone intentionally impairs their ability to be rational temporarily becomes a child under the law is more damaging and dangerous to society then making it clear that although they may be allowed to drink, they are still responsible for their actions.
OMG it’s the Dal Dentistry Scandal all over again, and the same zombies are in full gear…half of what you people are saying isn’t even factual and at this rate within a week, nobody including the media will even be able to keep track of what actually happened. Free speech run amuck.
And the fact that this (privately owned public service) public servant, should not even be allowed to consider such actions, consent or not. If there’s consent then let the ‘date’ happen AFTER the shift.
This behaviour should have no place in the workplace. Judgment aside, this employee should have been fired for f*ckin around on the job! This assmonkey should have considered, and now it’s something all cab companies need to consider now, how this behaviour puts all their livelyhood at risk. I don’t see how this type of press can be good for business.
Oceanchick, I agree but there is no evidence of such. The case was tried on evidence. You may question my morality all you wish but that does not change the facts of the case.
From the Judge’s ruling:
“A person will be incapable of giving consent if she is unconscious or is so intoxicated by alcohol or drugs as to be incapable of understanding or perceiving the situation that presents itself.
This does not mean, however, that an intoxicated person cannot give consent to sexual activity. Clearly a drunk can consent.”
An unconscious person cannot consent. It is the law.
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/…
If a person is so intoxicated their judgement is impaired, they cannot give consent.
Rather, they CAN give it, but it means nothing for the same reason that NCR’s are not held accountable for their crimes: they are not in their right minds and are incapable of controlling their conduct.
This driver, being a professional, had a civic and moral duty to ensure the safety of his passenger. This means NOT having sex, invited or not, with one’s client, especially while that person is obviously incapacitated.
I didn’t say that an unconscious person can consent, nor did the judge. Read my words and the judge’s ruling again and pose an suitable argument; otherwise I have no choice but to determine that you are trolling me rather than attempting to be an adult conversation.
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.
I don’t think that the judge thinks “…that if a person is intoxicated then they are fair game for any predator laying in wait.” I feel this is an emotional response rather than one of logic. We cannot react emotionally to these situations, but with thought and reasoning.
The judge had to try the case based on the evidence presented. The evidence presented concluded that driver had consent.
Maybe the LAW needs to be reviewed rather than our judiciary.
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.
My assertion comes from having read the judge’s ruling – found on CBC’s website. Perhaps it’s my paraphrasing; it seems to me that if the judge was to find that he did not have consent then the driver would have been found guilty. He was not.
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.
Source: http://windsorstar.com/news/sexual-assault…
A protest will be held at City Hall on Tuesday afternoon, followed by a march to the Nova Scotia Courthouse on Spring Garden Road. Not sure of the exact time.
Let our voices be heard! Misogynist judges like this piece of reeking excrement deserve to be kicked off the bench. Throw such dickwads in a fucking time machine & send ’em back to the 1800s where they and their antiquated ‘justice’ belong.
Tickle’s attempt at logic here is amusing.
This judge, who happens to have been the Chief Crown Prosecutor, would have convicted the cabbie if he could have. However the evidence didn’t prove the charge. We have a victim who can’t remember anything, police who did not witness a sexual act, and the accused who did not confess to anything. Unfortunately without evidence the judge cannot convict. The judge did basically say the cabbie was a scumbag and not trustworthy. Now let’s change the scenario a bit and the police come across someone with a bloody knife in their hand and a victim with a big knife hole in them. Does this mean the person with the knife stabbed him or had just picked up the knife.
As for drunkeness, it can’t be used (or very seldom) as a defence of a crime. Saying I was too drunk to know I shouldn’t have drove, shot a gun, commit theft or robbery when my buddy told me to do it. It does not negate your consent in these cases, you are still responsible for your actions.
It was a crappy case for both the victim and the judge.
I think BroTim gets it mostly right here. It’s not a fact that consent was given, Tickle, its that they couldn’t prove that it wasn’t given. The burden of proof in sexual assault cases is difficult, apparently. Changes are likely needed, but it will be difficult to get away from that I think.
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.
one way to solve this problem is have all taxi companies install blackbox recording devices in all their cabs. Make the audio and video run 24/7 with all files stored centrally for 30 days before recycling.
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.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/cap…
There was no proof of consent any more than there was proof of non-consent. The fact that the lady was too drunk to remember indicates she was in no condition to give consent. It doesn’t get much clearer than that.
No, OC, it doesn’t get much murkier than that. And that is the problem. The judge doesn’t have the luxury of emotion to make a ruling. The problem with drunkeness is that it cannot be used, in the vast majority of cases, as an excuse, whether you remember anything or not. We do not know nor any evidence presented that the cabbie was engaged in a sexual act while she was unconscious. An argument can be made that she was conscious during the act and as soon as she went out he stopped.
Tell me this, a man and a woman meet at a bar and they are both three sheets to the wind and decided to have sex with each other, has consent been obtained? If not, who is the guilty party, the man or the woman?
And there is the crux of the biscuit isn’t it? People who drink and have sex are afraid their actions are going to be viewed as criminal. Or worse, the law will be changed so that drunken hookups are no longer legit.
But you are comparing apples to oranges because in this case we are talking about one inebriated person and one sober one, who was working, not socializing. The working person had an ethical and professional duty that did not include getting caught with his pants down and his seat reclined toward a drunk, naked and unconscious woman in an area that was not even on the route to her home.
But the crux is we do not know exactly what happened and are inferring what did. We don’t know if consent was given or not. We don’t know that if consent was given if the act stopped either with the victim saying no or passing out. You cannot convict based on emotion or what you think might have happened.
Don’t get me wrong, this guy is a scumbag but unfortunately the evidence was not there. It sucks but that is the legal system. And remember the Crown can appeal.
If you are so drunk that you piss yourself then the idea that “we can’t determine if consent was given or not” is a completely moot point. When you are so inebriated that you can’t control your bodily functions, I don’t think mental capacity can even be debated. Consent CANNOT be given when you are that inebriated. It doesn’t matter if he hooked up with her before or after she passed out; SHE WAS TOO DRUNK TO GIVE CONSENT EITHER WAY! His DNA was on her face which means he engaged in sexual activity with her while she was in his cab and the entire time he was in her cab, she was incapable of agreeing to that. It is really that simple. There is more than enough evidence to substantiate that. Interpreting the evidence, circumstantial or not, is what a judge is supposed to do and in this case, he had more than enough evidence to reasonably assume that the cab driver sexually assaulted this woman. He, for whatever reason and despite there being clear evidence that something illegal took place, chose not to convict. You may not think that sends a signal to people about just how far they can go without consequences, but it does. It certainly tells women that they aren’t safe, even when they try to be safe.
There are standards in law, and it boggles my mind that this is even a debate, that being drunk negates your ability to enter into contracts. Whether it’s an agreement to have sex or signing a legal document, a drunk person cannot do it; they have diminished capacity. That contract would be ruled invalid in a courtroom. The difference for a drunk driver is that they have the ability to plan in advance for a safe ride home and the potential results of their actions (drunk driving) are significantly more severe than if you signed a contract for a new cell phone while drunk. I get that people think this is a blurry subject matter because most of us have gotten drunk and hooked up with someone, but the truth is, we shouldn’t be so scared to clearly define consent just because it might require us to think twice before drunk banging a hottie at the bar.
And once again drinkeness cannot, except in very rare circumstances (know of only a couple of cases) be used as a defence for a criminal act. The excuse “I was too drunk to know I was robbing a bank” doesn’t cut it. Again, you can be outraged because that is the emotion but in a courtroom the only thing that counts is evidence.
You’re forgetting that she was not the one on trial – the completely sober cab driver was. He, being of sound mind, had and has no excuse for why he engaged in sexual activity with someone that any reasonable person would have known was too inebriated to agree to. If she was committing a crime, I might be inclined to agree with you, but she didn’t. She got in a cab because she was smashed and wanted to get home safely and he took advantage of that. I’m not outraged emotionally, I’m outraged logically. I fail to see how any logical person can ignore the culmination of evidence, circumstantial and forensically and through testimony, that this was sexual assault. He was charged with getting her home safely and was instead found by a police officer with his pants down, her pants down and unconscious, away from her home, with her DNA on his face. The logic here is clear: He took advantage of someone that was not in the state of mind to agree to engage in sexual activity. I know consent is a legally blurry concept, but it was balanced by more than enough evidence to reasonably overcome that murkiness.
Irrespective, the driver was found not guilty. That fact is undeniable. We rule on evidence and not emotion.
So she had DNA on her face. It doesn’t say that it was or wasn’t there by consent. DNA is a tool like fingerprints. All it says is it was there but not why it was there. Too many people watch CSI and think DNA is the Holy Grail. It isn’t. It is part of the whole.
So here is another interpretation. She was drunk, gave consent, they had a good time, they finished, she passed out, and the police came along. Or variably she was drunk and passed out and he sexually assaulted her (which most likely happened). The bottom line is there has to be evidence and the case proven beyond a reasonable doubt. My first scenario, unfortunately, provides that reasonable doubt.
Now the accused will never get a job as a cabbie or probably any other job. The other thing is, is he a Canadian citizen or an immigrant. If he is the latter, then he should be deported.
Yes, and the justice system, which is operated by humans, is also prone to error. The law, regardless of how much effort goes into making it clear and consistent, requires interpretation. In this case, I, and many others, believe that an error in judgment was made. There have also been people that have compared this case and it’s subsequent ruling to similar cases and found that the outcomes/judgments were different (ie: lesser evidence resulted in conviction). Check out the Halifax Examiner or Tim Bousquet’s twitter feed for more information on that.
This is taken from the Metro which summarized the judges decision:
“Lenehan said the evidence was concerning, and that the officer was correct to arrest Al-Rawi because “any reasonable person” could believe that Al-Rawi was engaging in or about to engage in sexual activity with a woman who is incapable of consenting.
However, he said in his oral decision that the Crown provided no evidence on whether or not the woman consented to sexual activity.
He said for Al-Rawi to be convicted the Crown had to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Al-Rawi not only touched the woman in a way that violated her sexually, but that it was done without her consent.
Lenehan said a person is incapable of consent if they are unconscious or are so intoxicated that they are unable to understand or perceive their situation.”
By his own omission, the judge agreed that the evidence showed the cab driver had or was about to engage in sexual conduct with this woman. The debate then shifts to consent, and any logical person (or anyone that has read the Criminal Code), knows that a drunk person cannot consent to sex. Is this not straight forward enough? Can you not see the error in judgment here? Consent in this case should not have been up for debate, therefore the ruling should have been clear: guilty. That’s not emotion. That’s logic.
And finally, also taken from the Metro:
“The Crown will be appealing the verdict by Judge Gregory Lenehan in the taxi sexual assault case involving Bassam Al-Rawi.
Denise Smith, the deputy director of Nova Scotias Public Prosecution Service, made the announcement in a release issued Tuesday.
We have conducted a legal analysis of the judges decision and have concluded there is a solid basis to appeal the ruling, she said.”
Logic. Not emotion.
The criminal code does not say that a drunk cannot consent. I think that you may be paraphrasing and incorrectly at that. What we want the law to say and what the law says are two very different things. The man was found not guilty on the basis of how the law is currently written. Again, we need to review that law with an eye to rewriting it rather than forming a lynch mob. Laws are written so that we don’t make emotional decisions.
Logic, not emotion.
Meaning of consent
273.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2) and subsection 265(3), consent means, for the purposes of sections 271, 272 and 273, the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question.
Marginal note: Where no consent obtained
(2) No consent is obtained, for the purposes of sections 271, 272 and 273, where
(a) the agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant;
(b) the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity;
(c) the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority;
(d) the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity; or
(e) the complainant, having consented to engage in sexual activity, expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity.
The criminal code does not expressly use the word “drunk”, but it does reference incapacity, which being drunk is. The murkiness surrounds at which point incapacity begins, as it’s different for all people (and depending on drug and alcohol type). In this particular case, having been denied entry into a bar and only ten minutes later being found unconscious and having urinated over oneself, incapacity is pretty clear.
I agree that the law is murky and if it was easy to fix, I think it would be by now, but I don’t think the application of the law in this case is murky whatsoever.
Well, no. You are once again misinterpreting the law. I realized it complicated but you can’t twist words to fit your ideals.
At this point any further comment on the topic will be you trolling me.; please don’t troll – it’s unbecoming and does little to further your argument.
Shutting people down because they don’t agree with you. Classy.
Thought I completely agree with most opinions regarding consent, I don’t believe that was the issue.
I believe the whole entire case is based on the fact whether or not sexual assault actually took place. No one here knows why the woman was naked nor what happened. None of you were there and opinions are only based on hear-say. Did any of you know there were 2 police officers present? How come you never hear about the testimony of the second officer?
Leave the cases where they belong. It’s a sad situation and I wouldn’t even wish on my worst enemy, but none of us really know what happened. We don’t even know what the victim’s statement is?! All new releases I read was about the officers finding the woman nude in the cab with her urine soaked pants in the front! How can anyone even begin to assume anything?!
You didn’t investigate the situation, you didn’t hear from the witnesses, hell you weren’t even present at the hearing!
As for the whole consent while drunk. Yes one can consent when drunk. We’re talking law and legality here, blood alcohol level is 0.08 legally so the state of inebriation varies from one person to another. Not all of us can handle alcohol the same. If we decide that sex while drunk us non-consensual, no matter what, do you even understand the repercussions that might arise of that? Do you know how many cases are going to fill the court because someone is vindictive towards another?!
You seriously need to form educated opinions and not just fall into the mob mentality simply because someone doesn’t agree with the way you think!
As for the judge’s decision, there wasn’t enough evidence to charge the person with sexual assault. One can consent to sex but that doesn’t mean sexual assault can’t happen.
Also @ Buster Kilrain, WTF does this have to do with race??!!
No Oceanchick. It’s like a child who asks for something they may not have. They ask in many ways, offering the same argument over and over. Unless you provide me with a different perspective, you’re repeating yourself – like the child who realizes they’re not getting their way and are just annoying you to be spiteful. These are not children; they are trolls.
Trolling suggests I am deliberately making offensive posts in an aim to upset you or make you angry. Having an opinion and defending that opinion in a respectful way is not trolling. You may not be used to that, but that’s what’s happening here. Trying to belittle my opinion and character by suggesting otherwise says more about you that it does me.
I respect that you have a differing opinion, even though I think it’s wrong, but I would never ask you to stop expressing yourself for that reason. This is called healthy debate; if you aren’t interested in continuing, agree to disagree, but don’t suggest that I’m being inflammatory when I’m clearly not.
It’s very common for people to ignore facts and arguments that don’t align with their own opinion; I’m not offended or surprised by that. Ultimately, my concern is about correcting the mistakes that were made so this woman gets the justice she absolutely deserves and so we can restore a sliver of confidence in the justice systems treatment of sexual assault victims. The Crown has taken the same position and believes they have the law on their side. I’m positive they are much better versed in the matter than either you or I, so I will defer to their expertise.
Proof positive.
There may come the day where if a victim claims to be too drunk that they will either have to take a breathalyzer or blood test and what the limit of too drunk to consent will be; .08, .1, .12. etc. Just because a person claims to be drunk, doesn’t mean they are. Wash your mouth with your favourite drink, spill some on yourself, slur your speech, etc.