The court of public opinion long ago ruled that former CBC star Jian Ghomeshi is guilty of sexual assault, and has long been a serial sexual assaulter. Today’s dissenting opinion from the criminal court—in the form of Ontario Court judge William Horkins—does little for Ghomeshi save keeping him out of prison, but it has people across the country wondering how the justice system could get it so wrong.
23 alleged victims stepped forward. All were discredited by a system that values but one thing …. Male privilege. #Ghomeshi
— BrianWilde (@BWildeCTV) March 24, 2016
Fuck Jian Ghomeshi FUCK Justice William B. Horkins fuck the Canadian judicial system and fuck all the rape apologists who think…
— Official Goblin Lord (@halfemptybones) March 24, 2016
“What this case has demonstrated is how sexualized violence and abuse is viewed as crime is different from other crimes,” says Jackie Stevens, executive director of Halifax’s Avalon Sexual Assault Centre. “And how victims of sexual assault and sexual abuse are treated within the criminal justice process and in the public is different from other victims of crime.
“In sexual assault cases for the most part, victims are the ones who are on trial. Their actions and their behaviours are questioned in ways that other victims aren’t questioned. And that certainly came out in the judge’s comments.”
It’s already profoundly intimidating for victims of sexual violence to seek justice. Statistics from Avalon say 97 percent of sexual assaults in Canada aren’t reported to police, and only .3 percent of attackers are ever found guilty in court. A fear of Ghomeshi’s crimes going unpunished in such a high-profile way is that victims will be further discouraged, and perpetrators will only be emboldened. But that’s not what Stevens has seen so far.
“What this has done is that it has brought people together at a national level to stand in solidarity with victims and survivors,” she says, “and to challenge societal views around the issue and to call for changes in laws and how laws are applied. I think that has been really important.”
One of the women who testified against Ghomeshi in court started Coming Forward, a website of resources and stories to help sexual assault victims through the justice process. “Given my experience, I felt I needed to speak out,” she writes on the site. “It is my mission to have other victims of sexual assault join me in being that voice for change.” And the Avalon Centre launched Start By Believing yesterday, “a space to remind ourselves and others impacted by sexualized violence/abuse that we believe, support, and love survivors” as the webpage puts it. One way to show support is by using hashtags #StartByBelieving, #IBelieveSurvivors and #WeBelieveSurvivors.
Of course, to any progressive movement there is the inevitable backlash.
Those of you scanning the #Ghomeshi hashtag just to tell survivors that you don’t believe them – something has gone very wrong in your life.
— Ijeoma Oluo (@IjeomaOluo) March 24, 2016
“When there’s resistance, that’s usually because it’s scary to acknowledge your own responsibility in creating that change,” says Stevens. The Ghomeshi trial, the Rehtaeh Parsons case, the SMU rape chant and every other horrible episode that has been exposed to light lately have pushed Canadians to publicly discuss the need for changes in social and judicial attitudes. That’s a big deal, for the country in general and victims in particular.
“For some people who haven’t been able to see that before, the fact that it is in the forefront now validates for them that what happened to them didn’t need to happen,” says Stevens. “They are believed and they are having their experience validated. That’s really important. It hasn’t happened on a full-scale like this until in recent years.
“It’s been slow to happen but it is happening. And we need to keep going forward because it’s really important for people to recognize that sexual assault and sexual abuse is not OK. It is a crime. And we need to start treating it like a crime.”
Related Stories
Ghomeshi’s history of violence
I believe Lucy because I know what it’s like
The case for shit lists
Photos from Friday’s We Believe Survivors rally
The justice system after Ghomeshi
Ellen Page details abuse, harassment from director Brett Ratner and others
This article appears in Mar 24-30, 2016.
Only 3 cases made it to court and then his lawyer blew the crown out of the water when she said “Look at what I have here. All your old emails.”
Lesson 1 – never conspire
Lesson 2 – tell the truth,whole truth and nothing but the truth
On the upside he’ll never have a public profile again and he’s no longer the darling of the Ottawa/Toronto liberati.
Can’t think of any reputable organisation that will hire him.
Given no crime was committed, what other verdict would be appropriate? The matter has been decided by the courts and unless the Crown can find a reason to appeal or strike the verdict owing to procedural errors, tjia is the end of the matter.
I too thought Ghomesmi looked poorly in the matter but the evidence provided offered a reasonable and sound response to the allegations.
Unfortunately in Life, there is no “undo” button. We make a choice and we have to live with it. The courts cannot erase our decisions. We need to take responsibility for our own choices and actions, thinking twice about them.
Not certain what to believe but after the defence lawyer brought forward all those emails Lucy sent after the “incident ” , then things changed. I think if Lucy would have kept her mouth shut things may have been different. Even the photos she took after the “dates’ looked like a happy girl in love. Maybe Ghomesmi can get a part in the next Trailer Park Boys movie and he and Lucy can “act” together. Then we can see who is better at acting and make a new assessment.
He is dead in the water now ,so let him sink on his own .It will be just a matter of time !
Here’s the actual court documents for anyone who is interested in reading something without bias or emotional charge on the subject.
http://www.ontariocourts.ca/en/24Mar16.pdf
The Crown should have called a psychologist to the stand to explain cognitive dissonance and how some women react to sexual assault. What a shameful example of how this system is structured to protect perpetrators and attack victims.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/13/jian-ghomeshi-trial-sexual-assault-victims-response?CMP=share_btn_fb
This was nothing to do with male privilege in my viewpoint. our ENTIRE justice system is based around proving reasonable doubt. They did. Open and shut case. If you get rid of that the same people that are protesting now will be protesting when more innocents are sent to jail
No Ann Marie, you wish he was dead in the water but he’s just treading water. He’s a commodity and after an appropriate period of time, he’ll be back and probably in a better place than he was with the Ceeb.
This case serves to set a better standard for prosecutions rather than using the current broken model. Prosecutors will be sure they have a proper case before them rather than attempting to persecute innocent people. Was it sexual assault or is it a case of regret/scorn?
One thing is for sure. No one gets to judge how any individual reacts after being assaulted. Everyone has different coping skills. Everyone reacts differently in their need to normalize their life after being assaulted. The post-assault behaviour of victims does not always follow logic because of this. This does not negate the assault.
Ghomeshi himself admitted publicly that he enjoys rough sex play. The issue was about consent which was not apparently obtained beforehand.
Well now Oceanchick… apparently the judge thought differently. In reference to the complainants, he called them, “…deceptive”, “…manipulative” and said they were, “…deliberately breaching their responsibility to tell the truth”. All three were completely discredited. Right?
Yeah, Charlie, the judge called them liars. That’s how assaulted women get treated in court. No surprises there. In fact, it was expected. It’s why so many assaults go unreported allowing open season for perpetrators.
Before you start trotting out statements about women who lie about being assaulted, they are in fact in the minority and have no actual relevance to the majority who have been assaulted.
Cognitive dissonance. Trauma survivors. Lucy Decouture and the other two witnesses deliberately mislead the court. They wilfully deceived and misled. These women are a disgrace. They went on a date. Then they pursued this guy for months. Cognitive dissonance. For f sake. Grow up and own your actions. These women caused immense harm to rape survivors who now won’t be believed because of these idiots.
WE BELIEVE LIARS
Oceanchick: I believe we are talking about this case; in fact all the comments reflect this case. Only your comments tend to be general in scope and you fall short of making a reasonable point. Along with the women in this case, your generalizing does nothing to help those who were really assaulted.
I’ve made this point before: exaggeration, deception by omission, blatant lies and conjecture will not bring people around to your side; it will divide them.
Call me a misogynistic if you so choose; but again, it’s a case of the reality being an inconvenient truth.
http://m.metronews.ca/#/article/news/ottaw…
Here’s an interesting article. The question I have are: What is causing this phenomenon? Does it not detract from credible cases; what will the effect be, should it?
And to be a bit nit-picky… does the change in classification change anything? Does the word founded not mean there is evidence? If there was none, would classifying it as founded not contradict what was found? Is the new classification not a way of pacifying the masses?
So the discussion is dead?
Ah … a SJW paradise … justice by catchy hashtag.
#IBelieveLucy lied.
Will The Coast publish an article discussing the slippery slope of a justice system that convicts based solely upon accusation? Me thinks not.
Interesting how this article has now become buried in the depths of this site. I wonder why?
It’s hilarious how The Coast hides their SJW advocacy “articles” (advertorials?) if the comment section points out the truth. Is this what they learn in journalism school?