XPost: can.politics
From: Panca@nyet.ca
Yeah, yeah . . . we've heard it all before. You've been making out women to
be the liars in sexual assault cases for years.
Now suddenly you're saying the passel of women who are coming out to accuse
Ghomeshi of sexual assault or harassment are telling the truth.
You can't have it both ways, ya hypocrite . . . either women are usually liars
in these cases or they didn't lie only in the Ghomeshi case.
Regardless, the floodgates are now open to accusations by anyone - and proof
doesn't seem to be a criterion before someone is either fired, demoted, or
accused by name in the media.
PS: Reposting of your many postings on this subject below . . . . .
On 11/7/2014 5:41 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> I am not prepared to defend rapists, but I want to point out a couple things.
> First of all, Canadian law no longer has rape laws. The offense is sexual
> assault, and it can involve a number of different behaviours ranging from
> groping a boob to violent rape.
>
>
> Then there is the credibility of witnesses. I know a woman who, when she was
> younger, had made a series of rape and molestation cases. In the last case
that
> I was aware of the police were going to charge her for public mischief for a
> false accusation. Their investigation revealed there had been no rape. There
> had been no sex. There had been no contact at all.
>
> In another case we saw a couple of people who are into Ghomeshi style sex.
The
> guy liked to strangle her until she passed out and screw her, or vice versa.
In
> one case, she cried rape because when she came to he was doing her in the
ass.
> As it if is not troubling enough that someone would find that sexually
> arousing, the part that troubles me is that the complaint was made four
months
> after the incident. They he argued and he was leaving her and threatened to
get
> custody of the kid.
>
> That made for a landmark ruling about consent because it turned out they had
> done it many times and that she had always consented, as she had this time,
but
> the court ruled that once she passed out the consent was no longer there.
Even
> if someone consents to be choked until they pass out and then screwed, once
the
> person passes out... as consented to... the consent no longer applies.
>
> As weird as that sort of sex sounds to me, I got the impression that the
issue
> was more about revenge and legal jockeying than about rape.
________________________________________________________________
___________________
'DAVE SMITH'S' OPINION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT CLAIMS BY WOMEN:
Dave Smith
22 Feb 2012
There was a strange case a few months ago where a man was convicted for
sexual assault, or maybe it was ta higher court upholding a conviction.
The case is so kinky and bizarre that I am reluctant to argue its
merits, but it does raise issues of consent. The couple were living
together had had lots of kinky sex. They liked for him to choke her
until she passed out. Some say passing out at the moment of orgasm
heightens the experience. I will take their word for it but have no
interest in trying it.
The complaint was based on an incident one night where they were going
at it and he was strangling her... she passed out and woke up to him
screwing her in the ass. The judge ruled something to the effect that
she could not consent when she was unconscious. As soon as she passed
out, the previous consent was no longer valid.
It seems odd to me to say that someone can agree to be subjected to
being choked to the point of passing out,..the aim being to have sex
while passed out, and then to say there was no consent because the
person was unconscious.
___________________________________________
Dave Smith
22 Feb 2012
It seems odd to me to say that someone can agree to be subjected to
being choked to the point of passing out,..the aim being to have sex
while passed out, and then to say there was no consent because the
person was unconscious.
The other issue was the timing of the complaint. The woman did not
complain to the police when she came to. She did not complain the next
day or, or any time that week. The complaint was lodged several months
later. They had had a fight and were breaking up and the man wanted
custody of their kid. All of a sudden, the kinky sex several months ago
became a criminal offence.
________________________________________________
Dave Smith
25 Feb 2011
> Personally, I don't understand where you think you're any different to any
of the victimizers
> out there. You seem to think that 'no' means nothing if she's been
drinking. And you also
> seem to think that what she's wearing is enough to fog your mind and commit
rape.
Bullshit. I said nothing about anyone saying 'No'. I referred to
consensual sex at the time and then deciding later that they were too
drunk to have consented.
_____________________________________________________
Dave Smith
26 Feb 2011
Someone I know who worked on a police sexual assault squad figured that
at least 30% of reported rapes turned out to be unfounded. According to
a web article I read last night it is more like 40-50%.
_____________________________________________________
From: Dave Smith
04 May 2013
Bachman was acquitted. Heaven forbid we start prosecuting the women who
make false allegations. It is quite common for troubled girls to make up
stories about sexual abuse at the hands of men in a position of
authority over them, or to fantasize things that never really happened.
I don't a connection between real victims of sexual assaults and false
allegations. In the latter, the only real victim is the person who has
been falsely accused. If I ran the world, anyone who made false and
malicious allegations against an innocent person would be subject to the
same punishment their victim was facing.
_____________________________________________________
Dave Smith
05 May 2013
Jeff M wrote:
>> So should a woman who isn't in fact lying but is actually the victim of
>> psychiatric malpractice be charged with a crime for making a false
>> accusation in all sincerity?
How about pathological liars? They can't help lying. Yet, they can cause
a lot of problems with their lying.
______________________________________________________________
Dave Smith
18 Oct 1999
I thought it was about the politically correct mumbo jumbo of victimization.
It
seems that the only people who have a sexual appetite these days are sexual
predators. Gone are the days when adolescent sexual curiousty was accepted as
a
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
