bats

State/Crown vs defendent. I said that earlier.

What do you call someone who has been assaulted, whose house has been burgled? Aren't they a victim? That's why the police have a victim support unit.

Why question whether someone has been raped when the purpose of the trial is to determine who committed the rape?

Of course calling someone a rapist in court before it's been proven is wrong. Did you think I have said otherwise?

dbd33

It's not though, in the type of case Weinstein might face, there's no question which people were involved, only whether or not there was a crime. The case is an argument about the state of mind of the people involved. A burglary is quite different in that there's clearly been a crime and the issue is whodunit?

Shard

Ok, good.

Just wanted to try a typical AC line of questioning, M'lud.

Shard

I realise that, was just commenting on personality. However, they showed some clips of him from earlier in his career, and he wasn't always so Stephen Harper like robotic. I found interesting his comment that what would have been acceptable 10-15 years ago (in terms of flirtatious behaviour) is no longer so.

Almost Canadian

So what? I wasn't talking about the State, I was talking about the person accusing the accused. Please continue to argue with yourself.

I would call them the person assaulted, the owner of the property.

I'd respectfully suggest that, in most cases, the issue is: was it rape? Rarely is it to determine who committed the rape as it was it X, or Y? I will defer to your greater knowledge if it persuade you to leave this alone.

It is exactly the same reason why the person assaulted is rarely referred to as the victim. Partly, because it is prejudicial, and partly because they don't necessarily see themselves as a victim.

Once again, you are attempting to put words into my mouth, or text. I suggest you choose what you wish to call them, and allow me to do likewise.

ann m

With regard to the whole flirting/mixed messages/harassment thing, I find much of the media coverage and comments sections are viewing an old ‘offence’ through the lens of what we find unacceptable today. The world has thankfully evolved somewhat but I do feel context is sometimes missing on what it was perhaps like in the 70’s or 80’s etc.

A 26 yr old drunk and/or confused Spacey back in 1986 propositioning a 14 yr old is inherently wrong but I can’t view it the same way as if today’s 58 yr old Spacey did it. Yes, if he knew he was 14 - wrong. But did the boy look 16? I know it’s not an excuse but the visibility around sex with teens was just not seen with the same protective child abuse lens we view it now.

How many of us can recall what we did, drunk or otherwise, 30+ years ago, in another age and world. Can I honestly say I never harassed anyone, misread a situation, made inappropriate comments or touched someone where I shouldn’t?! I don’t know. I don’t think I did, but someone could come out of the woodwork any day and accuse me. And I’d have no excuse.

Now I’m not saying that rape and sexual assault would be different 30 years ago - everyone still knew what consent should have looked like and what age was ok - but still, people just were not so aware, vocal or supported back then, and the offenders were ‘supported’ in their behaviour by groups and more bullish attitudes. Not saying it’s right but that is the unfortunate context of such unenlightened times.

jerryhung

This thread of males is testament to why the women did not come forward. Even in scores, now 90+, and with harrowing testimony, witnesses confirming many part of the stories (e.g. crying afterwards, attempted lawsuits, police recordings), the men on here still paint them as potentially just out for a buck, or lying wenches. {newsflash: many are wealthy, successful, and have nothing to gain from telling their story other than derision from males and females like this group}

Shame, and to think that the group has kin who are women.

jerryhung

I referenced a post you made earlier, up thread, where you made the statement that OJ Simpson is innocent.

The point is, AC, that I don't agree with you that what a court of law finds as fact is always fact. Courts are not infallible and I would be surprised that ANYONE, let alone a lawyer, would argue that...

I also do not subscribe to your perspective that a Court of Law's say in the matter determines reality.

Once again recognizing that in general of course we want things to take place in a court of law, and that the presumption of innocence is an important principle ("To Kill A Mockingbird") - but once again, I'm surprised that the circumstances herein are not seen for what they are.

dbd33

Do you have clear examples of this or is it just something you have inferred?

dbd33

I wondered, but was too lazy to check, what the age of consent was at the time. I think 14/16 is potentially a reasonable mistake 14/21, not so much.

Almost Canadian

You are, of course, completely correct. What happens in a Court is not relevant at all; what is relevant is determined media articles.

dave_j

I've followed this thread with some interest and as usual it's meandered away from the central theme and been nudged to a fro and not really got anywhere, so I'm going to raise a few hackles with my two pennyworth.

The problem with the Weinstein affair is that it concerns individuals whose profession is the performing arts. Even as a child, actors and actresses were portrayed as people with a blurred sense of sexual propriety. The multiple spouses they might acquire, the legend of the casting couch, their general behaviour, no doubt exagerated in the tabloids, gave the overall impression that love was something to be traded for fame and this, while greedily lapped up by the population at large, was generally at odds with how 'normal' people behaved, or rather how they thought themselves to behave.

Impressions like this don't fade very quickly and the advent of social media has resurrected and supported the feeling that, rightly or wrongly, these are not 'normal' people who do not behave the way 'normal' people behave.

So when an actor or actress complains of sexual mistreatment many years after the possible fact then the popular judgement is one made against a background of past and present attitudes towards their culture. It's then natural to judge not the accusation but the people involved and to ask the question 'Why now?' and 'Why not then?' These questions are asked of people who are considered not to live in the real world and to live by a totally different set of values. Their publicised antics and the fact that they play roles on and off the screen lead one to ask 'Are they telling the truth?' because even in the real world people tell lies.

It's clear that Weinstein exploited a culture of nudges and winks in the knowledge that those involved were bound together in some kind of mafia-like code of silence and I very much doubt that he's the only one and you have to ask yourselves why, in this window of opportunity, the dam isn't bursting open.

It's against this background that complaints against Weinstein will be considered, first by the justice system who will themselves make a decision as to whether a case can be made and then by the courts who will make a final judgement. I emphasise that the accusers will not be considered as innocent from the outset because of his or her profession and the culture that underlies it and even the weight of witness statements alone won't remove the question of the passage of time.

There has been a great deal of emotion expressed and AC has done his best to overlay how a legal framework approaches these issues, sometimes, I think, with little appreciation or understanding.

dbd33

<shudders>

Shard

Dave, have you ever thought of going into a profession where you are paid by word, success would be certain!

Hasn't the dam broke on Weinstein? It seems like the definitive dam break story to me. Even indirectly leading to a resignation in the UK government.

Jingsamichty

A masterpiece of moral disapproval, repression and superciliousness. Mary Whitehouse would approve.