The ReeveLaw Blog

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IixU2yzuato

Interesting …. In order to usurp the existing black market, “the government would have to promise three things: A competitive price, superior quality and wide availability.” They’re going to have to become a better pusher than your “friend”.

Drug dealers may soon have to compete with the government for business

Source: Will marijuana legalization push the pusher out of business? – The Globe and Mail

The right to be presumed innocent, the right to a fair trial, the right to a public hearing, the right to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal, the right to make full answer and defence, the right to cross examine accusers and the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt do NOT abridge Canadian values and Charter freedoms….they ARE Canadian values and Charter freedoms.

The harsh cross-examination of Jian Ghomeshi’s accusers has sparked a war of words over how courts treat sexual assault victims. There are some worthy elements to this debate, Neil Macdonald writes, but they needn’t come at the expense of due process.

Source: Jian Ghomeshi trial: When #BelieveTheVictims meets #DueProcess – Canada – CBC News

We’ve heard a lot about the traditional myths of sexual assault but new myths have replaced those. “The police role is to conduct thorough investigations” but “with sexual assault allegations, that tried and true formula has been turned inside-out. They were absolutely believed in the absence of any evidence other than their word. That word was never tested. Inspector Joanna Beaven-Desjardins announced “We believe them right from the outset. When they come in, 100 per cent we are behind them. It’s all about the victims and moving them forward.” Another myth is that you can hide unfavourable evidence and lie about it under oath. “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Latin for “false in one, false in everything,” We don’t need new rules to prosecute sexual assault allegations, we need balanced common sense. Also see Christie Blatchford’s video: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/whats-next-for-jian-ghomeshi-whatever-the-verdict-his-once-bright-future-is-now-unclear

The trial unfolded the way it did because the complainants were swaddled in fuzzy investigative treatment.

Source: For what it’s worth, I believe Jian Ghomeshi’s accusers: DiManno | Toronto Star

The judge in the Ghomeshi case is well-regarded Western alumni who comes from a long line of lawyers

Source: Ghomeshi judge William B. Horkins: The man on the bench | Toronto Star

When one ventures into the risky practices of rough sex, dominance and submission, Master/slave, “non-consensual consent” and other non-mainstream sexual activities involving such acts as spanking, whipping, caning, restraint, edge play, to name a few, which will likely result in marks, bruising, cuts and other physical manifestations, it seems like a good idea, particularly with strangers, to discuss the boundaries of consent before the act or at least obtain confirmation of consent after the fact.  As consent is exclusively in the realm of the mind and can sometimes be transient or the perception of it change over time it is a prudent practice for one to obtain proof of what the person was thinking or feeling about the activity at the time.  Written statements in the form of emails, text messages and letters are valuable for this purpose.

We sometimes get careless in our use of terminology which discloses our prejudices. In law a victim is not a victim unless and until a judge or jury decides, after hearing evidence, that a crime has been committed. Before then a person is a complainant or an accuser but not a victim. If we start from the presumption of victimization the entire fact finding process is perverted or nullified. “Why should a sex assault victim be treated with suede gloves and not, say, Const. James Forcillo, who shot at a teenager nine times and killed him? Because you’re pre-assuming the virtue of the accuser — exclusively due to the charge — and the guilt of a most unsavory defendant. Some of us still wait for verdicts. Quaint, I know.”

Vigorous questioning like that in the Ghomeshi trial isn’t just allowed, it’s essential to the trial’s authenticity, regardless of the charges.

Source: Sex assault accusations deserve scrutiny equal to any other: DiManno | Toronto Star

The allegations against Ghomeshi involved hair pulling, punching and choking. There were no allegations of touching of primary or secondary organs or penetration in any sense. So why was he charged with sexual assault? Because they were on a “date” or kissed. The definition is vague and broad. The sexual aspect is established if, objectively viewed, the assault is committed in circumstances of a sexual nature such that the sexual integrity of the person is violated. The circumstances include the part of the body touched, the nature of the contact, the situation in which it occurred, the words and gestures accompanying the act. The intent, purpose or motive of the person committing the act including sexual gratification will be relevant.

See the link below to the case of R. v. Chase decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1987 for the definition.

Source: CanLII – 1987 CanLII 23 (SCC)

It’s not the Liberals’ vow to legalize pot that is creating chaos it’s the lack of action that’s causing confusion. Tobacco is regulated by the federal government. Alcohol is regulated on the provincial level. Marijuana can probably be effectively regulated on the municipal level which is exactly what is happening now. As the government dithers a de facto system of distribution is becoming established.

Law-enforcement officials urge Trudeau government to remind Canadians marijuana remains illegal

Source: Liberals’ vow to legalize pot creating chaos, police say – The Globe and Mail

The Ghomeshi trial is really no different than any other usual, ordinary, run of the mill historic sexual assault trial except that the incessant pervasive glare of the media spotlight is turning it into a disaster for women victims’ rights advocates. The problem with delayed complaint is that it excludes the possibility of collecting any corroborating physical evidence and the possibility of recording details of the incident when those details are fresh in the witness’s mind. The only evidence that remains is a memory that has been subjected to the natural processes of forgetfulness and reconstruction. It also calls for a reasonable explanation for the delay. If we take it outside of the emotion, myths and agendas surrounding sexual assault, what would be your thoughts if someone, for the first time accused you of breaking into their house and stealing their jewelrey 12 years ago?

Ghomeshi has been silent through his trial, but his recollections have guided his defence to evidence the Crown and its witnesses seemed not to know about.

Source: What accusers forget, Jian Ghomeshi remembers: Menon | Toronto Star