Does the judge have a point?

Now a female judge in the UK has stirred controversy

Camper6 said:
Oh I think the onus is on the woman to protect herself. For example. You get drunk and you are vulnerable.
Click to expand...


Strangely enough another controversy has been stirred up by a UK judge called Judge Lindsey Kushner QC who said: "women were entitled to drink themselves into the ground but their disinhibited behaviour could put them in danger".

She has been condemned for her comments on the UK news channels and especially by a fairly famous lawyer called Dame Vera Baird (someone I'm familar with because of her defence of the child's best interests principle in family law during a House of Lords debate a few years ago).

I think I agree with Dame Vera Baird that it should not be "the onus is on the woman to protect herself" because that leaves the worst types of predatory men in too strong a position legally. At the same time it is obviously true that women should seek to protect themselves, say by having good mates around to look after them, if they are going to get drunk (as so many do luckily).
 
grahamg said:
Strangely enough another controversy has been stirred up by a UK judge called Judge Lindsey Kushner QC who said: "women were entitled to drink themselves into the ground but their disinhibited behaviour could put them in danger".

She has been condemned for her comments on the UK news channels and especially by a fairly famous lawyer called Dame Vera Baird (someone I'm familar with because of her defence of the child's best interests principle in family law during a House of Lords debate a few years ago).

I think I agree with Dame Vera Baird that it should not be "the onus is on the woman to protect herself" because that leaves the worst types of predatory men in too strong a position legally. At the same time it is obviously true that women should seek to protect themselves, say by having good mates around to look after them, if they are going to get drunk (as so many do luckily).
Click to expand...
Qft.
 
Camper6 said:
We don't have the transcript of the trial. The judge mention pain going along with sex.
Click to expand...
He has already been publicly discredited by his peers for his inappropriate sexual remarks, among them, pain sometimes going along with sex. That reflected his personal bias. He stated in his own "defence," that he was unaware of all aspects of rape. If that is so, it also brings his professional competence into question.
 
Do you want to expand on that?

Shalimar said:
Grahamg wrote:
"Strangely enough another controversy has been stirred up by a UK judge called Judge Lindsey Kushner QC who said: "women were entitled to drink themselves into the ground but their disinhibited behaviour could put them in danger".

She has been condemned for her comments on the UK news channels and especially by a fairly famous lawyer called Dame Vera Baird (someone I'm familar with because of her defence of the child's best interests principle in family law during a House of Lords debate a few years ago).

I think I agree with Dame Vera Baird that it should not be "the onus is on the woman to protect herself" because that leaves the worst types of predatory men in too strong a position legally. At the same time it is obviously true that women should seek to protect themselves, say by having good mates around to look after them, if they are going to get drunk (as so many do luckily)."

Shalimar wrote:
"Qft".
Click to expand...
#
Do you want to expand on that for those not so text savvy :confused: ?
 
Shalimar said:
He has already been publicly discredited by his peers for his inappropriate sexual remarks, among them, pain sometimes going along with sex. That reflected his personal bias. He stated in his own "defence," that he was unaware of all aspects of rape. If that is so, it also brings his professional competence into question.
Click to expand...

We know that. But the defendant got off. In spite of his comments.
 
Camper6 said:
The point that she didn't do enough to protect herself and it might have been consensual.

And the comment about pain? Well bdsm is consensual isn't it?
Click to expand...

And what would "enough to protect herself" be? Saying NO makes the act non-consensual. Are you implying that a woman with a knife at her throat who doesn't "fight back" for that reason consents to sex? Are you implying that a woman walking alone at night or who is wearing a short skirt "asks for it?" Are you implying that a man has a right to force himself on a woman who is either too weak, too drunk, or too terrified to fight back?

Bdsm doesn't have anything to do with it -- we are talking about forcible rape here, not some other consensual sex practice.
 
Butterfly said:
And what would "enough to protect herself" be? Saying NO makes the act non-consensual. Are you implying that a woman with a knife at her throat who doesn't "fight back" for that reason consents to sex? Are you implying that a woman walking alone at night or who is wearing a short skirt "asks for it?" Are you implying that a man has a right to force himself on a woman who is either too weak, too drunk, or too terrified to fight back?

Bdsm doesn't have anything to do with it -- we are talking about forcible rape here, not some other consensual sex practice.
Click to expand...

I'm not implying anything. You are.

Its apparent in this case the jury didn't believe her story.
 
Being vulnerable does not give a man a right to force himself upon the woman. Neither morally nor under the law.
Click to expand...

Its a question of whether it was consensual or not. If you are the one laying charges you better have some evidence to prove it.

Merely stating it doesn't cut it. I mean if you want to get so drunk that you don't know what you are doing then you have to live with it.
 
A rape is a violent attack. Faced with what could very well prove to be a fatal attack survival becomes the first priority. If a woman gets blind drunk that in no way validates her being abused. She may have ended up in a state that endangers her but that endangerment does not equate to her willing or incidental exploitation.

If she had stuck to pot she would have had a very pleasant evening and nothing more other than the 'munchies'. :)
 
Camper6 said:
Its a question of whether it was consensual or not. If you are the one laying charges you better have some evidence to prove it.

Merely stating it doesn't cut it. I mean if you want to get so drunk that you don't know what you are doing then you have to live with it.
Click to expand...

Amazing.

So it's OK to rape a drunken woman?

Not in my world.

What's more the onus should fall on the accused to prove he did not engage in nonconsenting sex, not on the accused to prove that he did. In this case the innocent party would be the woman who had been subject to a rape and SHE should seen as being innocent until the man proved otherwise.

There are risks in this approach granted, but it is the least worst option.
 
aeron said:
Amazing.

So it's OK to rape a drunken woman?

Not in my world.

What's more the onus should fall on the accused to prove he did not engage in nonconsenting sex, not on the accused to prove that he did. In this case the innocent party would be the woman who had been subject to a rape and SHE should seen as being innocent until the man proved otherwise.

There are risks in this approach granted, but it is the least worst option.
Click to expand...

You live in a dream world. You are the one recommending unfettered, no rules, and a permissive society without interference. Unfortunately that approach doesn't work out so hot in the real world as we are witnessing almost daily.

Unfortunately you cannot legislate morals.

If you want to get drunk, smoke pot, and hang around with unsavory characters then it's up to you to protect yourself and not do something you will regret later.

It's not [o.k.] to rape anyone under any circumstances . Do not speak for me. Speak for yourself.

In a court case the defendant would be cross examined and have to defend himself . It comes down to who the jury will believe.

In this case, the jury didn't believe it was rape. That's the law anyway and the defendant was acquitted with a second different judge under appeal.
 
If anyone want's to read about a trial and how the justice department works in Canada, this is a complete transcript. A different case but relative.

[11]
Each charge presented against Mr. Ghomeshi is based entirely on the evidence of the complainant. Given the nature of the allegations this is not unusual or surprising; however it is significant because, as a result, the judgment of this Court depends entirely on an assessment of the credibility and the reliability of each complainant as a witness.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/jian-ghomeshi/article28476713/
 
Mr. Ghomeshi was found innocent of sexual assault, but his credibility and his career are shot. In my professional opinion, his behaviour does not meet the

criteria of BDSM, because too many of his conquests, or would be conquests objected to the violence, ergo the "kink" was not consensual. There was no "safe word," as there always is in a Dom/Sub encounter , which protects the submissive partner,

by indicating they want the situation to stop. These women were victims, not sexual partners. As for him being found innocent, that is the norm in this country. I have testified in several rape trials. If the victim

is very young, very old, a nun, or visibly beaten, the jury is far more likely to convict. Young attractive women who drink, are sexually active, know their attacker, show no major signs of physical assault, have a much more difficult time in receiving

justice, when it comes down to he said, she said. Stats indicate false rape claims fall into a 6-8 percentile, whereas convictions fall into 7-8 percentile. Appalling. Unsurprisingly most rapes are never reported. Our society is failing these women.
 
He resigned before he could be removed. It's just and fair that he will not be receiving a pension, according to the article.

Nothing wrong with being conservative. But there's a lot wrong with not having compassion.
 
Lethe200 said:
He resigned before he could be removed. It's just and fair that he will not be receiving a pension, according to the article.

Nothing wrong with being conservative. But there's a lot wrong with not having compassion.
Click to expand...

Well I have to agree with you on one hand but as far as compassion goes I don't agree with you.

A judge has to apply the law and that's about it.
 
I hate to open a can of worms again, but I think the judge was set up. The complaint was issued by a woman's coalition.

And. The media, cherry picked his question. I hate that.

This is the transcript from the trial.


to wit:
Q. And when your ankles were held together by your jeans, your skinny jeans, why couldn't you just keep your knees together?
(NO VERBAL RESPONSE)

Q. You're shaking your head.
A. I don't know.

The trial was about two homeless people out of their minds on booze or whatever. There's no way that anyone could prove rape.

Another question she answered was "I was too drunk".

This was trial by judge only. So the judge had to ask pointed questions in order to determine who was telling the truth.

I'm not condoning his words but in context it's not like the media is presenting it.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top