Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[garbon]

Well you could just explain to me what you meant in the last paragraph. I'm not sure what it makes you think, clearly.

[DGuller]

Well you could just explain to me what you meant in the last paragraph. I'm not sure what it makes you think, clearly.

I thought it was pretty clear, but maybe I was mistaken.  It's an individual example of the great reluctance of women to go public with rape accusations, and how it comes about that so many men can rape scores of women for decades without being exposed publicly.  Maroney is a media darling, her abuser would have absolutely zero credibility to deny the abuse, and being retired she's no longer vulnerable to retaliation.  Even all that was not enough, it had to take a viral Twitter campaign to move her to speak out.  Now imagine what it's like for women that have none of these advantages Maroney had.

[garbon]

Oh yeah, agreed entirely.

[Barrister]

Yeah, I thought that was a good take DG.

[grumbler]

That's your take-away?  That Canada has done away with the mens rea concept that underpins the entire common law? How very odd. 

Yes, I found it extremely odd myself, to hear a prosecutor argue that "rape cases don't turn on the mindset of the Accused."  The accused mindset is called mens rea.  I would have thought that a professional prosecutor would have known that.  It is, after all, the concept that underpins the entire common law.

Sexual assault is a general intent offence.  The only intent required is that you intended to have sexual contact with someone, and that person did not consent.  So yes, if you slip and by accident your penis slips inside a woman then you're not guilty.  But you don't have to know you're committing a crime in order to have mens rea.

So, many sex assault trials turn on the victim's evidence.  If defence can raise a reasonable doubt that they did in fact consent, then the Accused is not guilty.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.  That does not address my point at all.

Now there is a defence of "honest but mistaken belief in consent".  Once the Crown has proven that the victim did not consent, defence can assert that the Accused thought she had consented.  There the Accused's mindset does come into question.  The Accused has to testify obviously, which is why many/most sex assault trials do not turn on this defence.  And the Accused not has to believe that the victim consented, but such belief has to be reasonable (i.e. if the victim repeatedly says no, stop, a belief in consent isn't going to be reasonable).

You cannot have my argument.  This is the very argument that I started with, and you objected to.

[Jacob]

[Valmy]

I am a little weary of the image of Jesus thing. The iconography of Jesus comes from roughly the same part of the world Jesus himself did, just a few centuries later.

[crazy canuck]

You cannot have my argument.  This is the very argument that I started with, and you objected to.

BB said, "In my experience many rapists don't think that they're doing anything wrong.  They just don't see the lack of consent by the woman to be an issue."

If your argument was that a person who doesn't see lack of consent as a problem can still make out a case of honest but mistaken belief, then you need to read a bit more law before going after a prosecutor who does this sort of thing as his day job.

[crazy canuck]

I am a little weary of the image of Jesus thing. The iconography of Jesus comes from roughly the same part of the world Jesus himself did, just a few centuries later.

You might consider that people are talking about all the art produced from the middle ages on depicting Jesus as a long haired white dude.

[Valmy]

I am a little weary of the image of Jesus thing. The iconography of Jesus comes from roughly the same part of the world Jesus himself did, just a few centuries later.

You might consider that people are talking about all the art depicting Jesus as a long haired white dude.

Here is a 6th century image of Jesus from Byzantine Egypt:



It is a long haired white dude. Take it up with Jesus's neighbors descendants if they got it wrong.

[crazy canuck]

I am a little weary of the image of Jesus thing. The iconography of Jesus comes from roughly the same part of the world Jesus himself did, just a few centuries later.

You might consider that people are talking about all the art depicting Jesus as a long haired white dude.

Here is a 6th century image of Jesus from Byzantine Egypt:



It is a long haired white dude. Take it up with Jesus's neighbors descendants if they got it wrong.

Sure, but I doubt many from Western Europe or North America, have that image in mind when they think of Jesus - much more likely they are thinking about paintings in the Roman Catholic and later Protestant traditions.

[The Brain]

Jesus wasn't white now? Which color was He these days?

[HVC]

Jesus wasn't white now? Which color was He these days?

[The Minsky Moment]

It is a long haired white dude. Take it up with Jesus's neighbors descendants if they got it wrong.

Yeah I think you're missing the point though about what makes the Nazi types queasy.  It's not the prospect of Jesus as a Nubian.  More that he's a hook-nose, a Red Sea pedestrian.

[Valmy]

It is a long haired white dude. Take it up with Jesus's neighbors descendants if they got it wrong.

Yeah I think you're missing the point though about what makes the Nazi types queasy.  It's not the prospect of Jesus as a Nubian.  More that he's a hook-nose, a Red Sea pedestrian.

It is very possible that my typical problem when dealing with this race thing (trying to figure out what makes somebody a certain race and who qualifies and who doesn't) is indeed the problem

Like: why aren't Iranians white? To my eyes they look like white people. But they aren't. For reasons. Or are they? Who knows.