May 10, 2016

NEW Ghomeshi decision another blow to feminist “rape culture” MYTH

Lauren SouthernArchive

With radical feminism on the rise and the recent Jian Ghomeshi case in the headlines, sexual assault and consent have been topics heavily covered in the mainstream media in Canada.

Today it was announced that Ghomeshi will likely avoid a second trial, so we can expect a wave of more articles from Huffington Post, the Toronto Star and other leftwing media outlets titled "Canada's problem with sexual assault" or "How Canada ignores victims."

Outside court houses, women are stripping down and painting #BelieveWomen on themselves, protesting when men are found not guilty of assault. How real are their concerns, though? Is this issue actually being ignored and getting worse? If so, this is a horrifying prospect for Canada.

However, the reality appears to be very different from what is being portrayed by the media.

On this episode of "Standoff," my guests -- men's rights activist Karen Straughan and feminist writer Liana Kerzner -- talk about our sexual assault laws, feminism, false allegations, Ghomeshi and the rise of hysteria over these issues in Canada.

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-05-18 13:02:36 -0400
A friend of mine was charged with sexual assault by a girl who was an admitted teenage drug addict, her own mother told the police that she was a liar, she admitted to lying to my friend about her age and other things, there were many inconsistencies in her story in court, and to top it all off my friend was the third guy that she had accused of raping her, the second of whom she had admitted to lying about. My friend couldn’t afford a good lawyer and had to get an inexperienced and not very good one through legal-aid, who filed the wrong paperwork to be able to use this fact of her previously lying as evidence, and therefore the judge didn’t allow that to be used. He was found not guilty of the minor charge, since she admitted to lying about her age, and one other charge, but he was convicted of sexual assault and served almost 2 years in jail. That didn’t seem to me like a case of Canada ignoring the “victim”.
commented 2016-05-13 15:27:40 -0400
Great show!
commented 2016-05-12 17:35:25 -0400
@daniel Olchowecki…..yes…so true….where are the hordes of punching bag groupies now?

@karen Straughan….I think it’s really a shame that “Mr Big Ears Teddy” was not called as a witness….of course he was turned facing the wall so he didn’t see anything….but those big ears had to hear …….OH GOD I WOULD LOVE TO DO A COMEDY SKIT ON THAT THEME……..but I know Gomeshi would sue me…….:-)
commented 2016-05-12 14:11:28 -0400
I believe many of these women were attracted to his celebrity. As far as Canada goes he was an A-lister who was very popular. We all think we know celebrities because we see them in the media all the time.
To Ghomeshi, these women were strangers.
Were they interested in getting to know him and putting in time to build a relationship based on trust and caring? Perhaps some were genuine, but, I think many were just ready to do whatever he wanted them to , a la rock star groupies.
What they didn’t realize is what a jerk he is and were probably shocked and hurt when they were discarded for the next easy piece of ass.
Respect yourselves, ladies and men will do they same.
commented 2016-05-12 13:21:23 -0400
Seriously, every time I watch another 30 seconds of video, I find new things to point out.

Kerzner: The odds are that at least one of the women was telling the truth.

No, they are not. We know this, because all three of them were demonstrated to have lied under oath about facts material to the case. This is the entire basis upon which the acquittal rested.

Marie Henein didn’t make a better argument. She didn’t make any argument. She didn’t suggest that there was a different version of the alleged assaults (the typical “he said, she said” case). She presented no alternative version of events at all. All she did was demonstrate, with evidence, that the complaining witnesses were liars, and that they had repeatedly and persistently lied, under oath, to the police, the crown and the court. This was not a “he said, she said” case, but a “she said” case, which is perhaps the lowest burden one could possibly place on the prosecution, and Henein demonstrated, over and over, that the accusers’ testimony simply could not be trusted. Either they were lying or misremembering, and either way, there’s just no way to convict based solely on testimony that cannot be trusted.

I think the only sensible and knowledgeable thing Kerzner has said here is her commentary on Ghomeshi’s sexual peccadillos and how the contrast between his public persona and his private sex life informed the public response to this case.

If you look at his allegations in his Facebook post, there is more credibility to them than to any of the stories of the complainants.

He claimed that this entire thing was spearheaded by a scorned ex-lover who was actively seeking other exes of his to mount a campaign to destroy his life.

Evidence at trial showed DeCoutere actively sought a serious romantic relationship with Ghomeshi for more than a year after the alleged assault on her, despite what can only be described as a lack of interest on his part. We have evidence of communication and collusion between her and at least one other complainant in terms of discussing what they would say in their complaints, and getting their stories straight. We have them discussing how bringing him down, destroying his life, would please them. We have DeCoutere waiving the publication ban on her name so she could more aggressively recruit other “victims” (she claimed to want to be for victims what David Beckham is to Armani underwear—a poster child).

All of that consistency on the part of Ghomeshi in terms of what actually was happening was overshadowed by his inconsistency in terms of his “feminist credentials” in public and the fact that he likes a bit of slappy-slappy in the bedroom in private. What is most interesting about this is that women who identify as feminists are at least as likely, if not more likely, to enjoy being dominated during sex as any other woman—they are simply more likely to suffer a psychological conflict over it. That is, they’re more likely to get off on it, but more likely to be ashamed of it.

This whole thing reminds me of the trope of the medieval sexually penitent priest—wearing his hair shirt and self-flagellating to beat the demons out of himself, and when that doesn’t work, burning the women who tempt him to such impure desires at the stake. The feminist response to this case smells a lot like that.
commented 2016-05-12 00:52:26 -0400
Nice ear touch.
commented 2016-05-11 22:33:20 -0400
Karen Straughan: How clear, articulate and sensible you are in your submissions. I, for one, am extremely impressed . You are a voice of reason in a world that has become increasingly insane.
commented 2016-05-11 21:31:28 -0400
22:10: Kerzner’s problem with the trial was that the crown didn’t object to the line of questioning? This was the injustice? This was the problem with the trial? That the crown should have stepped in and objected to the truth being aired?

I feel like such a nag, because I’m leaving so many long comments, but there is so much wrong to unpack within a very brief period of time. I literally have only managed to watch to about 23 minutes, and I keep having to pause the video due to multiple errors and flaws of reasoning on the part of Kerzner.

She believes that one of the problems with the case is that the crown did not object to exculpatory evidence presented by the defence. Um… right or wrong, a complainant’s sexual history (was she a slut or a virgin when the assault occurred?) is not admissible.

Examination of the behavior of the complainants toward Ghomeshi AFTER the alleged assaults was admissible because it was INTRODUCED by the crown. It was the crown that entered this into evidence. It was the crown who asked, “and what did you do after?” and the complainants answered, “I did X”.

The moment that the crown raised that issue, the truth of it became a matter before the court, and became fair game for the defence.


Again, it was the complainants who were their own worst enemy. Had the crown known about all of this exculpatory evidence, they would never have opened that line of inquiry.

Literally, here’s how it went down:

Crown: What did you do?
Complainant: I did X
Defence: Well, I have evidence that you didn’t do X, you actually did Y and Z.

The only way to have avoided this situation was for the crown to not ask that first question. The only way the crown would have known to not ask that first question is if the complainants had been honest in their dealings with police and crown.

Liana Kerzner, for all her sounding reasonable, is arguing that the crown should have been able to successfully object to lines of questioning that were actually opened by the crown. So she’s saying that the crown should be able to say stuff and not be subject to cross examination.

Again, the crown had no grounds to object, which is why they didn’t object. The crown raised the issue, and could not then prevent it from being scrutinized or challenged by the defence.

I’m not even a freaking lawyer, and even I know this shit.
commented 2016-05-11 19:54:20 -0400
OMG, watching this again. Presumption of innocence does not apply to complainants. Presumption of “oops, I just forgot” does not apply to complainants. The fifth amendment (not sure what it’s called in Canada) does not apply to complainants. This is for a very simple reason.

The complainant is petitioning the court to kidnap a human being and forcibly restrain him, with the full, legitimizing approval of the people. The defendant is petitioning the court to leave him alone. It is the complainant that is asking the court to commit what, if an individual did it, would amount to multiple felonies. If I kidnapped someone and held them in a locked room for years, I’d be guilty of multiple serious felonies. Even if I had a justification for doing this, I would have to prove that in a court of law if I didn’t want to be punished for it.

The court has carte blanche to do this to people, with the support and approval of the people, but first it must prove that its actions are justified and therefore not criminal.

The person who is petitioning the court to essentially destroy another person’s life on their behalf DOES NOT ENJOY THE SAME PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE as the person they are asking the court to destroy. The reason for this is because the power of the court to destroy lives capriciously and unjustly is much greater than the power of any individual to do so. This is why we place limits on the court when it comes to ruining people’s lives.

And Kerzner’s implication that it was “oh, I forgot I sent an email…” Um… no. DeCoutere forgot she sent emails and flowers and more emails and even more emails for over a year, and hinted at marriage, and all kinds of other stuff. That’s a lot of sh*t to forget. One of the complainants somehow forgot she went on a subsequent date with Ghomeshi and gave him a handjob… well, up until the other two were ripped apart on the stand over the things they forgot.

Ladies, the criminal justice system is not your plaything. It’s not your personal arsenal. It is not your Holy Hand Grenade. It is a system that exists to enforce and support the public interest, not your interest. Where your interest and the public interest coincide, it’s your friend. Where your interest does not coincide with the public interest, there are civil courts you can take advantage of, at your own cost, without enjoying, at no charge, the broad discretionary powers of the police and the advantage of a legal advocate whose hand isn’t shoved into your purse. Where discovery goes both ways because both parties are on an equal footing.

Goddamn it. This case really makes me mad, particularly because it involves a man I can’t stand.
commented 2016-05-11 19:15:55 -0400
When you consider how so many women in our society treat men by default as if they are always guilty of rape, abuse and sexual crimes does it surprise anyone that many turn to other men for comfort?

I despise homosexuality, but it is almost an understandable reaction to the verbal abuse and hatred men receive from many women. Everything in our culture teaches boys from young to men of old that to be a man, a real man, is wrong … the feminization of the men is our society.

I, as well, tend to avoid too much interaction with women for the same reasons Bravo Zulu and Daryl Herman mentioned.
commented 2016-05-11 19:02:57 -0400
Maybe we need proportional representation to get a party voice that does not agree with this.

Right now we have mainstream Conservative Parties having Feminist politicians like Lisa MacLeod , and mainstream Conservative media having Feminist politicians like Chrisina Blizzard and Sue Sherring essentially agreeing with this “Rape Culture” gender hate, that they would never support if Women were horribly stereotyped in such a manner
commented 2016-05-11 16:06:56 -0400
Kerzner is mistaken in her belief that the American and Canadian systems are different in terms of the prosecutor acting on behalf of the alleged victim. An American prosecutor is no more an advocate for the complainant than a Canadian one. In Canadian criminal law, we have “R v defendant”, R being Regent or Regina (the crown), and in the US, they have “the people vs defendant”. Even in the US, the complainant is not the alleged victim on whose behalf the state is prosecuting a case—they are prosecuting on behalf of “the people”. This is why prosecutors, in Canada and the US, have some discretion to agree or decline to prosecute cases based on whether it is in the public interest.

Given this, the alleged victim doesn’t require an advocate in the courtroom. If the prosecutor has taken the case to trial, that prosecutor has decided that it is in the public interest to try the case—essentially, that the complainant’s interests dovetail with the public interest. What seems to be the complaint is that when it turns out at trial that those interests are not, in fact, in alignment, the court prioritizes the interests of the public.

So basically, Liana Kerzner is complaining that the criminal system (a system that is designed to act in the public interest) does not act in the interests of complainants. Well, I’m sorry, but insofar as the complainant’s interests match the interests of the public, then the system does act in the complainant’s interests. When those interests diverge (as in, when a complainant is making a false or frivolous accusation, or is attempting to harness the weight of the state and the public interest to settle a personal score), then the system MUST CHOOSE the public interest.

In complaining that the system does not consider and advocate for the interests of the alleged victim as an individual, rather than the interests of the people (or the person ultimately responsible for the people—the crown), Kerzner is essentially arguing in favor of that proposed parallel justice system that would operate like a civil court—except that complainants would still benefit from the free services of police investigators and legal counsel, while the defendant is on his own.

And let’s consider the fact that the complainants in the Ghomeshi case all had lawyers. What good did it do them? Were those lawyers effective advocates? Did they advise the complainants to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (And frankly, I don’t buy for one second that any of them, let alone all of them, “forgot” the months or years of pursuing further sexual relations with Ghomeshi, or the handjob that happened on a date they agreed to following the “assault”.)

What good did these lawyers do complainants who were not, apparently, advised to disclose all of the relevant information to the police and the crown? Marie Henein sat there, like the cat that ate the canary, for hours listening to the complainants repeatedly and persistently perjure themselves on the stand, all while she had the artillery to demolish them in folders on her desk. The Crown, due to the persistent deception and concealment on the part of the complainants, had no clue about any of it, and therefore could not defend against it or mitigate it. Did the complainants’ lawyers not tell them that this was a possible outcome if they lied? What makes ANYONE think that if those lawyers had been part of the “official process” they’d have done any differently?

This entire case was a clusterf*ck on the part of everyone but Marie Henein, and the judge who ultimately came to a just verdict. The complainants and their private legal counsel? Epic fail. The police and the crown? Thumbs down.

And as far as Kerzner’s assertion that because only X% of women lie about rape, the odds of three women lying about being victimized by the same man are astronomical? This is one of the few cases where I’ve seen a feminist prioritize pure math over feelings, and it’s completely bogus. It completely erases the role of human psychology in bandwagoning. In reality, there are cases where many complaints mean that an accusation is more credible because there is corroboration from other victims. But sometimes this works in the opposite direction. Sometimes we have situations with dozens or even hundreds of declared victims, all of whose claims turned out to be completely spurious—Salem, the Satanic daycare scandals, etc. The odds of three random women all falsely reporting to police that they’ve been victimized by the same person, none of whom have any knowledge of the others, and when there is no media coverage of it, are as she said. Astronomical.

But this case wasn’t that. Pretending that group psychology can be boiled down to an arithmetic mathematical function as if humans all exist in a vacuum and behave like robots is silly. Pretending that mentally disturbed women won’t be attracted to a case like this, and exaggerate or fabricate claims, is silly. It’s as silly as saying that the rate of false accusations in Salem was exactly the same in 1691 and 1692. Because, you know, the odds of multiple women lying about something are astronomical.
commented 2016-05-11 13:48:20 -0400
We don’t have the First Amendment here in CANADA.
commented 2016-05-11 11:05:23 -0400
Great show, Lauren!
commented 2016-05-11 11:05:10 -0400
RE: Ken Hanson commented 14 hours ago
In Canada an accused man is considered to be a guilty man.
I guess we have a lot of Nancy Graces in this country. Starting with the CBC. Guilty until proven innocent.
commented 2016-05-11 08:24:37 -0400
I’m not sure, but I have a feeling a lot of this stems from these young girls being promiscuous while being taught third wave feminism. The biology of humans and the psychology of third wave feminism are at odds with each other and confuses emotions and thought.
commented 2016-05-11 07:01:09 -0400
Liana Kerzner has a legal point in that the Crown cannot submit evidence by surprise that has not been previously disclosed to the defence…whereas the defence is not required to show their hand to the Crown….but the Crown is given opportunity to cross examine. If the Crown had known the facts before the trial it is not likely they would have laid charges in the Gomeshi case.

The accusers want a system wherein disclosure is at THEIR discretion and withholding of evidence is THEIR choice….

What surprises me about Gomeshi’s aquital is the notion that battery is a sexual act….I am prepared to believe that the complainants would prefer their sex with less mixed martial arts regardles of Mr Gomeshi’s preferences.
commented 2016-05-11 03:14:55 -0400
Only men can be perpetrators and all women are victims. That is all we are taught.
commented 2016-05-11 02:16:18 -0400
I have a solution for these ugly females that feel they must blame their lack of human contact with an attack on all Males—- Go find yourselves a Muslim. You will be rewarded.
commented 2016-05-11 02:08:07 -0400
Watch the money flow folks:

CBC gets $1.4BILLION per year and is never audited. The rest of the media party never complains.


Because CTV, Torstar, Postmedia, CanWest are all on the CBC’s payroll – this is how obedience around narrative is controlled – hush money created by CBC’s welfare fund of $1.4BILLION.

THE CBC HAS FUCK ALL TO DO WITH NEWS. THE CBC IS THE CONTROLLING HUB TO TELL CANADIANS WHAT TO THINK!!!! And the rest of the Media Party is paid by the CBC to report the same crap.

And who supports all this??? Demarais and Dussault /Irvings/McCains/Olin – and a few other assholes from the east – they hand picked their Mimbo Trudeau to carry out CONTROL OVER CANADIANS.
commented 2016-05-11 02:06:15 -0400
Interesting conversation with Liana Kerzner. Very sane. Always enjoy Karen Straughan. What have we done to a whole generation of girls for them to be so screwed up about themselves and the men around them.

There wasn’t enough evidence to convict Ghomeshi. The justice system worked the way it was supposed to and he was acquitted. However that does not mean he was innocent. Ghomeshi hung himself in my opinion, when he admitted he liked to beat up girls when he was having sex with them.

Changing policy to enable these crazy females to more easily screw over innocent men is a very scary thought. No evidence no conviction. The courts didn’t fail in the Ghomeshi case, lack of evidence was to blame for his aquittal. The women who took him to court only have themselves to blame. And of course their incompetent representation.
commented 2016-05-11 02:01:34 -0400
If you really want to see what a woman scorned is like - let her take her pants off—-

then walk away—-
Drives them crazy- they will call you all kinds of derogatory names.
commented 2016-05-11 01:42:05 -0400
OH! The wrath of a scorned woman (women)! That’s what the “victims” of the Gomashey – seem to be portraying & what SJWs are screaming – YOU CAN’T SCORN ME!!! … And no I am not a Gomashey fan, personally I think he is an idiot. However Lauren brought to point the fact that police seem too anxious to “please” these scorned women no matter what the facts may be – to the point of ignoring or refusing to do the due diligence necessary to make objective any charges. A woman in Canada just has to call the police & yell & scream about what the man is or has done or said and the man goes to jail – and the woman gets a stay out of jail card FREE! Think we can thank TruDope senior for that situation. I still would like someone to help me understand the issue of “verbal” abuse – an issue a lot of screaming, nagging and abusive women use all the time. If the woman doesn’t want to be verbally abused (spoken back to..) – then stop the stupid bitching, slapping and threatening about stupid things. I can not count how many times I have personally & have witnessed many situations where I or another man has simply walked away from a hysterically abusive woman’s rage and been screamed after “Don’t you dare walk away from me – I’m not done with you yet!!!” NEWS to you Sweetie – Yes I am done with you!
Get this women – if a man is not accepting your screaming wrath & walks away – that is not abuse – he just doesn’t want anything to do with you – learn to live with it!!!
I really believe woman abusing men is more or just as common than men abusing women – and how many cases of that do we hear in the news???
commented 2016-05-11 00:55:13 -0400
No wonder the kids are all screwed up. Is nothing innocent any more ?
commented 2016-05-11 00:43:56 -0400
For me—- It was all about taking a girl out on a date ,going to a movie , then having a meal at some restaurant - and then hoping to feel her boob on the way home. I NEVER thought about Raping her.

I guess this must be the new Culture .
I don’t believe any of this ‘Rape Culture’ garbage.
I was just joking.
commented 2016-05-10 23:29:30 -0400
We do live in a rape culture, it is called Canadistan and is compliments of the idiot who pretends he is a leader, Justin Trudeau.
Muslim rape gangs are operating in the GTA. Reported by the Rebel, Sun News and the National Post. The story was killed on orders from above.
commented 2016-05-10 23:08:28 -0400
No wonder men avoid women – in this day and age I make a point of not talking to them.

Hello, good bye, please, thank you and more

My wife has no need to ever fear me running around on her.

Unless she is around, it is rare for me to speak to the ladies.

I have begun over the past few years to think of men as walking targets

Men – easy to accuse and always guilty – even if found innocent.

And your life is ruined.

commented 2016-05-10 22:52:40 -0400
I can see how the seed for Sharia Law gets planted in a Western Society.
commented 2016-05-10 22:37:28 -0400
I wonder if Ghomeshi has learned his lesson? If not, I hope he “loves the smell of pepper-spray in the morning.”
commented 2016-05-10 21:55:30 -0400
Feminists claim we’re living in a rape culture & promote this myth even if they have to manufacture the evidence. Meanwhile, they’ll ignore real rape cultures elsewhere, such as in the middle east. An example of an underreported rape case (except by the Rebel)