I like you jim. But your constant mini-rants about false accusations every time rape is the subject is worrisome.

And I find it worrisome when mobs of people jump on a "j'accuse" bandwagon just because it's politically correct.

Exactly who here, in this thread, is jumping on any bandwagon? ~ we're discussing whether or not the two state mandates will accomplish what they propose ~ you have a habit of trying to shut down ANY thread that revolves around the crime of rape ~ no one is forcing you or anyone else to read or to post to any topics ~

Sooz

Why do you think that exposure and discussion of the reality of rape, along with the pro-active laws trying to address the issue are PC'ness? EVERY hot issue stirs up some who are only going along to get along or for some political gain. Why does that only make you angry when the subject is rape?

Don't you think it is more because, for most people, women are tired of being ignored when they are raped? Tired of having to "prove" it and being questioned about how they dress or about their sexual history (neither of which have anything to do with rape)? Afraid to report it because of the above? They AND their loved ones feel this sense of "shame" fostered by the current attitudes. It's similar to the blacks before the civil rights movement. They were made to feel "less than human" and ashamed to be black.

The fact that is has become a political issue is a good thing! It needs to be "aired out" and discussed. Yet, you seem to focus on only the false accusations and become angry instead of discussing the core issue of rape.

I'm really trying to understand.

Translation: Get on the bandwagon or get out. No dissent allowed.

jim, I've both asked you and told you to stop putting words in my mouth ~ the above might be YOUR "translation", but it is not mine ~ and I note you're ignoring my question ~ why is that?

Sooz

The fact that is has become a political issue is a good thing! It needs to be "aired out" and discussed. Yet, you seem to focus on only the false accusations and become angry instead of discussing the core issue of rape.

What's to discuss about rape? It's a horrible crime. I can't even understand why anyone would feel the urge to force themselves on someone else that way. I know it's claimed to be a power thing but that's like saying that kicking a kitten gives you a sense of power. Overwhelming someone weaker than yourself should make you feel demeaned rather than powerful and if the only way you can get sex is to force yourself on an unconscious woman then you've got pretty low self-esteem.

The reason I get upset about these laws is because they are an attack on one of our greatest freedoms. As much as people like to excoriate judges and all the rights accused criminals appear to have, our justice system, where the state has to prove it's case against an accused, is what truly saves us from tyranny. These laws where the accused is going to be required to prove his innocence are not only in violation of the principles of our justice system but a step toward the j'accuse system where you are automatically guilty of any accusation the state may throw at you. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

You are misinterpreting the US criminal justice system, jim ~ the accused does NOT need to prove her or his innocence ~ what the accused's defense must do is raise "a reasonable doubt" as to her or his guilt ~

Sooz

Not when you enact faux laws like "yes means yes". Under them a false accusation, a change of mind or simply a "you didn't phone me the next day" is all it takes to convict you. Other than a signed, notarized permission slip you are toast.

I see jim's point and it's similar to the ne I made. Instead of the burden being proving guilt it is shifting towards proving innocence.

Only if the accused has to prove the other person said (or indicated) "yes".

Otherwise its just another "he said/she said" situation.

Rape is a crime where the VICTIM'S actions are called into question. Victims of other crimes are never considered to be less of a victim because of where they were, what they wore, whether their injuries were bad enough. When is a victim of assault and battery questioned as to whether they fought off their attacker, whether they had defensive wounds, whether the tshirt whey were wearing provoked the attack, whether they should have been in the neighborhood where they were assaulted, whether they knew the assailant and whether they gave the assailant reason to think that it might be okay with them if they were beaten up? Replace assault with robbery murder or any other crime of bodily harm. That is the problem that makes rape worthy of discussion and in need of protections for the victims. Victims of rape are always suspect.

Stand Your Ground laws certainly have a blame-the-victim element. Ask Treyvon Martin.

Yes Oskar, and so do police shootings as in Ferguson. Does it help the discussion to find these exceptions and make it less unique for victims of rape to be questioned as to their worthiness for victim status? There are far fewer stand your ground and police shootings than rapes but if it strengthens the argument for change in the way rape is investigated and prosecuted bring it on.

Reckon I'll start selling some business cards saying:

If you wanna f*ck, sign here: ....................................................

Is it too ambiguous? what if she can't read or write? does the law apply to men victims? does "no" this morning count if she said "yes" last night but got pissed off at me?

I think you should start with a signed permission slip from your wife.................

I'd agree that the whole "she was asking for it" defence of rape should be thrown out of court, but I'm just not sure how the "yes means yes" notion actually helps, particularly if its some kind of legal principle. "No means no" is damned good advice, but the same applies.

But we still come down to the fundamental legal principle that in law protecting the innocent is more important than punishing the guilty.

NDP MP says she gave no 'explicit' consent to Liberal MP Massimo Pacetti's alleged advances
Pacetti denies allegations and promises to partake in an independent process
By Rosemary Barton, CBC News
Posted: Nov 25, 2014 11:06 PM ET|
Last Updated: Nov 26, 2014 12:08 AM ET

The NDP MP whose allegations of sexual impropriety against Liberal MP Massimo Pacetti led to his suspension from the Liberal caucus told CBC News that the incident occurred last March after a late evening of sports and drinking.

The New Democrat, who said she wants to remain anonymous, acknowledged in an interview Tuesday that she never said no to Pacetti's alleged advances, nor did she give "explicit" consent to them. She said she has no plans to file a complaint with police.

Pacetti issued a statement affirming he is "innocent of any misconduct" while promising to take part in an independent process presided over by a neutral official.

Justin Trudeau suspended Pacetti from his caucus after the NDP MP confronted the Liberal leader with her version of the alleged incident last month.

Trudeau also suspended Newfoundland MP Scott Andrews based on separate personal misconduct allegations by another female NDP MP that were first relayed by the MP in the Pacetti incident. Andrews has said he is "confident" that an investigation "will find that no harassment has occurred."

The suspensions unleashed a storm of controversy on Parliament Hill and led all parties to the embarrassing realization that they had no protocol for harassment among members of Parliament.

The first NDP MP alleges the incident took place in Pacetti’s hotel room where the two had one last drink after a night out with others.

She says that following the incident, there was little communication between the two of them, with the exception of the occasional greeting in the Commons foyer.

"Just boring stuff about the weekend. It was never me who initiated the conversation," she said.

'I reaffirm my innocence'

Pacetti is not speaking publicly but in a statement, he said he is "troubled that the complainant chose to air these allegations in the media, as this is inconsistent with statements conveyed through her party that privacy and fairness must be respected for both sides." He also said there is no way to evaluate the veracity of the claims.

And finally, he said: "I reaffirm my innocence and I will not comment on this matter in the media any further."

The NDP MP does reveal more about why she approached the Liberal leader in the first place instead of her own leader. It wasn’t until months later that she decided to bring him her concerns.

She said she approached him because she was hoping to leave politics out of it.

"I didn’t tell him so it could be public. I just thought he should know," she said.

The NDP MP didn’t have any complaints about how Trudeau dealt with things until he announced the suspension of Andrews and Pacetti.

She said she thinks he acted too quickly and could have done things differently.

Specifically, she said Trudeau could have let the NDP MPs know what actions he was considering so they could have prepared better for it.

The NDP MP said she is hoping she can soon move on and would be willing to accept some sort of apology.

For now, neither of the NDP MPs has made a formal complaint and neither seems willing to do so.

While it is unclear is how these particular allegations will be resolved. MPs are trying to come up with a plan for the future.

On Tuesday, MPs on the procedure and House affairs committee agreed to form a subcomittee to look into how to deal with future allegations.

The House of Commons still has to approve that decision and set the parameters for that work.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-mp- ... -1.2850012

Can a single incident be "sexual harassment"?

Who knows.
Then there's the fact that she said neither yes nor no but feels entitled to make allegations that could potentially wreck a political/business career while she remains completely anonymous.

My answer to CM's question is ABSOLUTELY ~ it depends entirely on the nature of the "advance" and whether or not s/he stopped immediately when the advance was rejected ~

I also fully agree with oskar's comments [following "Who knows" above] ~ protecting her own identity while skewering someone else's makes me very skeptical ~

Sooz

What would be the distinction between an "ok" advance and a "harassing" one sooz? I'm trying to think of one that either didn't involve some form of assault or didn't break the "no means no" rule. And an attempt at gentle persuasion might be impolite or just stupidity, but should it be grounds to destroy someone's career?

In this particular case it's totally unclear what kind of "harassment" might have actually taken place.

If anything it seems to me he acted perfectly reasonably - and that's going on her account.

Thos one is beginning to look more and more like "piling on for political gain" following the Gomeshi allegations.

I've been thinking about this thread for a while, mulling it over before commenting.

I have no idea about the legal ramifications of yes means yes. But as a teaching tool, when it comes to sexual morals, I think it's an excellent message to send to young men. I'm speaking as a teacher and a parent now. Teaching a young man that he should stop, take a breath, look his partner in the eye, and ask...are we really going to do this? Do you want this? Are you as excited about me as I am about you? Is a really good idea. It can prevent misunderstandings, it gives both people a chance to stop and take a breath and think about what they're doing (something young people so desperately need when it comes to sex. It might even give someone the time to consider a condom that they had forgotten), and it's kind of romantic. It makes a young man visibly concerned with their partner's well being--which at worst will make young women swoon. Talk about your sensitive new age guy move!

Aside from the law, I think embracing yes means yes as personal policy is a really good idea. I can't think of a reason NOT to stop and have that quick exchange.

For young people in the first flush of romance it might be good advice, but I wouldn't expect them to take it all that often.

And what about the rest of us?

Why not Cattleman? I think it just feels weird because it's new. And I don't think you need to stop and ask your wife out loud, because you have known her so long you are confident that you know her signals. But what about the vast number of us that are dating again in our thirties and forties and fifties? I think yes means yes is a great policy any time you start a new sexual relationship. And if it's done right, can be very romantic. If the only objection is that its a little awkward...but it prevents a rape accusation or the feeling that one partner has been taken advantage of....why not?