Another day, another discredited witness: tales from the Jian Ghomeshi trial

Just to lay my own prejudices on the table, I don’t like Jian Ghomeshi. First of all, I had never heard of him before his sex scandal. (I guess I just don’t watch enough government propaganda.) Then I found out that he was a CBC big shot and the kind of trendy person with all the right opinions. In addition, I also find revolting the rough sex that he says he favours.

Nevertheless, in spite of the dislike I feel for the man, I have come to think that he might be innocent (and boy, if I ever needed a criminal defence lawyer, I would want his lawyer). Why?

Mostly because the two complainants gave inconsistent testimony. They said one thing at the time, another to prosecutors and a third on cross-examiantion.  And they wait a decade before pressing charges, which they only did after Ghomeshi's sex life blew up in public.

The standard counterargument is that they were intimidated into silence because Ghomeshi is powerful and famous. I say hogwash. If they really had been horrifically assaulted by Ghomeshi, I don’t think anything would have held them back from seeking retribution.

Take the case of drunk driver Marco Muzzo, who recently killed three children and their grandfather in Vaughan. Do the parents of those kids act like they are intimidated by the Muzzo family, one of the richest in Canada, and who have vastly more money at their disposal than Ghomeshi? No. In contrast to Ghomeshi’s lovestruck accusers, these grieving parents are aggressively pursuing justice at every turn. They have become Marco Muzzo’s living nemesis. They aren’t scared of him. After all, what more can the Muzzo family do to them?

I think it is possible that Ghomeshi’s complainants feel that Jian Ghomeshi’s real crime was not that he hurt them, but that he dumped them. How much of this translates into criminal culpability on Ghomeshi’s part is another matter.

As far as the charge that Ghomeshi might get away with it because he is famous, I think his fame has hurt him more than it helped. If he were a Joe Schmoe, I don’t think this case would have ever seen the inside of a courtroom. The cops aren’t gullible. They know a weak case when they see it, but I suspect they were forced into filing charges by political pressure. And if the case falls apart in the courtroom then, hey, it’s not our fault. Too bad about the destruction of an innocent man’s life.

I suppose that some might charge me with automatically siding with men against women. Not so. I was livid about the sexual assaults and gang rapes that occurred in Cologne on New Year’s Eve. I was horrified by the Rotherham rape scandal cover-up. I was furious when CBS correspondent Lara Logan was gang raped and nearly ripped to pieces in Tahrir Square, and was even more furious with CBS News when they tried to sweep the whole thing under the rug because it clashed with the narrative about Arab Spring that they were pushing. For these sentiments, my critics might accuse me of being anti-Muslim. Oh? So why do I side here with Ghomeshi, a man of Iranian heritage?

Rather, I have a quaint notion of justice, one that is almost archaic these days. I believe that criminal cases should be judged solely on the basis of evidence, not on which demographic or political group the victim and the accused belong to, or on the issues dredged up by the trial.

I also think this case points out how dangerous The Left really is. They demonstrate through their actions that they do not want justice at all - in any recognizable form of the word. What they want to do is to mete out group justice, like the way the Bolsheviks meted out group justice to the kulaks, or how Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge exterminated a third of Cambodia. If this assessment seem harsh, then let me ask you this: in what way is the feminist idea of justice in sexual assault cases different from communist persecution?

For a good example of the latter, consider what this half-wit said in the National Post:

“I am concerned at the potential consequences if Ghomeshi were to be criminally acquitted.”

“An acquittal could have a concomitant ominous chilling effect. If his lawyer sufficiently embarrasses the accusers by suggesting they are lying, or through salacious revelations as to their sexual history, others will be less prepared to come forward with sexual harassment allegations.”

These words are written by a lawyer, in the middle of an ongoing trial. He - an officer of the court - appears to be openly rooting for a conviction for reasons that have nothing to do with Jian Ghomeshi’s actual guilt or innocence. I’m no legal expert, but isn’t the purpose of this trial – its only purpose – to determine Ghomeshi’s guilt? Oh, how I miss the days when Conrad Black still ran the Post.

Personally, I reserve final judgment until the trial is over because I don’t know what the remaining evidence will turn out to be, and I am not in the courtroom to see everything. 

Comments

[bmatkin]

The only hopeful thing from this trial is that Gomeshi is gone.

[james]

If Gomeshi had punched you in the face and you didn't cry afterwards then he's not guilty of assault right?

[Cincinnatus]

He wouldn't be guilty of sexual assault.

[james]

I guess that flew right by you. If a woman is raped and then phones the guy who raped her later then he's not guilty? Is that how it works?

[Autoguy]

It is important to find based on the evidence, not our distaste for Gomeshi's practices.

[Cincinnatus]

Who did Ghomeshi rape?

All I see are a bunch of witnesses who gave wildly inconsistent testimony.

Ever heard of reasonable doubt?

[Autoguy]

Cincinnatus, there are many who would convict a person based on the accusation of rape alone. What those people don't understand is that they do much more harm than good. But I'm sure you already understand this.
To James, proof is needed to convict, period. So is a presumption of innocence. So far it looks like the proof is as shaky as the presumption of innocence is.