"Vibe" of CIS-White men [Road Split from: Sexual Misconduct in the CAF

[AKa]

Sometimes I wonder why more women don't participate here and then I read threads like this...

Before I dip out, I'm going to share one thing you likely don't know and remind you of something you gloss over.

1. CMR in the 80s, female cadets were often not believed when they complained of assault/rape. They were called liars and nothing was done unless there were male witnesses willing to back them up. We were not allowed to lock our doors. Women seldom were willing to endure the trauma of official complaints.

2. The sexual misconduct class action, while it did provide some validation that women should have been able to expect protection and support from the CAF that they did not receive, has also reawakened deeply repressed trauma. Women are talking about events that occurred decades ago for the first time. And the pain isn't always less just because it's old.

I don't know the why of the timing, and it's none of my business. I do have distain for those of you who suggest the complaint is malicious. There is a singular lack of compassion here.

 

[Lumber]

Sometimes I wonder why more women don't participate here and then I read threads like this...

Before I dip out, I'm going to share one thing you likely don't know and remind you of something you gloss over.

1. CMR in the 80s, female cadets were often not believed when they complained of assault/rape. They were called liars and nothing was done unless there were male witnesses willing to back them up. We were not allowed to lock our doors. Women seldom were willing to endure the trauma of official complaints.

2. The sexual misconduct class action, while it did provide some validation that women should have been able to expect protection and support from the CAF that they did not receive, has also reawakened deeply repressed trauma. Women are talking about events that occurred decades ago for the first time. And the pain isn't always less just because it's old.

I don't know the why of the timing, and it's none of my business. I do have distain for those of you who suggest the complaint is malicious. There is a singular lack of compassion here.

I was going to say something similar about how the privileged white male vibe is getting very strong in this thread.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Declaring someone "Innocent" is messed up, when you haven't actually proven they are innocent. There are plenty of things which have happened in this world where the evidence to convict someone of that offence doesn't exist even though it did happen.

People who want complete exoneration should have to prove they didn't commit the offence (i.e. solid alibi, etc.), a much higher burden than simply the crown failing to prove they did it. For those that fall in the middle 'not proven' is a fair way to go. Legally it has the same effect as 'not guilty'.

It's literally called "Innocent Until Proven Guilty"

The presumption of innocence is literally the basis of our entire criminal justice system.

This whole "well just because there isn't a conviction doesn't mean they didn't do it" is some real CAF Kangaroo Court nonsense.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Sometimes I wonder why more women don't participate here and then I read threads like this...

Before I dip out, I'm going to share one thing you likely don't know and remind you of something you gloss over.

1. CMR in the 80s, female cadets were often not believed when they complained of assault/rape. They were called liars and nothing was done unless there were male witnesses willing to back them up. We were not allowed to lock our doors. Women seldom were willing to endure the trauma of official complaints.

2. The sexual misconduct class action, while it did provide some validation that women should have been able to expect protection and support from the CAF that they did not receive, has also reawakened deeply repressed trauma. Women are talking about events that occurred decades ago for the first time. And the pain isn't always less just because it's old.

I don't know the why of the timing, and it's none of my business. I do have distain for those of you who suggest the complaint is malicious. There is a singular lack of compassion here.

I never suggested the complaint wasn't valid. My personal opinion is if it is serious enough that we need to have an actual criminal trial over it, then the trial absolutely needs to be public and there should be no publication ban by the time we reach the trial.

In other words, while an investigation is ongoing and charges are pending, by all means have a publication ban. If we are at trial stage though, well time to lift that thing and we should be able to know it all.

 

[Lumber]

I never suggested the complaint wasn't valid. My personal opinion is if it is serious enough that we need to have an actual criminal trial over it, then the trial absolutely needs to be public and there should be no publication ban by the time we reach the trial.

In other words, while an investigation is ongoing and charges are pending, by all means have a publication ban. If we are at trial stage though, well time to lift that thing and we should be able to know it all.

My gut reaction is to disagree with you. You can leave the court case mostly hidden until the verdict at the end, then release the details. Why are we so adamant that we have the information now?

I'd even go a step further and say that if they are found not guilty, than the complainants information should be kept secret.

Why? Well, if this thread is any indication, then if Fortin is found not guilty, there's going to be an army of armchair warriors foaming at the mouth screaming about false accusations, character and career destruction, etc, etc, all leading up to attacks on and doxing of the complainant.

If there's enough evidence to charge someone with mischief (or whatever) for having issued a "false accusation", then I agree, charge the person; but, a finding of not guilty is not evidence of a false accusation, so I think a few people would jump to that conclusion.

 

[QV]

So, in some of the last few posts in this thread I get the impression some think we ought to go with:

1. Guilty until proven innocent; and
2. Secret prosecutions.

Yep, that should improve things...

 

[OldSolduer]

Sometimes I wonder why more women don't participate here and then I read threads like this...

Before I dip out, I'm going to share one thing you likely don't know and remind you of something you gloss over.

1. CMR in the 80s, female cadets were often not believed when they complained of assault/rape. They were called liars and nothing was done unless there were male witnesses willing to back them up. We were not allowed to lock our doors. Women seldom were willing to endure the trauma of official complaints.

2. The sexual misconduct class action, while it did provide some validation that women should have been able to expect protection and support from the CAF that they did not receive, has also reawakened deeply repressed trauma. Women are talking about events that occurred decades ago for the first time. And the pain isn't always less just because it's old.

I don't know the why of the timing, and it's none of my business. I do have distain for those of you who suggest the complaint is malicious. There is a singular lack of compassion here.

You haven’t been falsely accused either. I will tell you it’s shocking and it can totally devastate you.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

My gut reaction is to disagree with you. You can leave the court case mostly hidden until the verdict at the end, then release the details. Why are we so adamant that we have the information now?

I'd even go a step further and say that if they are found not guilty, than the complainants information should be kept secret.

Why? Well, if this thread is any indication, then if Fortin is found not guilty, there's going to be an army of armchair warriors foaming at the mouth screaming about false accusations, character and career destruction, etc, etc, all leading up to attacks on and doxing of the complainant.

And there is also an argument to be made that if he is found not guilty, then we should absolutely call the person who made the accusation out because according to some on here, only 0.2% of cases are that go to a trial "false accusations".

A great example of why this is a good thing is the Jian Gomeshi case, where the "victims" got together and tried to conspire against Gomeshi to "get some payback". The judge even scolded them when he threw the case out and I quote:

"Each complainant," he concluded, "demonstrated, to some degree, a willingness to ignore their oath to tell the truth on more than one occasion."

You don't like the Ghomeshi verdict, fine, but don't take it out on the judge: Neil Macdonald

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ghomeshi-verdict-judge-neil-macdonald-1.3506958

The response afterward was entirely predictable:

#judgeoutoftouch
#believethevictim

Blahblahblah

Everything should be transparent and if an accusation is made against someone and a criminal trial is required, it should absolutely be public information.

 

[TacticalTea]

2. Secret prosecutions.

If you're referring to my comments, that's a misrepresentation at best. I did say it should be on a voluntary basis only. The proceedings should be made public once a verdict is made, and there should be a watchdog to oversee such processes.

At any rate, having one side's identity obfuscated and not the other is an untenable position, in my view.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

You haven’t been falsely accused either. I will tell you it’s shocking and it can totally devastate you.

95% of the people here literally haven't the slightest idea of how the criminal justice system actually works. Mostly because they haven't had the opportunity (thankfully) to participate in it.

It's like every other Government entity: It's ultimately run by the same people that oversee shoddy passport offices, dysfunctional Government procurement projects, etc.

Only instead of screwing up your passport or pension transfer, they now get to actually screw up your life . SWEET!!!

 

[Haggis]

You haven’t been falsely accused either. I will tell you it’s shocking and it can totally devastate you.

Is that worse than being disbelieved, despite evidence and/or witnesses that corroborate your complaint? Or, maybe the victim just experienced the event differently.

 

[Kilted]

I never suggested the complaint wasn't valid. My personal opinion is if it is serious enough that we need to have an actual criminal trial over it, then the trial absolutely needs to be public and there should be no publication ban by the time we reach the trial.

In other words, while an investigation is ongoing and charges are pending, by all means have a publication ban. If we are at trial stage though, well time to lift that thing and we should be able to know it all.

I mean there is still the possibility in the event of a not guilty verdict that he could bring a lawsuit against the complainant, which could result in her information becoming public. After the lawsuit by Johnny Depp, I think that we may see more lawsuits like this.

 

[QV]

If you're referring to my comments, that's a misrepresentation at best. I did say it should be on a voluntary basis only. The proceedings should be made public once a verdict is made, and there should be a watchdog to oversee such processes.

At any rate, having one side's identity obfuscated and not the other is an untenable position, in my view.

No side should be hidden from the public. Not the victim, not the accused, and certainly not the prosecution and trial.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Is that worse than being disbelieved, despite evidence and/or witnesses that corroborate your complaint?

It is when everyone knows who you are and thinks you're a scumbag when that hasn't been proven to be the case yet.

Whereas with your scenario, we don't get to think anything because we don't even know who they are.

Based on what she said, even if we go beyond all the inconsistencies, is there not the possibility that this occurred and she simply misidentified him?

Exactly.

Again, lets not pretend that the police and authorities aren't capable of shoddy work themselves. I've personally read GO Files from the MPs that look like they were written by a child in elementary school (given how many basic spelling and grammatical mistakes the files had).

So yes, every aspect of a trial should be subjected to the highest levels of public scrutiny. So that we hold the right people accountable and know who to hang when the dust settles .

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I mean there is still the possibility in the event of a not guilty verdict that he could bring a lawsuit against the complainant, which could result in her information becoming public. After the lawsuit by Johnny Depp, I think that we may see more lawsuits like this.

Maybe but not everyone has the means Johnny Depp has. Which is yet another problem with our justice system. If you want a good defence, you need a lot of money.

 

[QV]

It's like every other Government entity: It's ultimately run by the same people that oversee shoddy passport offices, dysfunctional Government procurement projects, etc.

Only instead of screwing up your passport or pension transfer, they now get to actually screw up your life . SWEET!!!

This is shockingly accurate.

 

[TacticalTea]

No side should be hidden from the public. Not the victim, not the accused, and certainly not the prosecution and trial.

Perhaps. I don't think you could sell that to the public however. You want to force rape victims to subject themselves to - as Lumber described it - ''an army of armchair warriors foaming at the mouth screaming about false accusations''?

Even if you don't think that's true, sufficient proportion of the electorate and elites do, and those who don't wouldn't dare tread that ground.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Regarding exonerated/innocent/not guilty/unproven/guilty.

Agents of authority work to prove "guilty". It's not their job to prove "innocent", let alone "exonerated".

You can't prove what you don't try to prove. If you don't try, you shouldn't speculate, let alone pronounce.

Also f*cked up: people who think we should be non-judgemental about other people, except when someone is accused of certain crimes.

 

[Good2Golf]

You haven’t been falsely accused either. I will tell you it’s shocking and it can totally devastate you.

I first hand witnessed a friend’s life torn apart by a false allegation by a CAF member (and several others also falsely accused by the same)…bankrupted, divorced, disowned by children in the intervening years between accusation, charges and court, where the charges were in fact dismissed by the crown a few days before trial because the accuser admitted to falsely accusing him. Had he any money left, he said he would have tried to sue the false accuser in civil court…he couldn’t…he disappeared and no one had heard from him for over two decades…incredibly sad.

Is that worse than being disbelieved, despite evidence and/or witnesses that corroborate your complaint? Or, maybe the victim just experienced the event differently.

In the case of my friend, I would certainly say so. I actually don’t think he is with us any more, to be honest. He was crushed at how his life had been destroyed…although never overtly mentioned an ultimate level of despair.

I will acknowledge what some may accuse as being biased, but is it any less right to invalidate my views because my and my friend’s experience don’t support a particular view/narrative?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I first hand witnessed a friend’s life torn apart by a false allegation by a CAF member (and several others also falsely accused by the same)…bankrupted, divorced, disowned by children in the intervening years between accusation, charges and court, where the charges were in fact dismissed by the crown a few days before trial because the accuser admitted to falsely accusing him. Had he any money left, he said he would have tried to sue the false accuser in civil court…he couldn’t…he disappeared and no one had heard from him for over two decades…incredibly sad.

In the case of my friend, I would certainly say so. I actually don’t think he is with us any more, to be honest. He was crushed at how his life had been destroyed…although never overtly mentioned an ultimate level of despair.

I will acknowledge what some may accuse as being biased, but is it any less right to invalidate my views because my and my friend’s experience don’t support a particular view/narrative?

Your friend just "experienced things differently"