Hmmm 2 smart people here debating. I like reading it.
Let's not fall out and put each other down and therefore spoil future interactions between you both.
I will add my view (perhaps incorrect ). Let's see.
So to me it is quite complex ....
However I have to disagree - you are not guilty until proven innocent although kind of tipping the scales toward the accuser heavily in the presentation of what I believe are sensible and reasonable data to the jury to digest. So although you are not guilty they are making it very hard to prove you are innocent even when you are.
I say this still you are not guilty until you prove innocent though because...
If there was only an accusation but 0 evidence or corroborating events from either side then you would be set free as an accused rapist.
That seems therefore you are still innocent until the accuser brings some sensible and corroborating evidence? I mean if i just say you raped me but then no evidence or corroborating events to bring at all I am sure that my rapist will still be set free even if he just says didn't happen with no evidence.
However this does seem a clear attempt to tip the balance in favour of the accuser from where it has been before I believe in a negative way to finding optimal outcome.
They seem to be making it easier for someone to accuse and removing the sensible and credible ways that you could ever defend yourself.
However they will still need something to suggest it was you and that you raped them. Else just their word against your own.
I think the papers would have a field day and destroy the victim if I the rapist could provide a video of them the victim riding on top cumming their brains out then after going nuts in the room saying they were raped and calling the cops. I think that this law will not hold if ever such a thing came about.
I mean it does seem as if they are saying it is down to the accused to prove their innocence and at the same time as saying will remove sensible and reasonable ways that you could prove your innocence. However with no evidence from either side at all then you will be set free I am certain.
I firmly believe if you are giving out punishment then the strong onus should be on the accuser to provide a conclusive and reasonable case that the punishment is deserved. The physical evidence (hospital records) is a strange one. I mean in the case of rape how would they not be relevant ?
Anyway so in this case my (perhaps incorrect view) is that it is a damaging and unfair move but still you will be innocent until it is quite reasonable that you are guilty... so no corroborating evidence from accuser then you will walk.
If I am wrong then that is because i have zero understanding of the law ... however would like to see an analogy or hypothetical scenario that demonstrates this.
Good battle and I really liked this pyramid techshare presented demonstrating the levels of rebuttal during debate. Very good.
I still accept techshare may give me a scenario that makes me see he is correct but just at this minute I am saying still not guilty in light of zero evidence from both sides.
............
although hmmm now I think about such a scenario perhaps it has happened already ....
How do these celebs get banged up for girls they are accused of showing their dick to many many years ago?
I mean there can be little evidence or zero from either side and still they do get banged up sometimes it seem on the weight of a couple of others presumably with zero evidence corroborating their story. Then it does seem if there was no evidence either way and you can get banged up perhaps it is guilty until proven innocent ? or if examining those cases would you find some kind of corroborating and convincing evidence other than some extra people coming with the same accusation with zero evidence?
Does seem worrying though the direction in which things are going....
I think it is a negative change in the law if you are really interested in finding out the truth.
If they keep going in that direct the next step is just saying you are guilty and you can not respond at all and the accuser gets to state his accusation and you have to just be quiet.
Seems I must take extra precautions to not get tagged in the first place and stick to having sex in public for payment from the female for my service. Of course brain control can not be ruled out and with no medical records admissible , witnesses memories contaminated and adjusted and no contact at all with jury or judge (because those magneto hats are out of stock)you will probably just get robbery added to the rape charge...
Then again prison isn't so bad for horny devils I was told... so long as you can manage your sexist, racist, ageist, xenophobic, prejudices, and are not some kind of hypochondriac.
You seem to have run the entire gamut in this statement. If justice were truly blind, a man would be found innocent even if he could not defend himself. Unfortunately though we do not live in a perfect world, and these standards of evidence were (the original ones) created to ensure by no means will an innocent person be convicted. The balance is SUPPOSED to always slightly favor the accused as it was often said "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". People naturally want to punish the guilty, and most of all in the cases of rape as in some ways it is more brutal than murder.
Essentially they are trying to turn the law into the standard that any woman for any reason can accuse and convict a man of rape with zero physical evidence, and this is now manifesting in the legal code itself. Allowing people to send others to prison on their word alone is not an acceptable standard no matter how many rapists it puts away. The problem with that is it makes it really easy for innocents to be accused and swept up into this, and often the circumstances surrounding consensual sex and surrounding rape are often indistinguishable without these vital physical records.
In effect a rape might look exactly like a date, and a date might look exactly like a rape. So seeing an innocent man be convicted for rape is not such a far fetched thing when you look at what we are actually working with here. In the VAST MAJORITY of cases the only determining factor is physical evidence such as this legislation seeks to be allowed to be excluded.
"I think the papers would have a field day and destroy the victim if I the rapist could provide a video of them the victim riding on top cumming their brains out then after going nuts in the room saying they were raped and calling the cops. I think that this law will not hold if ever such a thing came about."
The problem with your logic here is that releasing such a video itself is probably a crime in Canada, and I can assure you rather than rallying behind the man they would rally to lynch him as yet again violating this "poor victim" by exposing her to the world. Canada is being taken over by feminists, and their misandry is now increasingly bleeding though into law.
Kind of reminds me of when the feminist Swedish government said that more women walk and more men drive, so lets plow the sidewalks of snow completely before we plow the roads for "equality". As you can imagine it was a complete disaster (who knew you needed roads to get to sidewalks to clear them right)? Plus who is doing all the clearing? Except this law is less funny and more of a total fucking nightmare.
