“. . . People love this shade, but if you use it too much it’ll go to your head and make you think you can get away with anything, even a crime . . . The blush I’m using today has been misidentified as a colour called ‘BDSM’ in a lot of other makeup tutorials, but the actual colour we’re going to use is called ‘Straight-Up Assault'” . . .”
The Ghomeshi case is really calling into question the need for courts and trials and all that expensive routine that costs millions of tax payer dollars, when trial by media costs the tax payer nothing. I’ve heard it suggested, and it’s implied herein, that guilt can be determined by the number of accusers. If you include every claim made on social media, you can get even more impressive numbers.
Likewise, if we accept a figure of 2 to 4% of sexual assault accusations being false, we could employ a strategy of conviction based on probability — that would be so much easier than a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Better 4 innocent people be condemned than 96 guilty people go free.
The only reason to continue with an expensive court system is if one were to believe that justice isn’t about dubious statistical probability or the cries of a mob, or opinion.
I never liked the guy. When he came on I switched to another stream. And I have my opinion as to his guilt or innocence. None of which is particularly relevant, unless one is likely to confuse a defense of justice for a fan’s defense of the prejudged and condemned.
Unfortunately for him, he’s become the poster-boy for an important issue which people feel strongly about. But I wonder if it’s possible to discuss that issue without adopting a guilty until proven innocent attitude towards one person.