 Halifax cabbie found not guilty of sexually assaulting drunk, unconscious passenger | CTV NewsLaw & Order | 206844 hits | Mar 03 12:25 pm | Posted by: Freakinoldguy  A Halifax taxi driver has been found not guilty of sexually assaulting a young woman who was found drunk and unconscious in his cab, prompting a renewed debate over how Canadian courts react when the issue of consent is mixed with heavy drinking.Commentsview comments in forum You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
"The law in Canada is that only yes means yes. That's our standard of consent ... It must be affirmative and ongoing consent."
I wonder if this Cabbie would have gotten off if his name had been Hector Contreras instead of Bassam Al-Rawi?
I wonder if this Cabbie would have gotten off if his name had been Hector Contreras instead of Bassam Al-Rawi?
Quite possibly. Const. Doug Snelgrove got off for the same reasons as this cabbie.
Somebody here asked me recently why I thought the system was soft on crime. Well, this is a prime example of why our justice system is fucked up. The SCOC has said that consent can't be given by an intoxicated woman. So where does this judge get off saying that they couldn't prove the woman didn't give consent?
"The law in Canada is that only yes means yes. That's our standard of consent ... It must be affirmative and ongoing consent."
No excuse for this ruling. The judge needs to be sanctioned and removed from these kinds of cases.
Well wonder no more...lucky for you a similar story, this time involving a white man (an on-duty cop no less), with the same outcome also broke recently. But it doesn't seem to have grabbed the same attention from Righty-Whitey outside of the local community. Wonder why?
The St. John�s Telegram covered the trial, reporting the woman testified she could not recall if she gave consent. She testified that she had passed out and came to as Snelgrove was having anal sex with her.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... al-assault
I wonder if this Cabbie would have gotten off if his name had been Hector Contreras instead of Bassam Al-Rawi?
Quite possibly. Const. Doug Snelgrove got off for the same reasons as this cabbie.
So you're saying Muslims and Cops get passes on rulings made by the Supreme Court.
Despite the name the law is pretty explicit about what constitutes consent and there's no way in hell it was obtained in this case. Hopefully this goes all the way to the Supreme Court so they can rule on their own ruling.
Somebody here asked me recently why I thought the system was soft on crime. Well, this is a prime example of why our justice system is fucked up. The SCOC has said that consent can't be given by an intoxicated woman. So where does this judge get off saying that they couldn't prove the woman didn't give consent?
"The law in Canada is that only yes means yes. That's our standard of consent ... It must be affirmative and ongoing consent."
No excuse for this ruling. The judge needs to be sanctioned and removed from these kinds of cases.
Well wonder no more...lucky for you a similar story, this time involving a white man (an on-duty cop no less), with the same outcome also broke recently. But it doesn't seem to have grabbed the same attention from Righty-Whitey outside of the local community. Wonder why?
The St. John�s Telegram covered the trial, reporting the woman testified she could not recall if she gave consent. She testified that she had passed out and came to as Snelgrove was having anal sex with her.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... al-assault
There's a difference in situations here. One woman couldn't remember if she gave consent the other one couldn't have given it.
But, no matter how anyone spins it, the fact remains that the SCOC has ruled on this and both these clowns belong in an 8X10 cell not our patrolling our streets or picking up more potential victims.
So you're saying Muslims and Cops get passes on rulings made by the Supreme Court.
Despite the name the law is pretty explicit about what constitutes consent and there's no way in hell it was obtained in this case. Hopefully this goes all the way to the Supreme Court so they can rule on their own ruling.
Actually, the problem stems from the laws on consent.
Here is what our SC says:
To make matters worse, doctors have confirmed that it is not only possible, but actually quite common, for a person under the influence to not remember a happening, even though they were (in appearances to those they interact with) completely coherent for said happening.
To make matters even worse, there is no absolute that can be written into law. Imagine having a law where if one consumes alcohol (can't be based on 'drunk', we all get drunk at different rates), they are incapable of providing consent....great, you can no longer call a cab to go home. The financial transaction is bound by the very same law!
It is an extremely complicated issue, that will have an impact across all facets of our society, which is why the current focus is on documentation. If this cab had a dash camera, as is currently being discussed, there would be absolutely no question for the courts. Here is the video, did she provide consent? Did he stop immediately when she passed out? Etc. No more he said/she said, and no major societal ramifications.
Starting to wonder if the judges that make these sorts of comments all belonged to the same frat house at pussy-grabber university. What they're saying is just a legalese version of "the bitch wanted it".
It just shows how big a disconnect there is between reality and those who sit on the bench. Since 1968 the Judges and by extension the Justice System have slowly insinuated themselves into every facet of our lives and decisions like this show just how omnipotent they feel themselves to be.
It's sad but, we've gone from seeing duly elected governments make and pass laws to duly elected governments having to prostrate themselves with cap in hand before these unelected oligarchs hoping they'll allow their bills and laws to stand.
There's a difference in situations here. One woman couldn't remember if she gave consent the other one couldn't have given it.
But, no matter how anyone spins it, the fact remains that the SCOC has ruled on this and both these clowns belong in an 8X10 cell not our patrolling our streets or picking up more potential victims.
I agree both of those shitbags should be in jail. And the judges should be removed from these kinds of cased if not from the bench altogether.
The "cannot remember consent" point I think is irrelevant because since the 1990's - or as conservatives call it, 'when feminist political correctness destroyed society' - the courts have ruled that consent must be continuous and consent no longer exists when someone loses consciousness. It's not like the good ol' pre-feminist days that righties always pine for, when there were no takesies-backsies for a gal who gets in over her head and a fella could have his way as he pleased without consequence.
I think these two cases, and the recent "why didn't you keep your knees together" judge in Alberta all have in common is that they're all old backward-thinking men stuck in the mentality of that bygone era. And the sad fact is that women still live in a society that is riddled with these obsolete men, many in positions of authority on the court bench or behind a badge, or signing their pay paycheques. It's not just the predators women need to watch out for, it's these predator apologists.
Fuck this judge and the peice of shit cabbie.
Clearly it's time to teach girls how to castrate.
I don't agree with you on a lot of things, but...... this works for me!
-J.
I understand and agree that if she's so pissed she can't walk or is passed out, she obviously can't give what amounts to consent. But where is the line drawn? Exactly where? Like driving at 0.08?
The women I've been with might sometimes say no when they were sober, they were always in the mood after a few drinks and even initiated the sex. But is someone claiming that because they had a few it can't be valid?
I know the difference between having a few and being DRUNK (most people I know ).
But will it lead to someone claiming they had two martinis, so couldn't possibly have meant yes? Is my ole lady gonna claim rape cuz she had a beer after work and then dragged me in the bedroom?