Canadian Gang-Rape Trial - Defence claims the Woman was the Aggressor

[PeppyHare]

Has anyone been following the gang-rape trial in London, Canada? Five men have been accused of gang-rape but say she was the aggressor. She was drunk and says she left a bar with a man. She had consensual sex with him but then he called his mates and they raped her. The men say it was all her doing, she was asking for it. She says she gave them what she thought they wanted because she was afraid for her safety if she didn't comply. The men also filmed her saying to was all consensual. They knew they were doing something wrong so they made her say she was fine with everything. She wanted to get out of there. The 5 men were hockey players so there's lots of media attention. And, Canada has a gang rape problem in hockey. I think there have been 13 gang rapes in the last 20 years.

What is striking is that the defence are relying on sexist stereotypes and rape myths: she consented look at the video, she consented because of the way she acted, she's a "puck bunny", she's a gold-digger and just wanted a hockey player, she wanted to have a wild night but felt ashamed the next morning, she wasn't as drunk as she say she was, and she was cheating on her boyfriend and made up the story so he wouldn't leave her. I mean, EVERY sexist stereotype and rape myth. It's disgusting.

Here's some background:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/e-m-testimony-hockey-canada-sexual-assault-trial-1.7537011

Any thought on victim blaming?

Thus is absolutely disgraceful behaviour by these so called men! They need to own up to what they did and accept their punishment, instead of making the young lady a victim twice over!

Exactly! She was on the stand for 9 days reliving the gang-rape. 7 of those days were for cross-examination where the defence lawyers ripped her apart. And each man has his own defence team. They all had a go at her as if they were raping her themselves.

Not all men but always men.

Everytime I'm reminded of Lord of the Flies.
A group of males together always sink lower, they never seem to rise higher.

where is their integrity? Sense of shame? This is awful

apart from anything else, even if she was lying and it was all 100% consensual (which is highly unlikely), why do so many men enjoy having sex with someone who is a) so drunk they're not exactly going to be participating enthusiastically - is someone lying there barely conscious a great time?, and b) that all your mates have already had sex with? I can't think of anything more grim than lining up after my friends to shag some guy after four of them had already had a go. I wouldn't even like to share a drink with 4 other people!

Even if it was consensual, it's an incredibly demeaning way to think about women - not a human, just a convenient hole than can be passed around between you.

If their argument is that there are all these 'puck bunnies' 🤮 who are just desperate to shag hockey players then it shouldn't be that hard to go out and meet a willing woman, should it?

It's always our fault!

Lots of mixed messaging from her.
Obviously the young men (at the time) felt video consent was sufficient.
However that doesn’t excuse the depravity of the situation, the lack of awareness on their part or laxity from hockey Canada regarding education on the matter.

yeah, they're basically saying she was the one who raped them. That she taunted them and they felt forced to comply.

www.tsn.ca/lawyer-accuses-e-m-of-taunting-and-threatening-world-junior-players-in-london-hockey-trial-1.2304711

Hockey Canada has never tried to deal with sexual violence, boys also have been sexually assaulted by coaches, but they chose to deny there's a problem.

this is a good book on the subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Line:_Sexual_Assault_in_Canada's_National_Sport

@PeppyHare Long time hockey mom, well aware.

Sounds standard for male sportsmen who rape. Completely in line with their patterns.

Exactly @usedtobeaylis, the sporting culture from parent/parent coaches/semi pro coaching to professional doesn’t cover the social development of the players at all, it leads to a very warped cultural view.

Two Questions

In what circumstances here could she possibly do anything other than say yes?

If they didn't think it was problematic, why did they feel the need to film her saying yes?

Also, these guys weren't average men. They were huge hockey players. Imagine how she felt being a naked, 5'4" , 138 pound woman in a room full of big men. There were up to 10 men.

Did anybody read the part where they were talking about shoving golf balls up her vagina and wondering if they could fit a golf club up her vag as well? It sounds like they learned about sex from porn films. No wonder she disassociated and started to act accommodating. She was scared. Remember what Margret Atwood said: "Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them."

Was going to say exactly the same. Remniscent of other cases.

So, what would be the consequences of assuming that's the case?

It would be that women can't consent to having group sexual encounters.

Now, I think that would probably be the most healthy way for people to live. But - is that what we want the law to say, that women cannot, for example, go to sex clubs, or have threesomes, etc?

I don't think it's shocking that if there is a film where she said she consented, that would be a factor in this case. How could it not be?

Not just sports, either. Look at the military.

Clearly some men who have bonded by regularly working together against a common enemy - sports, battle - seem to regard working together against someone who can’t actually fight back as fun.

I wasnt aware of this case until I saw the outcome this week in the news. I feel sick to think what this women went through and cannot believe the verdict. Is there anyway of showing support to EM?

Apart from anything else, her ability to give consent was impaired if she was drunk

Boys and young men need to be taught that if they encounter a woman who is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, she cannot give consent, so the proper reaction is leave her alone [or maybe even make sure she is safe], not have sex with her because she's an easy target.

Consent is not consent if the person is not in a situation of being freely able to consent or refuse. In this instance, the original consent (even if valid, given that she was drunk) was for one man. Not for all his friends. The only way a 'consent' for a mass assault could have been even faintly valid, is if the woman had been sober, able to take advice from family or friends (or even lawyers), and had been safe, accompanied, and freely able to leave the premises, sign an informed consent document, and then voluntarily return to the room where all the men were gathered.

(That sober and pre-informed opportunity to agree or not agree, to attend or not to attend, and certainty of freedom to withdraw consent and to leave at any moment, is presumably a normal part of whatever deviant situation is suggested by the mention of "sex clubs" and "threesomes"?).

Consent is not consent if the person is too incapacitated, as in this instance, through drink, drugs or other impediment of comprehension.

Consent is not consent if it is consent to be harmed: Nobody can legally consent to being injured.
(Notable, given the 'fashion' for strangulation, hair pulling, and spitting in the face and slapping the object of affection)

The possibility/probability of physical harm and of disease from a mass rape was not one the woman could reasonably be assumed to have assessed, when agreeing to go to bed with one man.

Thank you for this. It is unreasonable that in some cases, a long-term loving couple are apparently deemed unable to have a continuing physical relationship, if the wife has begun to lose mental capacity. That seems cruel, because she is allowed still to adore her favourite food, or music, yet deemed unable to consent to the physical closeness with the man she loves, which has always formed her greatest comfort. Meanwhile, a woman can be barely conscious, from drink or drugs, yet deemed to have consented if she didn't manage to fight off the man/men, and didn't escape.

(Or, in this case, with a gang of men, chose to speak the words they instructed her to say, rather than antagonise them or try to prevent them doing whatever they wanted, in order to protect her own life.)

Would even a strong man have defied a gang of sports men, determined to rape him, having made plans to claim it was his wish? Would he have declined to speak whatever words they told him to say?

Has anyone in the legal profession, in any country, heard of 'coercion'?

Yes, as gang sex needs to be a human right, alongside rough sex and strangling - all healthy sex positivity - heaven forbid that anyone non-consenting is believed.

BBC report in case anyone else hasn’t see the result:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0qlwnyy70o.amp

I saw news of the verdict on YT over a fellow passenger’s shoulder.
Videos from male commentators where the titles castigated the young woman for her ‘cynical attempt to ruin the lives of the young men’.
I still can’t deal with my visceral response.

That’s disgusting. That poor woman.

I hope the stigma follows the men around regardless of the verdict.