Cultural Imperial posted:

some dude punches you in the head and chokes you during sex you scream and run off


next day you decide to sext him?

poor victim

Daynab posted:

sliderule posted:

Order?
Reverse
In
Posted
This
Is
Why
But
Curmudgeonly,
Be
To
Hate
I

sliderule posted:

Order?
Reverse
In
Posted
This
Is
Why
But
Curmudgeonly,
Be
To
Hate
I

THC posted:

Because Twitter is garbage.

jm20 posted:

Reva Seth, a lawyer and best-selling author, wrote about what she says was her own violent encounter with Ghomeshi on The Huffington Post. In her post, Seth anticipates the victim-blaming question of why she didn’t do anything about the assault in the immediate aftermath: “As a lawyer, I'm well aware that the scenario was just a ‘he said/she said’ situation. I was aware that I, as a woman who had had a drink or two, shared a joint, had gone to his house willingly and had a sexual past, would be eviscerated.”

Maybe they are trying to shake him down like those Cosby accusers, that guy is a quaalude saint.

PT6A posted:

Twitter is great and comments like this is why they're inexplicably turning it into facebook little by little.

If you view a thread, it displays the original tweet at the top and the rest chronologically. If you're viewing a timeline, the most recent things are showed first. Perfectly simple.

Cultural Imperial posted:

I can't wait till it's legal to euthanize seniors

Eej posted:

Oh hey I didn't realize it's been a year since the ruling on Physician Assisted Death by the Supreme Court and even though there's a four month extension to develop legislation for it, individuals can apply to the courts directly for access in the meantime. Since legislature is dragging their feet on this, I just got an email from the College (I assume the same thing is happening across all health professions in every province) with some guidelines to follow in the meantime and they can basically be summarized as "if you have a conscientous objection, deal with it".

e: I'm really jealous how much better the CPSO's PDF designs are compared to the OCP, shows you where all the money really is

Monaghan posted:

Sorry I may be misreading this, but are they saying that the individual doctor has to perform assisted suicide, even if they have a conscientious objection to it?

College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario posted:

C. Conscientious Objection
The SCC’s decision in Carter v. Canada does not compel
physicians to provide physician-assisted death. The SCC
noted that the Charter rights of patients and physicians
would have to be reconciled.

At this interim stage, and in the absence of a framework to
govern the provision of physician-assisted death, physicians
are directed to comply with the expectations for conscientious
objections in general, set out in the Professional Obligations
and Human Rights policy.

These expectations are as follows:

• Where a physician declines to provide physician-assisted
death for reasons of conscience or religion, the physician
must do so in a manner that respects patient dignity. Physicians
must not impede access to physician-assisted death,
even if it conflicts with their conscience or religious beliefs.

• The physician must communicate his/her objection to
physician-assisted death to the patient directly and with
sensitivity. The physician must inform the patient that the
objection is due to personal and not clinical reasons. In the
course of communicating an objection, physicians must
not express personal moral judgments about the beliefs,
lifestyle, identity or characteristics of the patient.

• In order to uphold patient autonomy and facilitate the
decision-making process, physicians must provide the
patient with information about all options for care that
may be available or appropriate to meet the patient’s clinical
needs, concerns and/or wishes. Physicians must not
withhold information about the existence of any procedure
or treatment because it conflicts with their conscience or
religious beliefs.

• Where a physician declines to provide physician-assisted
death for reasons of conscience or religion, the physician
must not abandon the patient. An effective referral must
be provided. An effective referral means a referral made
in good faith, to a non-objecting, available, and accessible
physician or agency. The referral must be made in a timely
manner to allow the patient to access physician-assisted
death. Patients must not be exposed to adverse clinical
outcomes due to delayed referrals.

Ontario College of Pharmacists posted:

Guiding Principles of Professionalism when Serving a Patient who has Qualified and Consented to Physician Assisted Death

1. Pharmacists and pharmacy technicians must practice within their scope, and comply with the
Code of Ethics, Standards of Practice and in accordance with all relevant and applicable legal
and professional obligations to ensure they safely deliver quality health care.

2. Pharmacists and pharmacy technicians limit their practice to services they have the
knowledge, skills and judgement to perform.

3. Pharmacists and pharmacy technicians act in the best interest of their patients.

4. Pharmacists and pharmacy technicians communicate sensitively and effectively with patients
in a manner that provides patients with health information, referrals, and health services in an
unbiased and respectful manner to enable patients to make well-informed decisions.

5. Pharmacists and pharmacy technicians must not impede access to care or abandon patients
they care for.

6. Conscientious objection by a pharmacist or pharmacy technician must not be directly
conveyed to the patient and no personal moral judgements about the beliefs, lifestyle, identity
or characteristics of the patient should be expressed.

7. Conscientious objections by a pharmacist or pharmacy technician must not impede the right of
patients to receive unbiased information, including an effective referral made in good faith, to
a non-objecting and accessible alternative provider.

Newfie posted:

A great little capsule on an issue in the Ghomeshi trial on communications between complainants from a great criminal professor at UofA http://petersankoff.com/2016/02/09/ten-minutes-on-the-ghomeshi-trial-communication-between-witnesses/

Newfie posted:

So i was thinking about the outcome of the ghomeshi trial today and one of the thoughts that came to mind was that even if he is found not guilty, isn't justice still served in a sense? From here on out his life is going to be living hell. Everyone he was friends with hate him, he will never have a career in broadcasting, nobody will hire him because if who he is and the claims against him, and he will never be able to go anywhere in Canada without glares or people spitting in his food. Honestly this seems like almost the best outcome possible and that jail time was really just icing on the cake of a scumbag getting his life ruined.

PT6A posted:

It's completely consistent to believe all the following things at the same time:

1) Jian Ghomeshi is a piece of poo poo.
2) Jian Ghomeshi is probably guilty of a crime.
3) It is a correct verdict to find Ghomeshi not guilty of the specific crimes he is being tried for.

People get away with crimes all the time, and instead of viewing it as the justice system failing, it should be viewed as the justice system working as intended to err on the side of not punishing innocent people.

sbaldrick posted:

It also basically goes to the point the Crown is hosed in this case and if it wasn't so high profile they would have dropped it before trial.

Cultural Imperial posted:

At this point, Ghomeshi deserves to get off because these women were so loving stupid.

sbaldrick posted:

I'm guessing he also has a bunch of stuff where he admits to women his likes kinky sex, which he admit in public in 2014. The Crown more then likely knows this too.

flakeloaf posted:

On my planet, seeing a lot of people crowded around waiting for you to do something stupid makes you less likely to want to do a stupid thing.

apatheticman posted:

If stupidity of the victim guaranteed acquittal there would be no white collar crime.

apatheticman posted:

If stupidity of the victim guaranteed acquittal there would be no white collar crime.

sbaldrick posted:

He's more then likely guilty as poo poo but he won't be convicted (I'd be suprised if he was)

sbaldrick posted:

Ghomeshi is going to sue the CBC for millions of dollars for wrong termination and leave the country.

FowlTheOwl posted:

Wouldn't the harassment complaints still be reasonable grounds?

sbaldrick posted:

Ghomeshi is going to sue the CBC for millions of dollars for wrong termination and leave the country

jm20 posted:

New topic, Law enforcement exceptionalism extends beyond the RCMP to the OPP.

Brannock posted:

Whatever happened with the CBC shoving everything Ghomeshi was involved with down the memory hole?

Cultural Imperial posted:

The Heathrow Express is 36 GBP return.

But i thought toronto was world class like london

mik posted:

If you don't take the District/Picadilly to Heathrow like a poor you're doing it wrong.

Brannock posted:

Like I don't really care that Ghomeshi got fired and I'm pretty sure he's a raper and a harasser and shouldn't be around other people, but it struck me as really weird that the CBC actively scrubbed everything involving him after he was fired. Was there ever any follow-up on that, or a statement from the CBC about it, or what?