Apologies Mr. Ghomeshi

[erobson]

From what I have learned, he was acquitted not because there wasn't 'violence', it was about determining if there was 'consent' at the time. It is a he said/she said situation, and in cases like this, where there are no witnesses, it is up to the accuser/victim to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. (Which is, what I believe a number of women are frustrated with- how do you prove it? And how does a victim come forward without getting their lives ripped apart in the process. Due process and innocent until proven guilty are important principles in our democratic system).
These women weren't able to convince the judge, and I know- I have read that 'they lied, they went back for more, they wanted to take down 'the man'. Regardless of what your opinion is about the judgement, I want to focus on 'consent'. Sexual acts are not illegal, sexual assault is.
I have read cases where abuse has happened to boys/young men on sports teams- by a coach for instance. Before a victim is a certain age, as I understand it, it would be considered a sexual crime. But when they are 18,19 +, and they 'remain on the team' and stay in close contact with the abuser, would this be considered 'consent' as well? I am not trying to provoke- I have nothing but contempt for all abusers and feel for the victims in what they had to go through. I would really like to know how that would be defined.

[pepsilover]

Very good questions. I don't know the answer but I've seen plenty of adults pursue legal action against a coach or an authority figure when they were well into adulthood. Here is a book you may want to read, or just read this guy's story on the internet. This was a hockey coach, but we are all aware of the priests who have molested kids, especially little boys it seems.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/20 ... nesty.html