How UP’s anti-Romeo squads are harassing random men

Why are random men being trashed on streets by cops?

Recently, India’s largest state by population, Uttar Pradesh (UP), elected the conservative pro-Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) into power. They in turn appointed a man named Yogi Adityanath as the Chief Minister (CM). This is a state which feminists would describe as a stronghold of patriarchy. They would also describe the CM, Yogi Adityanath, as a bigot and a misogynist. He is an actual member of a Hindu religious order. He is also known for writing essays criticizing Islam, western feminism and supporting Hindu supremacy. In a particular essay titled “Matrushakti: Bharatiya Sanskruti ke Sandarbh mein” (translation: Women Power: In the context of Indian culture), he argued that women should be given equality lest they see themselves as downtrodden and turn to western feminism, destroying the traditional family values (page 3).One would imagine that his reign would bring nightmares to the women of UP. But instead, the first move he made as CM was address the issue of women’s safety by ordering the police to form anti-Romeo squads. This is a state with severe problems like overpopulation, pollution, unemployment, and basic sanitation. Now this supposed bigot and misogynist was making women’s safety his first priority. The feminists couldn’t believe it. They thought he had lost his mind.

The primary aim of these anti-Romeo squads is to patrol and check crimes against women, primarily cat-calling. Roadside-Romeo is an Indian euphemism for a cat-caller, while eve-teasing refers to cat-calling. In UP, these special police patrols planted themselves in and around places where young women frequent, such as university campuses, near schools, public parks, bazaars and malls. Sometimes members of these squads roam around in plainclothes to caught the cat-callers unaware.

The concept of anti-Romeo squads is not new in India, but for first time they’re acting under the directives from a CM. Sometimes when reports of crime against women increase in a district, the police may form such patrol groups. Sometimes citizens also form watch-groups with similar objectives. However, most of the time all these devolve into Taliban-style morality preaching squads. These are frequently used by conservative parents of girls to threaten boyfriends they don’t approve of. They are also used for petty revenge and extortion. The boys caught by them are usually booked under the anti eve-teasing law or IPC Section 509, under which only men can be charged. This law has been misused so much recently that it had a conviction rate of only 10% in 2015 according to the National Crime Records Bureau.

As expected, the anti-Romeo squads in UP have turned to moral policing. They have begun questioning couples hanging around in parks and malls. If found to be unmarried, the couples are subjected to a heavy dose of moral lecturing and quite often the boy is assaulted for leading the girl astray. The girls are usually let off which a warning as they are thought of incapable of any immorality.

The issue was taken to the state High Court which backed the squads and refused to accept what they were doing is moral policing. The feminists have begun protesting these squads. They argue that these squads are causing greater fear among women than cat-callers, as women can be pulled up for merely talking to a man.

However, it should be noted that these conservative squads fashion themselves as gallant rescuers of damsels in distress. The real victims are thus the men who are fined, assaulted and humiliated. The women are sometimes subjected to lectures and held until their parents pick them up, at worst.

In a particular incident, the squad tied up, kicked around and tonsured a 21-year-old man who gave a lift to his female classmate. His ordeal was captured and circulated online for its apparent hilarity by one of the cops. The girl was allowed to leave unmolested. The guy was then charged with illegal assembly of all things. One cannot have a cat-calling charge without a victim after all.

In another incident, 40 overenthusiastic cops raided a private resident only to catch a female student taking study notes from her tutor. They were taken to the police station where they were interrogated by the police to their satisfaction, following which they were released to their family members. The tutor would probably think twice before taking on a female student in the future. He was just trying make an honest living.

Another unbelievable incident occurred when a 18-year-old boy was caught when he was accompanying his female cousin to a shop. They were held at a police station until their relatives arrived. The boy was made to pay a INR 5000 (USD 77) bride to avoid charges. They managed to film the exchange and had to approach a state assembly-man to seek justice.

It is possible that these squads may have prevented some cat-calling, possibly even some cases of rape and schoolgirl grooming. But the question is, is it worth living in a state of constant terror. Everyday police blatantly pick up random boys for hovering around schools, colleges, cigarette stalls, betel shops and even pastry shops for “questioning”. A boy who was similarly harassed told The Times of India, “For them, any young boy in public on a bike is a ‘majnu’ (Romeo).” A father whose son was picked up said, “It is not the police’s job to decide where boys can stand and where they cannot. My son is 19, and is an adult. It makes no sense to call up his father to say that his son is loitering around.” Everyday people keep posting new videos and pictures of young men begin mocked, humiliated and being handed corporal punishment in public. (Although the government has prohibited cruel and humiliating punishments in public, they continue to be reported.)

From all of this, one comes away with impression that this so-called patriarchal government wants to protect women so much that every single man is a potential rapist. Now, more conservative states are copying these so-called crime prevention tactics. Today, Haryana launched a similar program under the name “Operation Durga” (named after the Hindu goddess of war). Under the ongoing scenario, it is prudent for young men to avoid women, even their own relatives, in public for their own safety. They should also refuse to give lift or tell directions to female strangers. This should also serve as an eye-opening to anyone who thinks conservative political parties are pro-men and anti-feminist. They are gynocentric like all the left-wing parties, but have a different way of expressing it.

Man complains to waitress about roaches, gets slapped and charged with sexual harassment

On 25 March 2017, a video clip went viral in India. The video was taken inside a Cafe Coffee Day outlet in Jaipur. Cafe Coffee Day is a large chain of cafes in India. The video shows an ice cream freezer and a male voice could be heard saying that the freezer contains cockroaches and the staff had placed menus on the glass-top to hide it. Then the camera points at a female staffer who is also seen filming with a phone. The male voice says that this particular staff member had shouted at him and told him to stop complaining. At this point, the female staffer rushes towards the camera and the resounding sound of a slap is heard. She could be heard saying, “Why did you take my picture?”

The video was shared and reshared several times on the social media. People complained about the overpriced beverages served at Cafe Coffee Day and their unhygienic cafes. Several vowed that they would boycott the company. Soon mainstream media picked up the story. After the issue was forced into the spotlight, the company responded with the following statement:

“This incident has been brought to our notice and is currently under thorough investigation. The lady team member referred here hails from rural Orissa and is part of the programme run by NGO Gram Tarang to uplift weaker sections of society and girl child specially. She underwent rigorous training on joining us to become a team member and was posted in Jaipur. As per lady team member, she had objected to her video being taken by the customer and her repeated requests were also not heard, thus invading her privacy. Till the time thorough investigation is being done, lady team member has been kept off duty.”

The statement is quite sly because of two reasons. First the company tries to shift the focus from how unhygienic its outlets are to how its social welfare programmes are benefiting the society. Then instead of apologizing of the aggrieved customer, they accuse him of violating the waitress’s privacy. Given the current public sensitivity towards crimes against women in India, this is a very clever attempt to put the ball in their court.

Soon afterwards it was reported that the woman had filed a sexual harassment complaint against the man. In the complaint, she claimed that the man and his friend had threatened to grope her and called her a bitch and a slut. Now the social media has split on the issue whether the woman was actually sexual harassed or not. The fact that there were roaches in the fridge and a man was assaulted has almost been forgotten. The man who is the victim in this case has now tweeted that companies’ lawyers are bullying him so that he would withdraw the cases. He has also tweeted to the Prime Minister’s Office’s Twitter handle requesting intervention in this case of blatant misuse of sexual harassment laws.

2017-03-31 18_26_08-CCD - Twitter Search

How an Indian law brands innocent young boys as sex offenders

Recently, it was reported that a 12 year-old boy from Kerala, India has been charged with sexual abuse after it was found that he had fathered a child with a 16-year-old girl. The birth had taken place in November 2016 but the police were waiting for a DNA report. It may seem obvious to most people that the boy was sexually exploited by the older girl and she got pregnant for not using protection. But the police decided to file a case against the boy under the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences (POSCO) Act, 2012. Here, a probable victim of sexual abuse is being labelled as the perpetrator. However, it is more common that when two teenagers have consensual sex, the boy is charged with statutory rape under this law.

The POSCO Act, 2012 was originally created to protect minors from sexual abuse. The original draft did not criminalize underage sex if both participants were consenting minors. But a Parliamentary Standing Committee changed it before it was tabled. Furthermore in 2013, after the much publicized New Delhi rape case and the panic that followed, the age of consent was raised to 18 from the previous 16. This also increased the number of cases being filed under POSCO Act against teen-aged boys. They were accused of statutory rape even when both participants were consenting.

In a mostly conservative country like India, frequently such cases filed by parents of the girl to protect their reputation. It is better for them that their daughter is seen as a rape victim as opposed to a fornicator. Such parents may pressurize their daughter to claim in the court that she had not consented. It such cases that burden of proof that he is innocent falls on the boy. In India, cases of elopement are also very common because parents do not permit inter-caste or inter-faith love affairs. In such cases, parents of girls frequently report their child as underage to the police so as to acquire their aid in finding their runaway child. When they find the couple, the man is thus charged with rape by the police.

In addition to the POSCO Act, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2014 says that a minor perpetrator of “adult crimes” like rape, murder, dacoity, kidnapping, drug trafficking and sedition should be tried as an adult. In the recent case, the boy will be presented before a Juvenile Justice Board for adjudication. Since he is 12, he will not be passed on to an adult court. But if he were 16-18, the Juvenile Justice Board may have sent him to an adult court to be tried as a sex offender. If convicted such a boy may end up in prison instead of a juvenile reform home.

A doctor handling the recent case has commented that the boy probably had undergone “precocious puberty” implying that a 12-year-old boy is too young to undergo puberty, basically contradicting most medical texts which say 12 is the age of puberty for boys. This shows that kind of hands in which the now surely traumatized boy is in.

Frequently activists hail the POSCO Act for being gender neutral as it protects both boys and girls, and both men and women can be charged under it. However, it is rarely implemented in that manner. Last year in July, a rare POSCO Act case was filed against a 26-year-old woman for having sex with a 17-year-old boy. The boy had met the woman on the internet and she had lured him to a hotel despite knowing that he was underage. It may have been an extortion scam, such occurrences are quite frequent in India. Later, she filed a rape case against him which the police accepted. But the police were also kind enough filed a rare statutory rape case against the woman too.

UK MP tries to make new domestic violence law gender neutral, but fails

man-couple-people-woman.jpg
Image source: Gratisography

On 24 Feburary 2017, UK MP Philip Davies spoke non-stop for 91 minutes in an attempt to turn a new domestic violence bill protecting only women into a gender neutral bill protecting both men and women. Despite all his appeals, the bill called Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence Bill 2016-17, was passed unchanged with 138 to one votes.

Philip Davies was the only MP who had objected to the bill’s sexist title. He wrote in an editorial that “it demonstrates how petrified MPs are at standing up to the increasingly extreme feminist agenda, which no longer seems to argue for equality and thinks it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against men.” The bill is based on the Istanbul Convention which itself is sexist towards men. Davies and another Tory MP David Nuttal had proposed 47 amendments to the bill to make it gender neutral. The anti-domestic violence bill was introduced by MP Anna Turley, who had advocated punching right-wing US journalist Milo Yiannopoulos in November 2016.

The incident was misreported by several news outlets and many accused Davies of trying to block a benign bill protecting women from domestic violence. Peter Walker writing for The Guardian described the incident as Davies trying to filibuster the bill. Yas Necati writing for The Independent said, “Philip Davies doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to women’s rights“. He also quoted statistics that one in four women experience in UK domestic violence, but didn’t provide any explanation on why he feels that men should be excluded from the protection of the bill.

Rape “victim” marries accused in prison

On 15 July 2016, a “victim” married the man accused of her rape in Bhubaneswar, India. Since the man is still under trial, the marriage took place inside the prison.

This sort of news is nothing unusual at this point. Increasingly we are seeing reports of women accusing their ex-boyfriends of rape. They claim that they were lured into a physical relation under the false promise of marriage. In India, consent obtained under false pretexts is not considered valid.

You see, although India is rapidly liberalizing, pre-marital sex is still a big deal here for many. So once a man has sex with a woman, many women would expect him to eventually propose. With arising awareness about India’s strict rape laws, many women are finding a convenient legal weapon to enforce this traditional expectation. Pro-men’s rights activist Deepika Narayan Bharadwaj has said, “Everyone is telling women about their legal rights today. It’s blaring out of television, radio, the Internet, advertisements, chat shows, everywhere. This has led to more use and misuse of the law.

It may be true that many men actually entice women into a physical relationship using false promises. But it also traps men in abusive relationships. The burden of proof that consent was obtained lies on the man, while a woman can retroactively withdraw consent after she is dumped.

Back to the woman who married her rapist, she was quoted as saying that she would withdraw the complaint as the man has now married her. The marriage took place with the approval of the additional district and sessions court, so it is unlikely that she will be held responsible for wasting public resources.

She was also quoted saying that she was optimistic about having “a smooth marital life”. I am sure she would, since now she holds the leash to her husband’s collar.

Indian government to stregthen marital rape laws

After a bit of flip-flop, the ruling BJP government has agreed to strengthen the laws criminalising marital rape. In this post, we will examine the legal and social aspects behind this controversy in brief.

Recently, there has been a lot of controversy regarding marital rape in India. The feminist and liberal groups have been demanding that it should be criminalised. The conservatives have been arguing it should not be criminalised.

Some people may get the impression that in India, husbands are allowed to rape their wives. But, it is untrue. The Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code can be used to prosecute marital rape. The Section 498A is typically used to try dowry harassment cases. But it is actually there protect women from “cruelty” from their husbands or his relatives. Here, the broadly-defined “cruelty” may refer to mental or physical cruelty. This, thus, includes marital rape.  Under this law, the maximum penalty is 3 years imprisonment and fine.

Another law, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, explicitly criminalises “physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse” of women. The judge under this law can even evict the man from the shared marital property (which usually means his own house). This law has a maximum penalty of 1 year imprisonment for violating court’s orders and fine. You may have noticed that both these laws protect women only and are not gender neutral. Both of these laws are frequently misused by educated women to threaten their husbands. However, many real victims of marital rape are simply not aware of these laws.

The current cause of controversy is around a particular clause of the rape law, Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. The Section 375 is the Indian law that defines rape. It has a maximum penalty of life and a minimum penalty of 7 years. But, it has an exception clause, that a husband cannot be tried under this law, as long as the wife is not a child bride under the age of 16. The feminist and liberal groups are demanding that this clause be removed and marital rape be brought at par with general rape. Some of them think that without this, women who are victims of marital rape, will otherwise have no legal recourse. This is untrue as I have already mentioned two laws addressing marital rape above. Thus,  the actual debate is not whether we should criminalise marital rape, but whether marital rape should be punished under the same law as stranger rape.

This exception clause dates back to the British era. In 1889, a 10-year-old girl called Phulmoni Dasi died after her adult husband had intercourse with her. The British set the minimum age of consent to 12. Thus, as long as a bride was above 12, it was not considered rape by the British.  The age of consent was later raised to 16. (Now, it is 18.)

In 2000, the Law Commission had not recommended criminalising marital rape. However, after the 2012 Delhi gang rape, this became a big issue of debate. The Justice Verma Committee in its report had recommended deleting the exception clause. (The Committee had also recommended making male rape illegal, but it was shot down by feminists.) The UPA government passed a stronger law against rape, however decided to leave marital rape laws untouched.

After the BJP government was elected in May 2014, these was little hope of rekindling the debate, as BJP draws a lot of supporters from conservative Hindus. Traditional Hindus view marriage as sacred and don’t like any laws changing its definition. In October 2014, the National Family Health Survey (NFHS) reported that 6,590 women in 100,000 were “forced them to have sexual intercourse against their will.” This is a frequently stated statistics on marital rape. (The women’s questionnaire used in the survey looked like this, see question no. 1107).

(I find it amusing that they call themselves the National Family Heath Survey, because they primarily interview women between the age of 15-49. In the 4th NFHS, 625,014 women were surveyed and only 93,065 men. The men’s questionnaire was loaded with questions like “When is a husband justified in hitting or beating his wife in?” or “What do you think a husband should do if a woman refuses to have sex with him?” So, you can forget about getting any data about male victims of  rape or domestic violence from them.)

In April 2015, BJP Minister of State for Home, Haribhai Parathibhai Chaudhary told the upper house Rajya Sabha that, “It is considered that the concept of marital rape, as understood internationally, cannot be suitably applied in the Indian context due to various factors, including level of education, illiteracy, poverty, myriad social customs and values, religious beliefs, the mindset of the society to treat the marriage as a sacrament.” This statement led to a lot of angry blog posts, tweets and opinion pieces.

In late April 2015, Preetika Rana writing for the Wall Street Journal trained her guns right at the ruling party with the article “Modi Government’s Reasons for Why Marital Rape is Not a Crime.” In May 2015, Hindustan Times published the article “When no is not an option: Marital rape denies right over her body” by Poulomi Banerjee which cited an UNFPA survey that “nearly one in five women interviewed spoke of having faced sexual violence from a partner in an intimate relationship”. (I couldn’t find the details of the methodology used in that survey.) In June 2015, an opinion piece titled “When even rape is legal” by one Kanika Sharma and Aashish Gupta appeared in The Hindu, which cited the above NFHS data.

In April 2016, Minister for Women Maneka Gandhi said the government was seriously considering criminalising marital rape. This is an interesting move, since in India, men cannot be raped by definition, and the MPs of this very government have blocked a bill to decriminalise same-sex acts, another British-era relic.

I would very be interested in how this law would be designed, as it would have to pander to both the feminist groups and BJP’s right-wing Hindu vote bank. It would probably give a lot of legal firepower to women, as many laws in recent years have (like the dowry laws, domestic laws and workplace harassment laws). These laws are usually designed to be too strict on men and lead to a lot of misuse by sly women. They usually don’t benefit the actual victims, as they are usually too uneducated to know about them. In many cases, the perpetrator is also equally uneducated, for the knowledge of the law to serve as a deterrent. In the end, most of these laws primarily end up as means of legal terrorism against educated men by educated women. There is now a strong need that such laws should be designed such as to prevent their misuse.

I will keep you updated on any news about this marital rape issue.

Jian Ghomeshi’s acquittal and the Twitter outrage

Recently, a Canadian radio personality Jian Ghomeshi was acquitted of sexual assault charges. Following the news, women (and some men) on Twitter accused the Canadian legal system of being anti-women and some even abused Ghomeshi’s lawyer, Marie Henein. In this post, I will explore the incidents in detail.

In October 2014, Jian Ghomeshi was fired from his job at CBC, where he used to host a show called Q. He had been with CBC for 12 years. The reason for his firing was that Toronto Star had been working on a story based on the allegations from three of his ex-girlfriends, that he had been violent with them without their consent. Some of the allegations dated back to 2002. After Ghomeshi was fired, the story was published. Ghomeshi maintained that although he liked rough sex, he had always done it after getting consent. He claimed that these were lies being spread by his jilted ex-girlfriends. By late October 2014, Toronto Star was claiming that at least 8 women had contacted it saying that they had been sexually abused by Ghomeshi. By 6 November 2014, magazines were digging up stories from his college days in the 1990s and claiming that “there had been foreshadowing for years in the circles in which Ghomeshi moved”. Of the 8 cases (15 according to some), three women came forward and filed complaints with the police.

The trial began in February 2016. Ghomesh was represented by noted defence lawyer, Marie Henein. The first woman said she met Ghomeshi at a Christmas party in 2002. She and Ghomeshi were kissing on a couch in his house, when suddenly he pulled her hair, pulled her to her knees, and then punched her on the head repeatedly. Ghomeshi’s layer, Henein, pointed out that the woman had sent a flirty email to Ghomeshi with a bikini picture, after the sexual assault had allegedly taken place. The email correspondence went up to a year after the supposed crime. The woman had previously testified that she had no contact with Ghomeshi after the sexual assault.

The second woman was a TV star, Lucy-Anne DeCoutere. She was the only woman who allowed her identify revealed to the press. She claimed that in July 2003, when she went to Ghomeshi’s house, he slapped her without warning and choked her until she couldn’t breathe. Marie Henein told the court of the flirty emails sent mere hours after the incident to Ghomesh. Henein also pointed out that DeCoutere had maintained contact with Ghomeshi for years after the incident, which included hand-written notes. DeCoutre said that the relationship was platonic and she did not like having negative feelings towards anyone. In 2005, she sent a picture of her fellating a beer bottle to Ghomeshi.

The third woman claimed that Ghomeshi had put his teeth on her and squeezed her neck which they were kissing on a park in 2003. In this case also, Heinen pointed that she had exchanged text messages with Ghomeshi following the incident. Marie Heinen’s smart dissection of the accussers’ statement inevitably brought the focus on her. Everything from her family background, former clients, her style of dressing and her law firm was discussed in the media. A female writer wrote an entire article about her high heels. Meanwhile, the prosecutor’s case, which was obviously full of holes, was falling apart.

On 24 March 2016, the judge declared Ghomeshi to be not guilty. The judge said that prosecutor had completely relied on the witnesses’ testimonies and had no other evidence, “There is no other evidence to look to determine the truth. There is no tangible evidence. There is no DNA. There is no ‘smoking gun’.” The judge also pointed to the inconsistencies in the testimonies. I seemed to me that even if the incidents had happened, women did not consider them a crime or serious enough to be reported at that time. But later, they changed their minds.

After the verdict, Ghomeshi’s sister Jila gave a statement, “We are relieved but not surprised by the court decision today. It can only be surprising to those who rushed to judgement before the trial had started and before a single word of evidence had been heard.”
topless
A group of activists arrived chanting “We believe survivors”. A topless activist with “Women declare Ghomeshi guilty” written on her body was arrested by the police.

Another case from a single complaint will go to trial in June 2016. Ghomeshi may or may not be held guilty in that one.

As soon as the news of the verdict was released, many Canadian women (and some men) on the Twitter were outraged. They proclaimed that despite the non-existence evidence, based on the shady testimonies alone, Ghomeshi should have been held guilty. Soon #Ghomeshi and #IBelieveSurvivors were trending on Twitter in Canada. In this post, I will examine some of the tweets that caught my attention.

Tweets claiming that the verdict will discourage victims from coming forward.

discourage

A lot of women were concerned less about the actual verdict and more concerned about the impact of the verdict. They were not interested in establishing the facts at all. If they had the means, they would have held Ghomeshi guilty, merely so as not to discourage future victims from coming forward. They perhaps believe that any man accused of sexual assault should held guilty, only so that future victims do not feel discouraged.

Tweets claiming that the Canadian justice system is broken.

broken
There were also a lot of tweets claiming that Ghomeshi was acquitted because the legal system of Canada is broken. I had trouble understanding what they meant by that. I also read some of the links shared by them, but they all talked about suggested reforms like free legal counsel for women and separate courts. Some of them argued that testifying in front of their attacker is traumatising for the victims. But none of them exactly explained how in this particular case, the “broken” justice system supposedly let Ghomeshi walk. Unless, the argument is that the accusers forgot that they emailed Ghomeshi for months, by the trauma of facing him in the court.

Tweets attacking the judge.
judges

There were also a lot tweets criticising the judge. Someone were offended by the words he used in the verdict, others argued that he should have upheld the flawed testimonies of the accusers. In an opinion piece in the Times Colonist, two women law professors wrote that they accepted the verdict due to the lack of evidence, but were offended by the words used. The verdict said, “is impossible for the court to have sufficient faith in the reliability or sincerity of these complainants.” The writers argued that judge should not have called them dishonest.

Tweets attacking Ghomeshi’s lawyer.
marie

There were a lot of vitriol filled comments towards Marie Henein. Some pointed out that she had previously defended Michael Byrant in a drunk driving and accidental death case. A lot of tweets however accused Marie Heinen of being a party to injustice and a betrayer of womankind. A blog claimed that it had found that the judge’s son was working with Heinen’s brother in some firm. Thus, there was a conflict of interest and the judge should have excused himself from sitting over the case.

Later in an interview, Heinen defended herself. She said that she found the tweets accusing her of betraying women to be distressing. She also said, “Hashtag I believe is not a legal principle, nor should it ever be.” In a speech at the Young Women in Law gala in Toronto, she said, “Throughout your career in this profession, you will be told what you should do, how you should act, which way you should bend. Do not listen to any of it. Do not be dissuaded by my experience. Do not for a moment be disheartened. I am not.”

Not all tweets.

However, not all tweets were disheartening in this manner.
evidence

Some people were disappointed with the verdict but they still understood the importance of evidence.
badass.jpg
Not all tweets were hateful of Marie Henein either.

The bottomline is that when a man is accused of sexual assault, everyone will presume him to be guilty. The concept presumption of innocence simply disappears. Anyone remotely associated with him or defending him will be vilified. Canadian men (and men around the world) should try their best to avoid getting entangled in such cases.

I will also write about the next trial of Jian Ghomeshi. In the upcoming weeks, I will write about how the media and society views men accused of sex crimes. Until then, let’s be thankful that the judiciary system is not a democracy run by Twitter Feminists.