Just so you know I appreciate the time you took to write this and will respond when I get home (phone isn't ideal for addressing that many points).

The article argues that the courts aren't protecting women. That is an assertion about the legal system and the law. It advocates 'cutting people off' in their private opportunities when the courts dont convict or there isnt enough evidence to bring charges. I discussed that above.

Looking at the piece from an angle you don't like or asking people about questions that I think are begged by the post and/or other comments is not derailing. I don't see how anything I've said is outside of the usual spirit of discussion on this site.

I read the article. I regularly follow developments in criminal law and am familiar with the details of the Jian Ghomeshi case and background on his career with the CBC.

The point I'm making is plenty valid. People often advocate changing the law or, as in this article, social practices in the wake of acquittals of this nature thinking they'll finally get the Ghomeshis, or Cosbys, or Roethlisbergers (or whichever other celebrity accused of using social status to victimize people). I think that's understandable but ultimately misguided.

I think the fact that you were so quick to make that assumption as opposed to engaging substantively only illustrates my point. It's an emotional topic but that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to deal with it rationally.

Without getting into the question of actual innocence, and assuming that the burden for convicting someone of rape could be lowered without inflicting a mortal wound on due process generally (which in itself is naive), what makes you so sure that it'd be the powerful who would be punished? More likely the fallout would be along familiar lines of class and race.

I can't speak to your anecdote but to the extent prioritization of violent felonies can take a backseat to more easily resolved vice cases then we aren't in any disagreement. The incentives should be on successful investigation and prosecution of violent crime and property crimes as opposed to just number of convictions. Still the state almost always has a major advantage in plea bargaining due to harsh sentencing guidelines. The government has more than sufficient capability of convicting and incarceration people.

I guess I'm not really understanding. Are you suggesting people should have their employment restricted because of gossip?

I can see how a victim of a violent crime would want to avoid the assailant but until there's proof a crime even occurred it's all just question begging. That isn't favoring the accused over the accuser it's favoring a requirement that facts are established before someone is sanctioned.

No disagreement from me on any of that and I have no objection to increased resources to support victims of crime which are removed from the criminal justice system.

I do think we have to be careful about the idea that we can treat presumption of innocence as merely a burden of proof issue at trial. The article seems to argue that an accusation should be sufficient to make someone a social pariah regardless of evidence or investigation. I disagree with the apparent presumption that such an approach can be separated from the justice system, which is itself inherently political. The idea that juries are impartial or above outside influence is a legal fiction.

So... the state should punish when there isn't sufficient evidence to support conviction...? And when there is substantial evidence suggesting collusion between the accusers? Is that only for rape accusations or does it go for other crimes too?

I don't understand where this idea that you can't get a conviction for a sex crime comes from. When those guilty of heinous crimes go free it's unfortunate but I find the idea that a lot of violent felons are being acquitted in the age of mass incarceration to be baffling.

In short, culture Trumps religion.

There's a website dedicated specifically to that issue (http://photographyisnotacrime.com).

Even assuming the individual was rude or committed some minor infraction that doesn't make resorting to a use of force acceptable. We need to have higher expectations of public servants. There shouldn't be anything controversial about the idea that people shouldn't risk being thrown around during routine interactions with law enforcement.

Our culture rewards self-righteousness and technology has given us a world where expressing it to an enormous audience is easier than peeling an orange (or taking a pre-peeled one out of a container).

Obviously Kos can do what they want but I do wonder if people/publications with that attitude ever stop to ponder their own roles in the rightward drift of the parameters of what is considered legitimate debate over the last 30-40 years. Yes there are some important exceptions like rights for homosexuals but you never see the Republicans bent on knee capping their right flanks the same way centrist Democrats seem to be towards the left.

The extremes define the center and I think a big part of the reason there is minimal difference between the parties on such a broad range of issues is because centrist Democrats are willing to keep chasing a middle ground defined by conservatives. The only real brake on it is when elements of the right flirt with ideas that became offensive to most people's sensibilities after the 60's (like overt expressions of racism).

I have no opposition to that type of conduct remaining criminal and the organizations that run it being shut down. Imperfect but probably the best we can do.

I've always thought this response (Sweden's) was in itself sexist. It rests on Victorian notions of women as helpless victims who wouldn't sell their virtue but for desperate circumstances and/or coercion and men as inherently sexually aggressive and predatory. The better solution is a safety net combined with regulation sufficient to keep the transaction a free choice for the participants not more criminalization and entrenching backwards ideas about female sexuality.

You're exactly right and it's why Trump will continue to surprise the media and those with at minimum upper middle class sensibilities. Trump's rhetoric is ugly and his policy agenda is incoherent. What his critics fail to do is try to think about how the world looks from the perspective of a white, blue collar male without higher education in a globalized economy. He's giving a voice to people who perceive themselves as the losers in the future United States.

Interestingly I think the only other campaign that has an answer for those voters is Sanders but there may be a cultural divide that can't be bridged.

Regarding E3 I do find the destruction and corporatization of colleges and the surrounding towns to be a sad phenomenon. My alma mater (UMD) never had what I'd call a great college town (being tucked inside the beltway in DC sprawl limits it) but over the last 10 years its rapidly changed from greasy diners and dive student bars to squeaky clean private high rise housing and chain restaurants.

I never thought I'd be such an old man in my 30s but whatever happened to living in a shitty rented room, trying to make rent while studying and drinking swill? No wonder kids today can't adult without a safe space.

I've read that as well and wonder if this might not still have ended in acquittal but for that information. At the very least the sentence wouldn't have been as harsh.

Correction he was from the US Virgin Islands.

I've been following this case from the beginning. Without knowing the minds of the jurors it's impossible to rule out any type of racism in the conviction but I don't see any evidence to support it.

I think that the optics on this one didn't sufficiently meet a mainstream political narrative (hence the relative quiet by the media). The shoot was unintentional, the victim was an African immigrant, the officer is Asian, and most importantly from the NYPD's perspective, the case didn't really implicate LEO self-defense/use of force (at least not the way the killings of Eric Garner and Michael Brown did).

My opinion is that Officer Leong's biggest error wasnt being Chinese. It was meeting the 'one bad apple'/'one incompetent officer' narrative that the police have long been comfortable with. If Leong was a sacrificial lamb (again, an assumption) then it's because his conviction did not threaten the broader lack of accountability police enjoy during interactions with the public, particularly regarding use of force during arrest.

I think the title of this post is slightly off. What the real question should be, is can an anti-discrimination law protect racial minorities or women if they aren't broad enough to protect everyone from discrimination based on the underlying immutable characteristics in play?

I would argue no. Constitutional concerns aside, there's simply no principled way to write adequate legislation and any attempt to do so would be inherently arbitrary and biased by the sensibilities of the authors. It's also a path towards endless identitarian acrimony as everyone fights for the state to provide them with special protection. This is not a sensible approach to running a large, multicultural country. Further, I have the feeling that those who believe we should enshrine special causes of action for certain groups would not be thrilled with how that political battle played out in practice.

The outrage over the lawsuit has a similar smell to the illiberal liberalism flourishing in certain corners. It also fails to acknowledge the great good that broad laws of this nature has done for the marginalized. If the price of advancement is for the ladies at this gathering to have had to roll their eyes and let a couple of dudes into an event where women were still in full control of the operation and agenda then it seems like a bargain to me.

This coyness as you delicately put it is why I think it's so hard for people outside of Coates' fan base to take his arguments seriously. I haven't read him consistently for about 18 months, and maybe this is no longer true, but he has always seemed very reluctant to get in the weeds or engage outside of his own defined terms. I think his reparations essay is a great example of the former with something like his 'civil war was not tragic' series being the most prominent example of the latter.

To echo Kolohe above, that begs the question as to whether or not you agree with her goals. There is probably some overlap between her goals and Sanders' but from the perspective of her critics to the left there are meaningful differences in policy and approach to governance. Arguing that Clinton will be better at pushing an agenda that a Sanders supporter isn't really on board with in the first place doesn't strike me as persuasive to the intended audience (unless the audience is people who already agree with Chait).

I don't see any reason to believe that. The Republican party has been at war with her for 30 years. I guess she's used to the name calling but I don't see what kind of tactical advantage it gives her for passing legislation.

That's a fair question, but I also wonder if it's something that anyone can accurately predict at the primary stage (or ever). You could end up with a major protest or apathy factor on either side depending on the nominees. There are also always local issues in play that have nothing to do with the presidential election that could have an impact in a particular jurisdiction (of course the pundits will pretend they were fully aware of them the whole time after the fact).

Six months from now some major economic or international development could change the conversation in important ways that no one is factoring in yet.