Missing the mark: Why the post-Ghomeshi outrage makes little sense.

• Author: Izadi, Melody

Almost everyone has an opinion about one of the most followed trials in Canadian history. The Jian Ghomeshi trial left a trail of furious people in its path like an F5 tornado that veered off course. Many of those who are angry about the Ghomeshi trial allege that there was an injustice--that the Ghomeshi trial is proof that rape myths still run rampant in our court system. However, those who opine that "women's rights" have been trampled by this case are not only wrong, but also seem to have a narrow, uninformed view of the outcome. This problematic viewpoint that many Canadians share has spread across the country like a viral outbreak, and has infected the Canadian population with poor judgment.

The result of each cross-examination of the complainants in the Ghomeshi trial led to a public outcry for sexual assault case reform, and defence counsel Marie Henein was demonized for discrediting the complainants. A popular opinion seems to be that a complainant's word should, absent crossexamination and any resulting damage, be enough for a conviction. Because, as the nay sayers argue, a decimating cross-examination in a sex assault case undermines "women's rights" and causes irreparable harm.

What the public lacks, it seems, is an understanding of the term "credibility" in a court of law. It's quite clear in his reasons for judgment that Justice Horkins found Ghomeshi not guilty not because the complainants were women, or because there was no direct evidence, or because he is a rape myth supporter, but because each of the complainants showed a serious lack of honesty and candour in their testimony at trial. If Canadians are in support of a system of justice that can convict people based on testimony from witnesses who have been clearly shown to withhold information (and outright lie), then what is the point of having an adversarial system of justice at all? Why even have a trial? Why not skip the whole thing and convict people after statements are given to police?

What these angry Canadians should be considering is what damage has been done to "women's rights" when three complainants come forward to report an historically under-reported crime, and choose to do so without being forthcoming or honest. The damage to the credibility of the three complainants was not done by fancy lawyer tricks, and Mr. Ghomeshi was not found not guilty because of a "technicality." Rather, the women were found to have lied about things that were at the very core of...