Gut-wrenching testimony from the victim, EM. It's graphic and awful, but I strongly believe cases like this should be mandatory reading in high school and on sports teams. Subtler (for lack of a...
Gut-wrenching testimony from the victim, EM.
It's graphic and awful, but I strongly believe cases like this should be mandatory reading in high school and on sports teams. Subtler (for lack of a better word) breaches of consent are maybe even more important to study. This excellent NYT article lays out a bunch: 45 Stories of Sex and Consent on Campus.
More generally, there needs to be WAY more awareness around the freeze/fawn response and consent. A lot of people (including a lot of men) have a hard time telling people no, even in everyday life. Now add being naked and alone in a room with someone who is likely a lot stronger than you are, and you're almost assuredly not going to get a loud, defiant "NO!" from a woman who falls into the freeze/fawn response.
I know a lot of guys worry they'll look unconfident and needy if they're "constantly asking for permission" in the bedroom instead of just "taking charge", but that's a worn-out narrative.
Taking things slow and double-/triple-checking that your partner is okay to proceed to sex isn't just the ethical thing to do: it IS the ultimate form of confidence.
For one thing, drawing out the tension is a classic bit of foreplay. But more importantly, double-checking shows that you care more about your partner and your values than a bit of physical pleasure. It's the ultimate expression of strength and non-neediness. ("I'm not down to have sex with someone who isn't 100% down to have sex with me. If you're not into this, that's okay: I will be fine either way"). You're not going to turn off someone who is genuinely enthusiastic.
Ive been reading the updates and I have a really hard time seeing how the prosecutor's going to get a conviction for several reasons: a) The woman had 9 drinks before going to the room. No one...
Ive been reading the updates and I have a really hard time seeing how the prosecutor's going to get a conviction for several reasons:
a) The woman had 9 drinks before going to the room. No one forced her to drink that much and in my opinion her actions following that are her responsibility including her bad decision to cheat on her boyfriend and have sex with someone she just met at the bar. I honestly dont understand people who dont think that purposely choosing to overindulge in a drug that she KNEW increases recklessness, reduces impulse control, and makes it difficult to consider consequences doesn't leave her with some responsibility. She said it wasnt unusual for her to drink that much at the bar - she knew what it would do to her. Does that mean she should be assaulted by multiple men? No, of course not. But it does mean that she has to bear some responsibility for putting herself in harm's way. You cant jump in front of a speeding bus and say "well I didnt know it was going to hurt me" when you've already jumped in front of a bus before.
b) The Crown has played the two consent videos, in which the woman says, “I’m OK with this” and “It was all consensual. I enjoyed it. I’m so sober" but she says she doesn’t remember either of the videos being recorded. The second comment was made when everyone had left the room except the guy she originally went up to the room with. I can understand someone saying she was too scared to get out of the room as the assaults were happening but why would she explicitly say she was 'fine' with it and that she enjoyed it?
Im not arguing that what happened to her was in any way less than horrible. Im just not seeing how the prosecution is going to convict based on her very bad decisions and the consent video.
Regarding point#1, the alcohol doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the group sex was rape. People still need to get consent from you if you're drunk (technically it's impossible to get...
Regarding point#1, the alcohol doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the group sex was rape. People still need to get consent from you if you're drunk (technically it's impossible to get consent from someone who is drunk beyond a certain threshold, but I believe the Crown has said that's not relevant in this case).
EM also says she did consent to have 1-on-1 sex with McLeod and she has taken responsibility for cheating on her boyfriend by doing so. But anything beyond that was, by her testimony, not her choice.
According to EM, McLeod turned the night from a consensual 1-on-1 sexual encounter into a non-consensual group sex humiliation/degradation episode. Drunk or sober, doesn't matter: McLeod and all the other participants needed consent to do that.
You're right that the case is complicated because EM has said some confusing things in her present testimony (e.g. "The negative emotions “didn’t hit me until the end,” E.M. tells Savard") and in the past (e.g. "She also told the female detective in 2018 she was probably OK “in that minute,” while making those "consent videos", and it was how the men treated her afterwards, kicking her out of the room, that made her angry and upset") but the alcohol is a non-factor.
If the group didn't get consent, they committed rape.
Agreed, though, that there's likely not going to be a conviction.
The alcohol mostly explains why she wouldn't remember making the videos and could be prompted into saying things regardless of whether she meant them. I agree however it has zero relationship to...
The alcohol mostly explains why she wouldn't remember making the videos and could be prompted into saying things regardless of whether she meant them.
I agree however it has zero relationship to culpability. I don't care how "vulnerable" someone makes themselves, the person can be naked on the floor unconscious. Don't. Touch. Them.
The only way making yourself vulnerable would somehow add culpability is if you assume that the violation is inevitable.
Gut-wrenching testimony from the victim, EM.
It's graphic and awful, but I strongly believe cases like this should be mandatory reading in high school and on sports teams. Subtler (for lack of a better word) breaches of consent are maybe even more important to study. This excellent NYT article lays out a bunch: 45 Stories of Sex and Consent on Campus.
More generally, there needs to be WAY more awareness around the freeze/fawn response and consent. A lot of people (including a lot of men) have a hard time telling people no, even in everyday life. Now add being naked and alone in a room with someone who is likely a lot stronger than you are, and you're almost assuredly not going to get a loud, defiant "NO!" from a woman who falls into the freeze/fawn response.
I know a lot of guys worry they'll look unconfident and needy if they're "constantly asking for permission" in the bedroom instead of just "taking charge", but that's a worn-out narrative.
Taking things slow and double-/triple-checking that your partner is okay to proceed to sex isn't just the ethical thing to do: it IS the ultimate form of confidence.
For one thing, drawing out the tension is a classic bit of foreplay. But more importantly, double-checking shows that you care more about your partner and your values than a bit of physical pleasure. It's the ultimate expression of strength and non-neediness. ("I'm not down to have sex with someone who isn't 100% down to have sex with me. If you're not into this, that's okay: I will be fine either way"). You're not going to turn off someone who is genuinely enthusiastic.
TRIGGER WARNING: graphic descriptions of sexual assault.
https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/2025/05/06/lawyers-for-members-of-canadas-2018-world-juniors-team-suggest-assault-accuser-wanted-wild-night
Christ
Ive been reading the updates and I have a really hard time seeing how the prosecutor's going to get a conviction for several reasons:
a) The woman had 9 drinks before going to the room. No one forced her to drink that much and in my opinion her actions following that are her responsibility including her bad decision to cheat on her boyfriend and have sex with someone she just met at the bar. I honestly dont understand people who dont think that purposely choosing to overindulge in a drug that she KNEW increases recklessness, reduces impulse control, and makes it difficult to consider consequences doesn't leave her with some responsibility. She said it wasnt unusual for her to drink that much at the bar - she knew what it would do to her. Does that mean she should be assaulted by multiple men? No, of course not. But it does mean that she has to bear some responsibility for putting herself in harm's way. You cant jump in front of a speeding bus and say "well I didnt know it was going to hurt me" when you've already jumped in front of a bus before.
b) The Crown has played the two consent videos, in which the woman says, “I’m OK with this” and “It was all consensual. I enjoyed it. I’m so sober" but she says she doesn’t remember either of the videos being recorded. The second comment was made when everyone had left the room except the guy she originally went up to the room with. I can understand someone saying she was too scared to get out of the room as the assaults were happening but why would she explicitly say she was 'fine' with it and that she enjoyed it?
Im not arguing that what happened to her was in any way less than horrible. Im just not seeing how the prosecution is going to convict based on her very bad decisions and the consent video.
Regarding point#1, the alcohol doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the group sex was rape. People still need to get consent from you if you're drunk (technically it's impossible to get consent from someone who is drunk beyond a certain threshold, but I believe the Crown has said that's not relevant in this case).
EM also says she did consent to have 1-on-1 sex with McLeod and she has taken responsibility for cheating on her boyfriend by doing so. But anything beyond that was, by her testimony, not her choice.
According to EM, McLeod turned the night from a consensual 1-on-1 sexual encounter into a non-consensual group sex humiliation/degradation episode. Drunk or sober, doesn't matter: McLeod and all the other participants needed consent to do that.
You're right that the case is complicated because EM has said some confusing things in her present testimony (e.g. "The negative emotions “didn’t hit me until the end,” E.M. tells Savard") and in the past (e.g. "She also told the female detective in 2018 she was probably OK “in that minute,” while making those "consent videos", and it was how the men treated her afterwards, kicking her out of the room, that made her angry and upset") but the alcohol is a non-factor.
If the group didn't get consent, they committed rape.
Agreed, though, that there's likely not going to be a conviction.
The alcohol mostly explains why she wouldn't remember making the videos and could be prompted into saying things regardless of whether she meant them.
I agree however it has zero relationship to culpability. I don't care how "vulnerable" someone makes themselves, the person can be naked on the floor unconscious. Don't. Touch. Them.
The only way making yourself vulnerable would somehow add culpability is if you assume that the violation is inevitable.