The ongoing trial of five members of the 2018 Canadian World Junior Hockey team is likely to be a watershed case in what constitutes consent and what constitutes sexual assault.
It is a particularly important case because the defendant, known as EM, then an awkward 20-year old university student, said and did some things that might have been construed as providing consent for the group sex that ensued. She was much the worse for alcohol, as were the young men, and admitted that she may have appeared permissive and compliant during the incident, even taking on the persona of a "porn star", but that she saw that as a kind of coping mechanism "just to get through" the ordeal. She has also testified that she tried to leave the room several times, sometimws in tears, but was persuaded, although not forced, to stay.
There is apparently even video evidence of her saying that "it was all consensual" and that she "enjoyed it", although it is still not clear whether the video will be allowed as evidence.
But throughout the extended incident, she says that "I felt like I had no control", and was on "autopilot", almost separated from her body. She did what she did because she felt like she had no choice. Plus, she was so inebriated that she says, "I don't recall how I was acting", and "I don't know exactly what what I was doing". She was not even entirely sure she could identify which men were involved, because they "all looked the same" to her, and she actively misidentified a couple of them.
EM has a whole load more cross-examination to go through, having her credibility questioned, and I really don't envy her. (Court proceedings ended early yesterday, after EM broke down in tears several times.) I'm also glad I'm not on the jury. But the outcome of the trial will create an important precedent on what consent really means, and how much latitude women should be allowed in how they express it (or don't).
No comments:
Post a Comment