Most of the pros come from members of the judicial fraternity while the Toronto inner city feminist mob remains unconvinced.
So far, haven't seen much from the shrinks--either amateur or professional--on the probable psychological profiles of the people involved.
It was mentioned at some point during the proceedings that Ghomeshi obviously liked his sex rough. Nothing new there. Tom cats do it that way all the time. Lots of people like their sex rough too, possibly to make it more interesting.
Obviously, each of the three plaintiffs also liked it rough, or they wouldn't have tried for return bouts. Since none were offered, they each retreated into a petulant sulk that stewed on for years.
Since there was no mention of families in the media, apparently none of the participants in this little drama had the imagination or the resilience to go on and establish normal human relationships including spouses and families of their own.
So, what can we assume from this? Was the whole cast, including Ghomeshi, a group of basically dysfunctional individuals? And while the lawyers in this case are going to be handsomely remunerated--well deserved in Ghomeshi's lawyer's case--can our society afford to dump a petulant load of crap like this in the laps of the judiciary every time someone's delicate feelings are hurt?
It's not easy to imagine that our forefathers who structured our laws to make society work smoothly, worried much about hurt feelings.
Yet, in this case, the law worked just fine.
No comments:
Post a Comment