# Does the judge have a point?



## Camper6 (Mar 10, 2017)

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ror-over-knees-together-remarks-in-rape-caseI 

Il know I'm going to get in trioible for this but here how's anyway and let the chips fall where they may'


----------



## Marie5656 (Mar 10, 2017)

Would he say that to his wife, daughter or granddaughter?


----------



## Shalimar (Mar 10, 2017)

No, he does not. Aside from the disgusting comments about the young lady adjusting her body, sex hurts sometimes et al, he also referred to the plaintiff several times as the accused. Totally prejudicial. I won't even get into the other aspects of the case. He is a disgrace to a noble profession. His peers agree. Good riddance to bad rubbish.


----------



## RadishRose (Mar 10, 2017)

The judge not only has no point, he has no brain.


----------



## Falcon (Mar 10, 2017)

What a bunch of BS !   He claims he wasn't familiar with all of the aspects of rape.  DUH !

He should be disbarred and never allowed to "practice" law again.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Mar 10, 2017)

I saw an update on this that indicated the Judge has resigned. 

IMO he should not have had that option, the man should have been removed from the bench.


----------



## Camper6 (Mar 10, 2017)

Would you believe the defendant in this case was acquitted?  Twice.


----------



## Shalimar (Mar 10, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Would you believe the defendant in this case was acquitted?  Twice.


It boggles my mind.


----------



## grahamg (Mar 10, 2017)

*I think he was wrong too but there may be more to it*



Aunt Bea said:


> I saw an update on this that indicated the Judge has resigned.
> 
> IMO he should not have had that option, the man should have been removed from the bench.




I think the judge sounds like he was in the wrong too, and of course rape is a complete no no for any right thinking person though attitudes towards sex generally by some in society, where folks try to tell me the number of ****** partners you might have has nothing to do with morality, is unsettling too. If people are behaving in a manner that once upon a time might have been considered irresponsible, as well as immoral, then it gets harder to legislate I'd have thought. 

This isn't a defence for the judge who has stepped down but if you read the whole article the accused was acquitted at retrial which would indicate that there was more to the case being reported on that you can gather in a news report. Also, as far as the judge resigning, it does say that by doing so he foregoes any pension entitlements doesn't it, which would have applied had he been sacked, so maybe it was the right result afterall.


----------



## Camper6 (Mar 10, 2017)

grahamg said:


> I think the judge sounds like he was in the wrong too, and of course rape is a complete no no for any right thinking person though attitudes towards sex generally by some in society, where folks try to tell me the number of ****** partners you might have has nothing to do with morality, is unsettling too. If people are behaving in a manner that once upon a time might have been considered irresponsible, as well as immoral, then it gets harder to legislate I'd have thought.
> 
> This isn't a defence for the judge who has stepped down but if you read the whole article the accused was acquitted at retrial which would indicate that there was more to the case being reported on that you can gather in a news report. Also, as far as the judge resigning, it does say that by doing so he foregoes any pension entitlements doesn't it, which would have applied had he been sacked, so maybe it was the right result afterall.



I don't think it's exactly right or automatic that if a person has sex and regrets it the next day that it's rape.  

There has to be evidence of some sort and I guess in this case the evidence wasn't there.


----------



## Butterfly (Mar 10, 2017)

Whether or not there was evidence, and regardless of the outcome of any second trial, that judge was *WAY* out of line in saying what he did from the bench.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Mar 10, 2017)

Butterfly said:


> Whether or not there was evidence, and regardless of the outcome of any second trial, that judge was *WAY* out of line in saying what he did from the bench.



Amen!!!


----------



## Camper6 (Mar 10, 2017)

Butterfly said:


> Whether or not there was evidence, and regardless of the outcome of any second trial, that judge was *WAY* out of line in saying what he did from the bench.


Obviously. But he did have a point .


----------



## grahamg (Mar 10, 2017)

*Trial by media the end of justice*



Butterfly said:


> Whether or not there was evidence, and regardless of the outcome of any second trial, that judge was *WAY* out of line in saying what he did from the bench.



According to Mrs Thatcher back in the 1980s, "trial by media means the end of justice" or words to that effect.


We all appear to agree the judge was sufficiently "way out of line", including the man himself from the report given in the media account of his examination by other law makers, when he tried to apologise for his behaviour.


----------



## Eric (Mar 10, 2017)

Butterfly said:


> Whether or not there was evidence, and regardless of the outcome of any second trial, that judge was *WAY* out of line in saying what he did from the bench.


That judge is a jerk and he has no point at all keep her knees closed and sometimes sex and pain go together? That guy has a loose screw and should have been booted out of his job before he could even save face and resign.


----------



## Shalimar (Mar 10, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Obviously. But he did have a point .


What point would that be?


----------



## Shalimar (Mar 10, 2017)

grahamg said:


> I think the judge sounds like he was in the wrong too, and of course rape is a complete no no for any right thinking person though attitudes towards sex generally by some in society, where folks try to tell me the number of ****** partners you might have has nothing to do with morality, is unsettling too. If people are behaving in a manner that once upon a time might have been considered irresponsible, as well as immoral, then it gets harder to legislate I'd have thought.
> 
> This isn't a defence for the judge who has stepped down but if you read the whole article the accused was acquitted at retrial which would indicate that there was more to the case being reported on that you can gather in a news report. Also, as far as the judge resigning, it does say that by doing so he foregoes any pension entitlements doesn't it, which would have applied had he been sacked, so maybe it was the right result afterall.




I am very uncomfortable in assigning labels of questionable morality as they pertain to women, in particular, since there still exists a huge double standard in the minds of many.  As for the accused being acquitted, less than ten percent of rape trials 

in Canada result in guilty verdicts. It is so bad, that many women believe it is better to fight back in a rape situation simply for the sake of the credibility which physical damage brings. I know I would. Also, it is helpful to remember, rape is about power, not sex.


----------



## grahamg (Mar 10, 2017)

*Lets agree on rape cases*



Shalimar said:


> I am very uncomfortable in assigning labels of questionable morality as they pertain to women, in particular, since there still exists a huge double standard in the minds of many.  As for the accused being acquitted, less than ten percent of rape trials
> 
> in Canada result in guilty verdicts. It is so bad, that many women believe it is better to fight back in a rape situation simply for the sake of the credibility which physical damage brings. I know I would. Also, it is helpful to remember, rape is about power, not sex.




My desire to avoid defending anyone guilty of rape I hope is as strong as yours, it is an anathema to me.

Unfortunately I've met at least one woman who said something about being "raped" and yet if she had been it would have been an unrecognisable case compared to any sensible understanding of the word, the "rape" which we all abbor. The sketchy details she gave were along the lines of the man concerned was a fairly longterm boyfriend, no violence and as Camper6 said, she was one of those who decided next morning it wasn't consensual - from what I could tell there were no psychological scars and both of them may have been high on drugs at the time - sort that one out in a court, if you were the judge and it came before you. 

The words "child abuse" can nowadays be twisted to mean "whatever a judge may consider not in the child's best interests" - a moveable feast if ever there was one, where almost any parent might be found guilty at some time in their lives, and in my opinion continually widening the interpretation removes attention from the terrrible abuse cases we'd all wish to see prevented.     

False allegations are I suspect why so many rape cases fall apart but no one should be prepared to accept either situation at face value. The man claiming he is being falsely accused, as I guess all rapist do, and then the women prepared to make false allegations, both situations cannot be accepted without thorough examination in court. I've never been accused of either child abuse or rape (not having ever done either of these terrible things helps obviously, but my ex. and other girlfriends were all basically honest, decent people who wouldn't stoop to false accusations). Nonetheless I have had other false allegations levelled at me (never leading to a court l am glad to say) but I do therefore know how happy to lie some people can be when it suits their interests, and I've discovered these people have made false allegations before against others they've sought to undermine. Lying to the police, an offence in itself, came easy to them and has not lead to any repercussions either, when their lies have been uncovered by the police - doesn't this encourage the belief lying is the way to manipulate the legal system.

Finally I suspect my earlier comments about people concerning:  "attitudes towards sex generally by some in society, where folks try to tell me the number of ****** partners you might have has nothing to do with morality" is creating a problem for society. How do you regulate for a world where almost anything is said to go or be okay (BTW I believe in reality most people do still frown on those prepared to be so promiscuous)?


----------



## Butterfly (Mar 11, 2017)

Considering the amount of humiliation, hassle and everything else rape victims go through prior and during trial, I would be greatly surprised if more than a very few make it up.  The truth of the matter is the cards are stacked against the victim from the time she reports the assault all way through trial, and it usually becomes a matter of his word against her word.  In this case particularly, with the judge poisoning the jury by making the outrageous comments he did, IMHO there was little or no chance for a guilty verdict.  The story probably had enough publication  and interest that the same was probably true in any subsequent trial.

BTW, here, child abuse standards are not "made up" by judges, and have little to do with the child's "best interests," except in that it is of course in the child's best interest not to be starved, burned or live in utter squalor with drug addicts,  rules of evidence are strictly applied and each case has the right of appeal where the matter is strictly scrutinized by appellate attorneys and the appellate courts. Best interests is a concept that comes up in custody matters, not child abuse matters.


----------



## grahamg (Mar 11, 2017)

*Harm is different I agree*



Butterfly said:


> Considering the amount of humiliation, hassle and everything else rape victims go through prior and during trial, I would be greatly surprised if more than a very few make it up.  The truth of the matter is the cards are stacked against the victim from the time she reports the assault all way through trial, and it usually becomes a matter of his word against her word.  In this case particularly, with the judge poisoning the jury by making the outrageous comments he did, IMHO there was little or no chance for a guilty verdict.  The story probably had enough publication  and interest that the same was probably true in any subsequent trial.
> 
> BTW, here, child abuse standards are not "made up" by judges, and have little to do with the child's "best interests," except in that it is of course in the child's best interest not to be starved, burned or live in utter squalor with drug addicts,  rules of evidence are strictly applied and each case has the right of appeal where the matter is strictly scrutinized by appellate attorneys and the appellate courts. Best interests is a concept that comes up in custody matters, not child abuse matters.




We mustn't take this important thread off topic but very briefly I'm sure we agree that the question of "harm" to a child is very differnt to arguments about a child's best interests in custody matters. I brought the subject up simply as an example of how interpretations of "abuse" can become extended, so much so that I've seen it argued that anything done to a child that could be designated not in their interests is then somehow abuse (though not very forcibly I admit).

The other points I've made based upon my experience meeting someone who alluded to having been raped, on the scantist imaginable interpretation of the word, we maybe can't agree about. I would say though that if you were chosen at any time in the future to be a juror in a rape case, you would have to keep an open mind as to whether the man in front of you was guilty or not wouldn't you, or the whole process, and hence justice itself is subverted.


----------



## Camper6 (Mar 11, 2017)

Shalimar said:


> What point would that be?


The point that she didn't do enough to protect herself and it might have been consensual.

And the comment about pain?  Well bdsm is consensual isn't it?


----------



## Camper6 (Mar 11, 2017)

> > Butterfly said:
> >
> >
> > > Considering the amount of humiliation, hassle and everything else rape victims go through prior and during trial, I would be greatly surprised if more than a very few make it up.  The truth of the matter is the cards are stacked against the victim from the time she reports the assault all way through trial, and it usually becomes a matter of his word against her word.  In this case particularly, with the judge poisoning the jury by making the outrageous comments he did, IMHO there was little or no chance for a guilty verdict.  The story probably had enough publication  and interest that the same was probably true in any subsequent trial.
> ...


----------



## Camper6 (Mar 11, 2017)

grahamg said:


> We mustn't take this important thread off topic but very briefly I'm sure we agree that the question of "harm" to a child is very differnt to arguments about a child's best interests in custody matters. I brought the subject up simply as an example of how interpretations of "abuse" can become extended, so much so that I've seen it argued that anything done to a child that could be designated not in their interests is then somehow abuse (though not very forcibly I admit).
> 
> The other points I've made based upon my experience meeting someone who alluded to having been raped, on the scantist imaginable interpretation of the word, we maybe can't agree about. I would say though that if you were chosen at any time in the future to be a juror in a rape case, you would have to keep an open mind as to whether the man in front of you was guilty or not wouldn't you, or the whole process, and hence justice itself is subverted.


_
Good post.  Especially when you have had personal experience._


----------



## Camper6 (Mar 11, 2017)

Marie5656 said:


> Would he say that to his wife, daughter or granddaughter?



Being the blunt type of guy that he is?  Definitely he would say that.

Re finding yourself.  Has no one ever said to you 'oh there you are'?

I always say thanks.  I never knew where I was till you told me.


----------



## Shalimar (Mar 11, 2017)

Butterfly said:


> Considering the amount of humiliation, hassle and everything else rape victims go through prior and during trial, I would be greatly surprised if more than a very few make it up.  The truth of the matter is the cards are stacked against the victim from the time she reports the assault all way through trial, and it usually becomes a matter of his word against her word.  In this case particularly, with the judge poisoning the jury by making the outrageous comments he did, IMHO there was little or no chance for a guilty verdict.  The story probably had enough publication  and interest that the same was probably true in any subsequent trial.
> 
> BTW, here, child abuse standards are not "made up" by judges, and have little to do with the child's "best interests," except in that it is of course in the child's best interest not to be starved, burned or live in utter squalor with drug addicts,  rules of evidence are strictly applied and each case has the right of appeal where the matter is strictly scrutinized by appellate attorneys and the appellate courts. Best interests is a concept that comes up in custody matters, not child abuse matters.


Qft.


----------



## Shalimar (Mar 11, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> The point that she didn't do enough to protect herself and it might have been consensual.
> 
> And the comment about pain?  Well bdsm is consensual isn't it?


The onus is not on the woman to protect herself. BDSM? Where is there any reasonable evidence of that?


----------



## Camper6 (Mar 11, 2017)

Shalimar said:


> The onus is not on the woman to protect herself. BDSM? Where is there any reasonable evidence of that?



We don't have the transcript of the trial.  The judge mention pain going along with sex.


----------



## Camper6 (Mar 11, 2017)

Shalimar said:


> The onus is not on the woman to protect herself. BDSM? Where is there any reasonable evidence of that?



Oh I think the onus is on the woman to protect herself.  For example.  You get drunk and you are vulnerable.


----------



## grahamg (Mar 11, 2017)

*Now a female judge in the UK has stirred controversy*



Camper6 said:


> Oh I think the onus is on the woman to protect herself.  For example.  You get drunk and you are vulnerable.




Strangely enough another controversy has been stirred up by a UK judge called Judge Lindsey Kushner QC who said: "women were entitled to drink themselves into the ground but their disinhibited behaviour could put them in danger".

She has been condemned for her comments on the UK news channels and especially by a fairly famous lawyer called Dame Vera Baird (someone I'm familar with because of her defence of the child's best interests principle in family law during a House of Lords debate a few years ago). 

I think I agree with Dame Vera Baird that it should not be "the onus is on the woman to protect herself" because that leaves the worst types of predatory men in too strong a position legally. At the same time it is obviously true that women should seek to protect themselves, say by having good mates around to look after them, if they are going to get drunk (as so many do luckily).


----------



## Shalimar (Mar 11, 2017)

grahamg said:


> Strangely enough another controversy has been stirred up by a UK judge called Judge Lindsey Kushner QC who said: "women were entitled to drink themselves into the ground but their disinhibited behaviour could put them in danger".
> 
> She has been condemned for her comments on the UK news channels and especially by a fairly famous lawyer called Dame Vera Baird (someone I'm familar with because of her defence of the child's best interests principle in family law during a House of Lords debate a few years ago).
> 
> I think I agree with Dame Vera Baird that it should not be "the onus is on the woman to protect herself" because that leaves the worst types of predatory men in too strong a position legally. At the same time it is obviously true that women should seek to protect themselves, say by having good mates around to look after them, if they are going to get drunk (as so many do luckily).


Qft.


----------



## Shalimar (Mar 11, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> We don't have the transcript of the trial.  The judge mention pain going along with sex.


He has already been publicly discredited by his peers  for his inappropriate ****** remarks, among them, pain sometimes going along with sex. That reflected his personal bias. He stated in his own "defence," that he was unaware of all aspects of rape. If that is so, it also brings his professional competence into question.


----------



## grahamg (Mar 11, 2017)

*Do you want to expand on that?*



Shalimar said:


> Grahamg wrote:
> "Strangely enough another controversy has been stirred up by a UK judge called Judge Lindsey Kushner QC who said: "women were entitled to drink themselves into the ground but their disinhibited behaviour could put them in danger".
> 
> She has been condemned for her comments on the UK news channels and especially by a fairly famous lawyer called Dame Vera Baird (someone I'm familar with because of her defence of the child's best interests principle in family law during a House of Lords debate a few years ago).
> ...


#
Do you want to expand on that for those not so text savvy  ?


----------



## Camper6 (Mar 11, 2017)

Shalimar said:


> He has already been publicly discredited by his peers  for his inappropriate ****** remarks, among them, pain sometimes going along with sex. That reflected his personal bias. He stated in his own "defence," that he was unaware of all aspects of rape. If that is so, it also brings his professional competence into question.



We know that. But the defendant got off. In spite of his comments.


----------



## Shalimar (Mar 11, 2017)

grahamg said:


> #
> Do you want to expand on that for those not so text savvy  ?


Gladly, it means quoted for truth.


----------



## Butterfly (Mar 11, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> The point that she didn't do enough to protect herself and it might have been consensual.
> 
> And the comment about pain?  Well bdsm is consensual isn't it?



And what would "enough to protect herself" be?  Saying NO makes the act non-consensual.  Are you implying that a woman with a knife at her throat who doesn't "fight back" for that reason consents to sex?  Are you implying that a woman walking alone at night or who is wearing a short skirt "asks for it?"  Are you implying that a man has a right to force himself on a woman who is either too weak, too drunk, or too terrified to fight back?

Bdsm doesn't have anything to do with it -- we are talking about forcible rape here, not some other consensual sex practice.


----------



## Butterfly (Mar 11, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Oh I think the onus is on the woman to protect herself.  For example.  You get drunk and you are vulnerable.



Being vulnerable does not give a man a right to force himself upon the woman.  Neither morally nor under the law.


----------



## Camper6 (Mar 11, 2017)

Butterfly said:


> And what would "enough to protect herself" be?  Saying NO makes the act non-consensual.  Are you implying that a woman with a knife at her throat who doesn't "fight back" for that reason consents to sex?  Are you implying that a woman walking alone at night or who is wearing a short skirt "asks for it?"  Are you implying that a man has a right to force himself on a woman who is either too weak, too drunk, or too terrified to fight back?
> 
> Bdsm doesn't have anything to do with it -- we are talking about forcible rape here, not some other consensual sex practice.



I'm not implying anything. You are. 

Its apparent in this case the jury didn't believe her story.


----------



## Camper6 (Mar 11, 2017)

> Being vulnerable does not give a man a right to force himself upon the woman.  Neither morally nor under the law.



Its a question of whether it was consensual or not. If you are the one laying charges you better have some evidence to prove it.

Merely stating it doesn't cut it. I mean if you want to get so drunk that you don't know what you are doing then you have to live with it.


----------



## Camper6 (Mar 11, 2017)

The Canadian justice system is coming under scrutiny on how ****** assault cases are handled.



https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/world/canada/canada-judge-robin-camp-resigns.html?_r=0


----------



## aeron (Mar 12, 2017)

A rape is a violent attack. Faced with what could very well prove to be a fatal attack survival becomes the first priority. If a woman gets blind drunk that in no way validates her being abused.  She may have ended up in a state that endangers her but that endangerment does not equate to her willing or incidental  exploitation. 

If she had stuck to pot she would have had a very pleasant evening and nothing more other than the 'munchies'.


----------



## aeron (Mar 12, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Its a question of whether it was consensual or not. If you are the one laying charges you better have some evidence to prove it.
> 
> Merely stating it doesn't cut it. I mean if you want to get so drunk that you don't know what you are doing then you have to live with it.



Amazing. 

 So it's OK to rape a drunken woman?  

Not in my world. 

 What's more the onus should fall on the accused to prove he did not engage in nonconsenting sex, not on the accused to prove that he did.  In this case the innocent party would be the woman who had been subject to a rape and SHE should seen as being innocent until the man proved otherwise.

There are risks in this approach granted, but it is the least worst option.


----------



## Camper6 (Mar 12, 2017)

aeron said:


> Amazing.
> 
> So it's OK to rape a drunken woman?
> 
> ...



You live in a dream world.  You are the one recommending unfettered, no rules, and a permissive society without interference.  Unfortunately that approach doesn't work out so hot in the real world as we are witnessing almost daily.

Unfortunately you cannot legislate morals.  

If you want to get drunk, smoke pot, and hang around with unsavory characters then it's up to you to protect yourself and not do something you will regret later.

It's not [o.k.] to rape anyone under any circumstances .  Do not speak for me.  Speak for yourself.

In a court case the defendant would be cross examined and have to defend himself .  It comes down to who the jury will believe.

In this case, the jury didn't believe it was rape.  That's the law anyway and the defendant was acquitted with a second different judge under appeal.


----------



## boaterboi (Mar 12, 2017)

We had a judge who said that if you are about to get raped "it's best to relax and enjoy it"! He is no longer a judge.


----------



## Camper6 (Mar 12, 2017)

boaterboi said:


> We had a judge who said that if you are about to get raped "it's best to relax and enjoy it"! He is no longer a judge.



Well neither is this judge.


----------



## Camper6 (Mar 12, 2017)

If anyone want's to read about a trial and how the justice department works in Canada, this is a complete transcript.  A different case but relative.

[11]
Each charge presented against Mr. Ghomeshi is based entirely on the evidence of the complainant. Given the nature of the allegations this is not unusual or surprising; however it is significant because, as a result, the judgment of this Court depends entirely on an assessment of the credibility and the reliability of each complainant as a witness.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/jian-ghomeshi/article28476713/


----------



## Shalimar (Mar 12, 2017)

Mr. Ghomeshi was found innocent of ****** assault, but his credibility and his career are shot.  In my professional opinion, his behaviour does not meet the 

criteria of BDSM, because too many of his conquests, or would be conquests objected to the violence, ergo the "kink" was not consensual. There was no "safe word," as there always is in a Dom/Sub encounter , which protects the submissive partner, 

by indicating they want the situation to stop. These women were victims, not ****** partners. As for him being found innocent, that is the norm in this country. I have testified in several rape trials. If the victim 

is very young, very old, a nun, or visibly beaten, the jury is far more likely to convict. Young attractive women who drink, are sexually active,  know their attacker, show no major signs of physical assault, have a much more difficult time in receiving 

justice, when it comes down to he said, she said. Stats indicate false rape claims fall into a 6-8 percentile, whereas convictions fall into 7-8 percentile. Appalling. Unsurprisingly most rapes are never reported. Our society is failing these women.


----------



## Lethe200 (Mar 12, 2017)

He resigned before he could be removed. It's just and fair that he will not be receiving a pension, according to the article.

Nothing wrong with being conservative. But there's a lot wrong with not having compassion.


----------



## Camper6 (Mar 12, 2017)

Lethe200 said:


> He resigned before he could be removed. It's just and fair that he will not be receiving a pension, according to the article.
> 
> Nothing wrong with being conservative. But there's a lot wrong with not having compassion.



Well I have to agree with you on one hand but as far as compassion goes I don't agree with you.

A judge has to apply the law and that's about it.


----------



## Camper6 (Mar 12, 2017)

> These women were victims, not ****** partners.



Except for one thing. They kept going back for more.  For the life of me that I cannot understand.


----------



## Camper6 (Mar 20, 2017)

I hate to open a can of worms again, but I think the judge was set up.  The complaint was issued by a woman's coalition.

And.  The media, cherry picked his question.  I hate that.

This is the transcript from the trial.


to wit:
Q. And when your ankles were held together by your jeans, your skinny jeans, why couldn't you just keep your knees together?
(NO VERBAL RESPONSE)

Q. You're shaking your head.
A. I don't know.

The trial was about two homeless people out of their minds on booze or whatever.  There's no way that anyone could prove rape.  

Another question she answered was "I was too drunk".

This was trial by judge only.  So the judge had to ask pointed questions in order to determine who was telling the truth.

I'm not condoning his words but in context it's not like the media is presenting it.


----------



## Butterfly (Mar 20, 2017)

He was out of line.  Did he ask the guy why he didn't keep his pants zipped?  You act like you think it all the girls responsibility that she was raped,  What about the male's responsibility -- justs because he's a male doesn't give him the right to force himself on anyone vulnerable he sees.  He's more responsible, because he  has to force the act, no matter what kind of jeans the young lady is wearing.

And what if she was too drunk -- does that somehow give him the right to rape her?  Not where I come from, it doesn't.  Here, a drunk, incapacitated or under age female is considered incapable of giving consent, so ****** relations with anyone in those conditions is ALWAYS rape -- no matter what they do with their legs.


----------



## Camper6 (Mar 20, 2017)

Butterfly said:


> He was out of line.  Did he ask the guy why he didn't keep his pants zipped?  You act like you think it all the girls responsibility that she was raped,  What about the male's responsibility -- justs because he's a male doesn't give him the right to force himself on anyone vulnerable he sees.  He's more responsible, because he  has to force the act, no matter what kind of jeans the young lady is wearing.
> 
> And what if she was too drunk -- does that somehow give him the right to rape her?  Not where I come from, it doesn't.  Here, a drunk, incapacitated or under age female is considered incapable of giving consent, so ****** relations with anyone in those conditions is ALWAYS rape -- no matter what they do with their legs.



I read the transcript of thetrial. This was not a jury trial. The judge asked aquestion to which she could not reply.
I read the transcript of the trial. There was no force used at all. It was consensual. Im sick of cherry p
icking media not quoting properly snd Im sick of males getting accused of rape unfairly. The accused was acquitted on appeal with a different judge.
These were two homeless people stoned out on something.

Drunk as a defence in Canada is a fine line the courts are struggling with.


----------



## Camper6 (Mar 23, 2017)

Butterfly said:


> He was out of line.  Did he ask the guy why he didn't keep his pants zipped?  You act like you think it all the girls responsibility that she was raped,  What about the male's responsibility -- justs because he's a male doesn't give him the right to force himself on anyone vulnerable he sees.  He's more responsible, because he  has to force the act, no matter what kind of jeans the young lady is wearing.
> 
> And what if she was too drunk -- does that somehow give him the right to rape her?  Not where I come from, it doesn't.  Here, a drunk, incapacitated or under age female is considered incapable of giving consent, so ****** relations with anyone in those conditions is ALWAYS rape -- no matter what they do with their legs.



Did he ask the guy?
Well no because you don't have to testify against yourself.
You are innocent until proven guilty.
You bring charges? Better be prepared to offer proof of your charges.


----------



## Butterfly (Mar 24, 2017)

oops


----------



## Butterfly (Mar 24, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> I hate to open a can of worms again, *but I think the judge was set up.  The complaint was issued by a woman's coalition.
> *
> And.  The media, cherry picked his question.  I hate that.
> 
> ...



So you think this judge was set up, just like you think the judge on the travel ban was tampered with.

And, of course it would be a women's coalition making the complaint!  They watch for misogynistic stuff like he spouted -- that's why they exist.


----------



## Camper6 (Mar 24, 2017)

I dont recall saying the judge on the travel ban was set up.

I think the comment was about a judge able to overthrow a presidents decision to institute a temporary travel ban.

Im saying setup for this topic is because the case should never have gone to court in the first place.


----------



## Knight (Mar 24, 2017)

Just saw this topic and the amount of replies. The only question asked by the judge was in the 1st. sentence. No answer was given or at least not in the article.

Obviously the judge was wrong on so many levels, his resignation was the only moral thing he could do. Good riddance to what appears to be a biased judge.


----------



## Camper6 (Mar 24, 2017)

Knight said:


> Just saw this topic and the amount of replies. The only question asked by the judge was in the 1st. sentence. No answer was given or at least not in the article.
> 
> Obviously the judge was wrong on so many levels, his resignation was the only moral thing he could do. Good riddance to what appears to be a biased judge.



Read the whole thread. The case went to appeal. On a retrial by a different judge the defendant was acquitted again so the judge as not wrong in his decision.  He applied the law fairly in my opinion.


----------



## Knight (Mar 24, 2017)

I reread the article and found one paragraph relating to the outcome. Two sentences out of the long explanation of why the judge resigned. 
Quote
"At the end of that trial, Camp ruled to acquit the accused man — a decision that was later overturned on appeal. A retrial ensued, and in January, the accused was again acquitted by the Alberta Provincial Court." 

Given the article length, I understood it to be more about what the council decided than the acquittal decision.

Quote
"The judicial council said Camp "engaged in stereotypical or biased thinking" and "relied on flawed assumptions."

Quote
"The judicial council did not agree, saying that the judge's questions to the alleged victim "were not simply attempts at clarification. He spoke in a manner that was at times condescending, humiliating and disrespectful."

I'll stick with what I posted, since the article IMO was about the judges conduct. 
Quote
"Obviously the judge was wrong on so many levels, his resignation was the only moral thing he could do. Good riddance to what appears to be a biased judge."

Do you think the council right in their findings?


----------



## Shalimar (Mar 24, 2017)

Yes, I do. Clearly, the judge allowed his personal bias to affect his professional behaviour in a very negative and improper way. His resignation was totally warranted.


----------



## Camper6 (Mar 24, 2017)

Shalimar said:


> Yes, I do. Clearly, the judge allowed his personal bias to affect his professional behaviour in a very negative and improper way. His resignation was totally warranted.



But this is the point.  Was justice done in spite of the judges remarks?


----------



## Ray (Mar 24, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Read the whole thread. The case went to appeal. On a retrial by a different judge the defendant was acquitted again so the judge as not wrong in his decision.  He applied the law fairly in my opinion.


So, it appears that while the Judge did offend some by his phrasing, he did properly interpret the law. And after all is that not a Judge's main responsibility?


----------



## Shalimar (Mar 24, 2017)

By repeatedly  referring to the young woman as the accused and speaking to her in a disrespectful and demeaning manner he violated his role as a neutral interpreter of the law. Bias is clearly the antithesis of lawful judicial conduct. In effect, he attempted to denigrate her credibility. It is exceedingly difficult to get a conviction for rape in Canada as it is. The type of attitude illustrated by this judge is an indication as to why.


----------



## Butterfly (Mar 24, 2017)

Ray said:


> So, it appears that while the Judge did offend some by his phrasing, he did properly interpret the law. And after all is that not a Judge's main responsibility?



The judge's responsibility is to follow the rule of law, which requires certain rights and respect be given to BOTH parties, and the rules of court be followed.  He can't just ride roughshod over the rules to get to the "right" end.  I would also point out that a verdict of "not guilty" does not mean the defendant was innocent.  It means under the rules, the defendant was not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The judge was biased, disrespectful and misogynistic, and what he said showed his bias and tainted the proceedings.  The end does not justify the means.


----------



## Butterfly (Mar 24, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> I dont recall saying the judge on the travel ban was set up.
> 
> I think the comment was about a judge able to overthrow a presidents decision to institute a temporary travel ban.
> 
> Im saying setup for this topic is because the case should never have gone to court in the first place.



Here is what you said in the travel ban matter, and about the judge's possibly being influenced by someone else:

QUOTE FROM YOUR POST:

O.K. so who was that someone that requested Judge Robart to issue a stay?

Judge Robart didn't do it on his own.  Someone put the bug in his ear.   Who was that someone?   Was it done for spite?"
END QUOTE


----------



## Camper6 (Mar 25, 2017)

Butterfly said:


> Here is what you said in the travel ban matter, and about the judge's possibly being influenced by someone else:
> 
> QUOTE FROM YOUR POST:
> 
> ...



Thats fine. Where did I say he w as set up? Thats your claim.


----------



## Camper6 (Mar 25, 2017)

Butterfly said:


> The judge's responsibility is to follow the rule of law, which requires certain rights and respect be given to BOTH parties, and the rules of court be followed.  He can't just ride roughshod over the rules to get to the "right" end.  I would also point out that a verdict of "not guilty" does not mean the defendant was innocent.  It means under the rules, the defendant was not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
> 
> The judge was biased, disrespectful and misogynistic, and what he said showed his bias and tainted the proceedings.  The end does not justify the means.



Justice was done . Two judges. Not one. Not guilty.

His question was cherry picked and half of it was left out.


----------



## Ray (Mar 25, 2017)

Butterfly said:


> The judge's responsibility is to follow the rule of law, which requires certain rights and respect be given to BOTH parties, and the rules of court be followed.  He can't just ride roughshod over the rules to get to the "right" end.  I would also point out that a verdict of "not guilty" does not mean the defendant was innocent.  It means under the rules, the defendant was not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
> 
> The judge was biased, disrespectful and misogynistic, and what he said showed his bias and tainted the proceedings.  The end does not justify the means.


I fully agree - his words were inappropriate. But, as I said, he did get to the proper end result.


----------



## Ray (Mar 25, 2017)

Shalimar said:


> By repeatedly  referring to the young woman as the accused and speaking to her in a disrespectful and demeaning manner he violated his role as a neutral interpreter of the law. Bias is clearly the antithesis of lawful judicial conduct. In effect, he attempted to denigrate her credibility. It is exceedingly difficult to get a conviction for rape in Canada as it is. The type of attitude illustrated by this judge is an indication as to why.



You may be right but we cannot overlook such cases as the cases of Tawana Brawley and the Duke lacrosse team. I am not saying they are the same but I am saying that looking at the accuser is not necessarily inappropriate.


----------



## Ray (Mar 25, 2017)

Shalimar said:


> By repeatedly  referring to the young woman as the accused and speaking to her in a disrespectful and demeaning manner he violated his role as a neutral interpreter of the law. Bias is clearly the antithesis of lawful judicial conduct. In effect, he attempted to denigrate her credibility. It is exceedingly difficult to get a conviction for rape in Canada as it is. The type of attitude illustrated by this judge is an indication as to why.



You may be right but we cannot overlook such cases as that of of Tawana Brawley and the Duke lacrosse team. I am not saying they are the same but I am saying that looking at the accuser is not necessarily inappropriate.


----------



## Knight (Mar 25, 2017)

I guess I read the article wrong. I thought the article was about the judge's conduct in court that led to his resignation.


----------



## Camper6 (Mar 25, 2017)

If anyone is interested and wants to get their eyes opened at what happened at this trial, this is the link.

Be prepared.  It's not for the faint of heart or those who are easily offended.

https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/ge...09-08 Exhibts - Agreed Statement of Facts.pdf


----------

