TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

RegretfulEducation Archive

View 2 posts and 142 comments by RegretfulEducation on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

Wouldn't that only apply to civil actions and not criminal ones?
/r/MensRights19/01/16 04:03 PM
2

It depends really. While the Crown technically reviews charges, it's possible that the individual Crowns don't have discretion to deny a charge laid by the police. Regardless, I'm confident the judicial system will sort this shit out appropriately.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 10:31 AM
3

I voted for someone else, but there is creep happening for sure. We're not quite at the stage where it's a crisis. I still like to believe that people here are fundamentally classical liberals rather than feminists.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 10:28 AM
5

Canadian Judicial Council is what you're looking for.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 12:50 AM
–

We're really not. It's just stuff like this gets us all the bad press.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 12:25 AM
5

You've never been in a courtroom have you? I've been in one often. The only thing behind criminal defense, and the only thing is the law. Yeah, I was pointing out the operating principles in the law of defences generally (excuses, and justifications). Rape would never be justified. There are two kinds of defences. Those that are justifications (Self-defence) and those that are concessions to human frailty (duress).
/r/MensRights17/10/15 12:12 PM
5

You'd pretty much have to film the entire thing for it to be evidence of a mistaken belief of fact (that there was consent). The truth is that you can never document if there was consent or not because it's in the other person's mind. The best that you can do is gather evidence for your defense of mistaken belief of fact. Which means that no matter what happens, you'll have raped a woman if she didn't (in her mind) consent, but either a) society says that it's okay, or b) it was justified in the…
/r/MensRights17/10/15 11:56 AM
1

In Canada, we're allowed to discriminate if it's a bona fide occupational requirement. So, if it's an actual requirement that a firefighter must carry x lbs, then everyone must make that standard regardless of gender.
/r/MensRights02/10/15 12:49 AM
2

PM isn't going to do anything, neither will Minister of Justice. Administration is handled by Ontario and not the Federal government. It's better to focus attempts on those who can do something about it. I'd suggest the MP as well, but this is in the hands of the courts now. If he pleads guilty then he's guilty (also a lawyer can't let the client plead guilty if they know they're innocent. It's an ethical conflict that the Law Society of Upper Canada frowns upon). If he's not guilty then he shou…
/r/MensRights27/09/15 09:24 PM
2

Quotas are the dumbest thing ever. I have difficulty expressing just how dumb they are.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 11:59 AM
1

the last comment by the court is the craziest one. They are acting like the authorities ignored her allegations of abuse, when there never were any allegations to begin with. The Supreme Court couldn't revisit the findings of fact by the Trial Court and instead were ruling on a specific type of duress. It's not the role of appellate courts to re-try cases. Any findings of fact (such as no abuse; as the trial court found there was abuse) would have to go back to the first level of courts for retr…
/r/MensRights12/09/15 04:00 PM
–

I don't think that violence is the right solution.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 12:10 PM
3

... but I don't want equality of results. I want equality of opportunity.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 02:31 AM
1

There is always a benefit to gerrymandering districts when you're in power. Districts aren't set by political parties in Canada. It's hard to gerrymander them.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 01:56 AM
1

I've saved this post (so I'll remember) and put a reminder in my calendar as well.
/r/MensRights23/08/15 08:53 PM
2

Just ordered it, I will report back once I've read it.
/r/MensRights23/08/15 07:59 PM
1

Once the baby is born and the baby is the patient then the husband would have rights as guardian and therefore the right to be informed of the "kid's not his" aspect of this case. But the doctor doesn't have a duty to tell him unless asked.
/r/MensRights18/08/15 01:40 PM
0

I would chime in with the "disregard women" bit, but I find with me personally it's more than that. It's more than something like MGTOW. For me I find that I just don't want a relationship. Sure, I find myself attracted to various women, but when I think about relationships and all that I just don't want to have any part of it. I'm not sure if that's common or not in our community, but it is how I feel after being a "nice guy" my entire life.
/r/MensRights16/08/15 08:43 PM
3

Reddit has site wide rules that go against self promotion unless you also actively contribute to the community that you're posting to. A guideline that I've been told has been 10% self promotion is okay and won't get you shadowbanned. Just a heads up in case you didn't know.
/r/MensRights16/08/15 08:22 PM
4

Agreed. It's speculation at best, and I'd be willing to speculate further that the weakening of the immune system from going outside and then into a 20C office is probably negligible?
/r/MensRights16/08/15 08:01 PM
1

Rapid temperature changes (from outside to inside cold office) could cause your nose to run which could provide a pathway for infection of the rhino virus. That's about all I can think of as to how they're related.
/r/MensRights16/08/15 07:48 PM
1

Only appellate courts set legal precedent. And I never contended that CHRC has no impact on ordinary Canadians. I don't know how you drew that conclusion. I started by remarking that the CHRC doesn't sue people. It's an administrative tribunal that is investigatory in nature, and the commission has carriage of the action at upper levels if it gets that far. None of that is to say that it's got no influence or anything like that. I was remarking on procedural aspects of what the CHRC does, not on…
/r/MensRights08/08/15 09:13 PM
1

CHRC isn't a court. It's an administrative tribunal. And no, I'm not a human rights lawyer. And it's bias or lack there of doesn't have anything to do if it takes a case, only how it decides them.
/r/MensRights08/08/15 07:07 PM
1

Yeah. They can't really afford not to though. If the last 100x times they were full of shit (the complainant) this time they might not be.
/r/MensRights08/08/15 05:56 PM
0

The CHRC doesn't have the ability to file motions in original jurisdiction. I'm not sure how they would sue in tort at all.
/r/MensRights07/08/15 11:43 AM
1

I don't. Our Courts have been very very good at guarding the freedom of expression, and the tests for it are nuanced and reflect reality.
/r/MensRights07/08/15 11:42 AM
2

oh me too. Generally the only thing that is going to get you nailed for free expression is hate speech (advocating violence on an identifiable group).
/r/MensRights07/08/15 03:34 AM
-1

And that's the American approach to civil rights. The rights are absolute in nature, and as a result protections are relatively hard to come by. Whereas in Canada the Charter protects all expressive content, subject to restrictions that are justifiable in a free and democratic society. Gives us extraordinary flexibility.
/r/MensRights07/08/15 03:09 AM
0

Not that I'm under any illusions that free speech still exists in Canada. It still exists. It's just about reasonable accommodation.
/r/MensRights07/08/15 02:49 AM
4

Saw this on my FB feed. Curious as to why anyone thought posting nudes of another person was acceptable, and why MR is getting dragged into this.
/r/MensRights06/08/15 09:56 PM
5

I thought men couldn't be raped under UK law.
/r/MensRights14/06/15 10:09 PM
3

Take everything you know about employment law in the US and reverse it. That's pretty much how employment law in Canada works. not to mention the Hydro One is a Crown Corporation (it's owned by the government).
/r/MensRights14/05/15 01:10 PM
6

The very same due process that everyone is entitled to regardless of gender. I'd stoke some fires if she didn't get prison sentence, but that's a different matter.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 03:40 AM
1

Well, you need clear communication of consent for it to be lawful. So, you have a defence if you can argue that you had a reasonable but mistaken belief in the communication of the consent.
/r/MensRights15/01/15 07:26 PM
1

I'm referring more to the Criminal Code of Canada rather than any specific state code (I'm Canadian). And that definition tends to be what is used by most feminist organizations.
/r/MensRights15/01/15 07:12 PM
–

Any unwanted sexual touching is sexual assault. You're highlighting the most often used defense to sexual assault, and that is that there was a mistaken belief in the clear communication of consent.
/r/MensRights15/01/15 06:59 PM
-1

It's sexual assault by most legal definitions of it. But that aside, I think the story is valuable for getting it out there that this kind of thing happens to men, and it happens often.
/r/MensRights15/01/15 06:47 PM
6

Ireland is the accused's last name. It happened it British Columbia.
/r/MensRights21/12/14 08:21 PM
3

system of justice doesn't allow for a private organization to step in It does. They're called private prosecutions and they're exceedingly rare. Usually the Crown (Canada/UK/Aus) or the DA (America) will step in and put an end to it immediately. But they're technically allowed.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 06:33 PM
1

In Canada it'd be done like this: while he's a sitting Judge he's immune from the law society's purview, and instead is dealt with via another body that deals only with judges. They would discipline him, and then action could be taken to remove him from the bench if needed (requires an act of parliament). I suspect that it's similar in the States (another body other than the law society deals with judges).
/r/MensRights29/07/14 06:40 PM
1

It's all in R v Ewanchuk.
/r/MensRights21/07/14 05:04 PM
-1

Canada operates on an affirmative consent model where the standard for sexual assault (there is no rape here, it's all just sexual assaults) is that the consent to sexual congress must have been clearly communicated to the other party. You can raise a defence of mistake of fact be raised on whether you believe that the consent was communicated to you. The reasoning for this is that the Court believes that the whole implied consent model is just too difficult to work through in terms of sexual as…
/r/MensRights21/07/14 03:32 PM
1

I'm pretty sure the reason the charges were dropped is because the Age of Criminal Responsibility (age at which you can be held responsible for crimes) is 14 in Utah. So someone probably pointed out to the prosecutor that an 8 year old can't actually be convicted of a crime in the state.
/r/MensRights09/07/14 11:12 AM
2

We shouldn't be focusing on who the victims are, but rather who the perpetrators of the violence are. After all, it wouldn't be a witch hunt without it.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 04:42 PM
1

If you can imagine the worst possible circumstances in which a person could have sexual relations with an under-age person, including lack of consent, violence etc. That's what the maximum sentence is for. A minimum sentence is for the least of all possible circumstances. There was consent, the other party was only barely in the category of under age people, the accused was contrite and admitted guilt at the earliest possible opportunity, they expressed remorse etc. That's the minimum sentence. …
/r/MensRights20/05/14 11:55 AM
1

Comes down to, rock solid evidence, yet she refused to confess or accept a plea deal. That's not an aggravating factor for sentencing. She didn't say, 'I am sorry to the victim and for what I have done.'... Assistant State Attorney Lynn Sloan, seized on that at the time, telling Vaughn Harvey 'never acknowledged she had sex' with the teen." Also not something she has to do as the accused (and now convicted). The State has the burden to prove you did what you're alleged to have done beyond a reas…
/r/MensRights19/05/14 01:40 PM
1

Absolutely, please turn your attention to s. 36(1), and 36(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 36(2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for (a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by way of indictment, or of two offences under any Act of Parliament not arising out of a single occurrence; (b) having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence …
/r/MensRights19/05/14 01:33 PM
1

No. It's not relevant to immigration status, because what she didn't wasn't a crime in Canada. It's not that she broke a law and context is irrelevant, that's entirely not how our legal system works. Strict liability is a very rare thing here. If there is one thing you should take away from the Canadian legal system it is that context matters.
/r/MensRights19/05/14 11:57 AM
0

That's not a reasonable interpretation of what I said. It's not that committing a crime in the home state gets you free entry into Canada if that act was not a crime in Canada. A proper interpretation is that immigration authorities won't take into consideration any crimes you've committed in the home state if what you did wasn't a crime in Canada.
/r/MensRights19/05/14 11:56 AM
1

Yeah, but for her to have stat-raped the 16 year old, the state definition of consent must have been older than 16.
/r/MensRights18/05/14 12:27 PM
1

We let people into Canada all the time who have been raped and then convicted in a court of law for adultery. That's a conviction as you put it, but it doesn't count against them because what they did wasn't a crime in Canada. You seem to be missing my point, or deliberately misunderstanding it. Yes, she was convicted of a crime in her home country, but that doesn't matter. The crime she was convicted of also has to be a crime in Canada for it to matter. It's a two part thing. Yes, part one was …
/r/MensRights18/05/14 11:21 AM
1

I think that as far as the law is concerns that the gender of the person doesn't matter. If a man slept with a 16 year old girl in the US, then I think he should have been treated the exact same way as this woman was. Or hell, if the person was a man and they slept with a 16 year old boy, I don't think that the law would care any.
/r/MensRights18/05/14 11:15 AM
1

The Criminal Code doesn't make a distinction on the basis of gender when it comes to age of consent.
/r/MensRights18/05/14 03:29 AM
0

I do not believe that such hostility is warranted in this discussion. I also don't think that I am using red herrings nor straw men fallacies in anything I've brought up for discussion. If you believe I have, I would ask you to point them out so I can clarify my position and positively contribute to the discussion. When she's in Canada she has the right to apply for refugee status under the Immigration Act. She has a right to have her case heard before an immigration judge (actually an administr…
/r/MensRights18/05/14 03:27 AM
0

She's in Canada legally, as a refugee. I just disagree that she ought to be a refugee. I'm making a normative statement rather than a descriptive one. The weight of that is limited to my moral opinion on the matter, which will vary with everyone. I don't think if we were to change the rules that she got in on (which I think we should do), that these new rules should apply to her retroactively. Let them apply to all future applicants. Then again, you could argue that her being convicted of someth…
/r/MensRights18/05/14 03:05 AM
0

What about people who are convicted of blasphemy or adultery in their home state? Is there a balancing going on between what we consider to be not a crime here, but a crime there, and okay even though?
/r/MensRights18/05/14 02:52 AM
0

I agree that is what immigration Canada determined her to be. I don't think that's in dispute. I also agree that they didn't take into account her felony conviction because what she did wasn't a crime in Canada. I agree that such things ought not be taken into account in any event. Do I think of her when I think of refugee? No. I don't. But I don't think what she did should stop her from applying for immigration status like a normal person.
/r/MensRights18/05/14 02:43 AM
0

I would think a felony conviction would normally be a barrier for her to gain permanent status or citizenship in Canada. It is. For something that is a crime in Canada. But what she did wasn't a crime, so her conviction doesn't enter into it.
/r/MensRights18/05/14 02:28 AM
–

As mentioned by /u/morven what she did wasn't a crime in Canada, and there's no reason to extradite her for lawful conduct.
/r/MensRights17/05/14 05:03 PM
1

There are people on the internet who think that they are harpies trapped in the bodies of humans. The diversity of opinion and thought in our species is amazing when you stop to think about it.
/r/MensRights17/05/14 05:02 PM
2

I assume people took it as sarcastic.
/r/MensRights17/05/14 01:10 AM
2

Nope, retroactive revocation of consent isn't a thing in law.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 12:50 PM
1

In practice, it's a credibility/witness thing to determine if you were so intoxicated that you were automatic. So, it doesn't work out well.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 12:50 PM
1

Assuming you had the capacity to consent in the first place, yes. You are correct.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 03:36 AM
1

Depending on level of intoxication (ie, that one person was so drunk that they entered automatism territory) it could be either, or both. Or neither if they were both automatic.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 03:36 AM
2

Depending on how drunk they are it is rape according to the law.
/r/MensRights30/04/14 10:18 PM
2

Can you give an example of the reactionary form of politics that you mention that liberals engage in? I'm trying to think of a hot button issue where that occurs. In the context of overly PC language (like the article mentions), I would consider myself against that, but I'm still a liberal from a philosophical/political science stand point. Often I hear "Liberals are x" when really liberal means "people who hold opinions I disagree with." You see it around this sub with feminist (although, I bel…
/r/MensRights28/04/14 07:47 PM
0

See, to me that's like saying "Fuck, I hate jews" or "I hate catholics." Then again, I'm not American (as I assume that you are), so from an American perspective, my entire country (including the Conservatives) are akin to gay liberal democrats.
/r/MensRights28/04/14 06:51 PM
1

More to my point everyone is a liberal of some definition. The only difference is one of degree, and not of kind.
/r/MensRights28/04/14 06:42 PM
6

The irony is that the notion that all people are fundamentally equal in worth is a liberal one.
/r/MensRights28/04/14 06:28 PM
3

It depends on the jurisdiction you're in. Sometime jurisdictions allow for any alteration in the contract, others require that the alteration be a fundamental breach before there is conduct that amounts to repudiation of the contract.
/r/MensRights06/04/14 03:42 PM
2

The communication of consent to sexual activity must be clear, ongoing, and complete. Being drunk only removes the ability to consent to sexual activity only insofar as it removes the capacity to consent to that activity. Similarly you cannot give consent in advance of something (ie, sex/sexual touching while unconscious), nor can consent be given retroactively to cover something that was at that moment in time incapable of being consensual.
/r/MensRights31/03/14 07:35 PM
5

Social conditioning mostly.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 09:01 PM
10

Not what socialism means. :\
/r/MensRights29/01/14 01:52 PM
73

I feel like it's a morally praiseworthy action for someone to sacrifice their own life, or to put their own life in danger for the benefit of another persons. But that being said, it shouldn't be confused as a morally obligatory one.
/r/MensRights27/01/14 04:23 PM
1

Legal incapacity doesn't require you to be unconscious in the immobile sense of the word. There are various cases dealing with sleepwalking and then having sex with people.
/r/MensRights17/01/14 01:49 PM
3

You go to the court of appeal and get them to overturn the sentence on the grounds that the confession was not voluntary (there are some pretty high standards for what counts as a coerced confession).
/r/MensRights15/01/14 02:13 PM
1

Lawyer here. There is no conspiracy to spread false information to keep a cash cow going. In fact giving false legal advice knowingly is grounds for disbarment. Saying all the lawyers come out of the woodwork to defend falsehoods is kinda insulting.
/r/MensRights24/12/13 11:01 PM
2

I don't think having an opinion is enough to strip her of her credentials (namely her PhD) or enough for her to lose her job (which is protected by Tenure). Not to mention, she's actually backed up a by a lot of case law from both Canada and the UK, that gives credence to her claim that battered women can use the duress defence more readily then others normally could.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 11:26 AM
1

I suppose that's definitely one way to think about it.
/r/MensRights07/12/13 04:14 AM
2

I don't see how those two things are connected. Could you elaborate?
/r/MensRights07/12/13 04:08 AM
0

The article states near the bottom that the news org. got a copy of the visa statement where it shows the charge on the card to be the same as the customer copy with tip.
/r/MensRights27/11/13 01:05 PM
2

Even if streamed it goes into your cache, so it'll be considered "possession" at that point.
/r/MensRights18/11/13 08:03 PM
1

That's a nifty system. Family law in Canada requires massive reform. It's messy.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 06:59 PM
5

Yeah, pretty much. Appeals are expensive (about $20,000), and in family law you can get endless motions and variation orders at the court of first instance. Also, as long as the trial judge didn't make a "palpable and overriding error" then the court of appeal will leave a finding of fact alone. Which can make prospects difficult, but for any off the wall decisions, then the courts of appeal will deal with them.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 01:21 PM
5

Because Court's can't just go out and make rulings. They adjudicate between disputes, so there needs to be a dispute before them.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 01:02 PM
8

Which to be fair, according to the law the judge is actually right. The law doesn't care about your ability to pay at all.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 12:15 PM
3

There is. It's called the Court of Appeal.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 12:10 PM
0

Or you know, instead of protesting via hunger strike he could simply file an appeal on the court order, or make a motion to vary the agreement. And introduce the previous separation agreement into evidence before the court. 'cause, dude is due a trial. This sounds like the professor didn't bother to walk down the damn street to the law school and get advice from the lawyers there (at one of the family law clinics that happen).
/r/MensRights04/11/13 10:51 AM
2

Yeah, but he'd be unemployed in Atlantic Canada.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 01:46 PM
2

In Canada the Criminal Code says to call them complainants until a court has made a finding on the matter.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 10:27 AM
5

In Canada parents (even adoptive or same sex ones) get a certain amount of leave that they can split however they want between each parent. I don't know why the US doesn't do it too. Works great for us.
/r/MensRights13/08/13 03:51 PM
5

Old Kirk or new Kirk?
/r/MensRights11/08/13 07:14 PM
1

Application of Charter (section 32) (1) This Charter applies (a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and (b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province. So, you'd think that would mean anything that the two levels of government can legislate on (found in s91 a…
/r/MensRights11/08/13 06:45 PM
2

UPEI had to sue them to get out.
/r/MensRights11/08/13 12:01 PM
5

Go to the law school at UofT and talk to the Law Student Student Society. Or whoever the rep is on council for the law school.
/r/MensRights11/08/13 11:59 AM
1

The Charter doesn't apply to Universities.
/r/MensRights11/08/13 11:55 AM
7

True. But I was highlighting that sometimes rhetorically, pathos is a better line of persuasion than logos.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 09:49 PM
16

Emotional responses are not necessarily invalid ones.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 09:12 PM
-2

You can feel empathy without crying. Especially whenever the topic is raised.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 08:54 AM
-3

It was the crying. It seems kinda foreign to expect someone to cry over that.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 12:41 AM
3

Law doesn't see it that way in the US. As at as I understand.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 09:56 AM
30

No, I mean. You can never prove that she was consenting. Ever. She could be outwardly consenting but in her mind not consenting, and not saying that she didn't consent out of fear. It's an intrinsic difficulty with consent weighted heavily towards the subjective element rather than reasonable belief in consent.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 11:31 PM
47

There really can't be proof. Reasonableness standard would be appropriate but it's not the case sadly.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 03:01 PM
158

Up vote for actual answer.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 02:35 PM
2

They didn't "uphold" her punishment. They stayed the charges. No lower court issued a stay for the to uphold. Unless /u/robert32907 is asserting that just because the Supreme Court is in Ottawa that all of Western Canada is a write off (even though Ottawa is central Canada)
/r/MensRights27/06/13 01:10 PM
1

It's a weak science. I found that not a lot of scientific method was used, as there were some serious ethical issues with it.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 04:50 PM
7

Yeah it is. War Against Boys by her is also a great read.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 12:35 AM
11

Scientists is the new buzzword. I remember how vocal I was in opposition when they renamed my old department from Politics to Political Science.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 12:06 AM
19

That's exactly what happened to me.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 11:55 PM
2

I was more disputing the "everything she's worth" thing. It'd be unlikely to actually bankrupt her.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 03:42 PM
-1

The only thing that didn't work as intended was the Supreme Court's decision to stay the charges (which, frankly their reasoning doesn't make any damn sense). Other than that though, the courts worked.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 12:53 PM
10

cis means persons who identify with the gender that they were born with.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 05:10 AM
2

In Canada the amount of money you can get is actually very small. We've got nothing like the US system of huge damages.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 05:07 AM
2

The AG of Nova Scotia was directed to investigate the RCMP to find out why the DV claims were ignored, and if there was sufficient evidence to charge Ryan.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 05:06 AM
1

That's exactly what the Supreme Court said. It wasn't duress.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 05:05 AM
3

It was a trial judge, so it has no precedent setting capability. Especially since the Supreme Court shit all over that portion of the decision. So did the Court of Appeal.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 05:05 AM
-2

Why? The court system worked as it was intended. The NS Court of Appeal reprimanded the judge at Trial and overturned his decision. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court, but instead of substituting a conviction instead of an acquittal at trial, they just stayed the charges.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 05:04 AM
2

This happened in Atlantic Canada. Nova Scotia to be precise.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 05:02 AM
4

The charges were not dropped. The Supreme Court stayed them. Which is a million times worse. They ruled that she didn't have the defense of duress open to her at the time, but the trial process was punishment enough. So the Crown is forbidden from seeking a new trial.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 05:01 AM
2

Sorry. I guess I wasn't clear, I edited my previous comment.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 01:46 AM
2

Oh yeah, I agree with you. But that's how it is.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 01:20 AM
-1

To answer, yes. Some women and children are entitled to an upper-class lifestyle, because that's the lifestyle which they have become accustom to. edit: I don't agree with this, it's just how it is.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 12:36 AM
3

Usually contempt of court proceedings and some jail time.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 12:34 PM
2

Uh, sure.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 01:04 AM
13

No evidence that Op's ex is overweight.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 10:36 PM
10

Why the downvotes? He's right. OP needs an attorney to get an enforcement order from a judge. Edit: in the form of telling the ex to cough up money equal to the lost tax. Not against the IRS.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 10:34 PM
15

I couldn't agree more with her. It's simple economics to me, if all you're looking for is money go where the money is.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 04:51 PM
1

Fun story about Wilson J. She was a Canadian Supreme Court Justice, but after a case dealing with the right to life (s7) and whether that included economic rights (ie, the state must provide a certain amount under the social nets). She was the only justice to say that the state had an obligation under the constitution to ensure that poor people received enough income to survive. Later she "retired" and went to work at the UN.
/r/MensRights31/05/13 03:06 PM
3

In Canada, strict liability + any amount of jail time = unconstitutional. I think the US should adopt that standard as well.
/r/MensRights31/05/13 03:04 PM
-1

True.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 09:33 PM
10

Social science can test theories. It's just exceedingly unethical to do so because you're dealing with humans. Other than that, I agree with what you said.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 04:41 PM
5

That's been my experience in classes when I was in my undergrad as well. All these stories about professors silencing students via politics are very foreign to my experience.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 03:42 AM
1

Not if you want a job as a professional!
/r/MensRights20/05/13 03:27 AM
1

There's a lot of guidelines for judges in these situations, a lot of it centres around believing what the woman would say, even if there are inconsistencies, because abused women are unable to necessarily keep these things straight. That being said, I think it was a mistake of the Crown to not at least try.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 01:50 PM
1

So do non-STEM fields? It's not like having a STEM degree makes you a better person or anything like that. There are valid intellectual pursuits outside of STEM. You just may not be able to be as employable right out of the gate.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 12:48 AM
1

The system didn't deny him a voice. The Crown at the time thought that it would be unwise to have him testify in his own defense.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 05:21 PM
-22

Calm down on the STEM circle jerk.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 03:53 PM
5

Having been involved with cases of child molestation/statutory rape, it's not easy to establish sexual touching of a child by a lone adult without some other evidence.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 05:28 PM
1

On a side note, Canada is no longer a dominion. Unless you're referring to Dominion Insurance Co., but that's different. You should look at the recent EU court decision about female drivers and insurance rates. It's entertaining.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 10:33 AM
3

Well, first of all, I'm not surprised. It's the Quebec court of appeal. They're pretty nutbarish. The Supreme Court will sort this shit out soon enough. Also, precedent isn't what you think it is. There are numerous ways to get around it if a judge wanted to. Hell, if I could get the report of the case I'd read it myself and give a better comment.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 01:18 PM
3

There's a tort of malicious prosecution. You should look into that.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 07:46 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter