Woman gets drunk and stoned and has sex with a guy in the restroom; judge asks pressing questions during trial and aquits the man; feminists complain and the decision is reversed and the judge is being investigated and will lose his job

dontpet · 2016-12-01T16:53:18+00:00

I don't know this issue well enough to comment. I wish this same rigour were applied to those many judges that treat men with contempt in the family court.

M_Justice · 2016-12-01T10:26:41+00:00

It's a sad day when our judiciary is no longer independent and male judges are being dismissed for applying their common sense to render fair decisions. Why have judges at all? Perhaps we should just post news articles about "sexual assault" and "domestic violence" victims online and let feminist redditors and beta males determine their guilt without reference to actual facts or testimony.

The_Lone_Fish17 · 2016-12-01T16:06:10+00:00

I think its important to read the official report, and not the sensationalized headlines. I was unsure of what to think untill i came across this passage which seems to demonstrate that the judges line of questioning may have been unprofessional. Curius about your opinions on this.

From the judicial committees report:

[153] First, the Judge's questions of the complainant were not about her fear or her cooperation. Rather, they were accusations that she had failed to resist or evade the accused's actions. The Judge did not ask if she opened her legs because she was afraid of the accused or if she raised herself out of the basin to make it easier for him to penetrate her. Rather, he asked why she couldn’t just keep her knees together and why she could not just sink her bottom down into the basin. His questions were framed in an almost rhetorical manner, suggesting that he was not seeking to obtain relevant evidence from the complainant but rather was trying to make a point – either that the complainant was to blame for the assault because of her lack of resistance or that her claim of nonconsensual sex was not plausible because of her lack of effective resistance.

[154] Second, with regard to his question about why she couldn’t just keep her knees together, the Judge already had evidence from the complainant (given in re-direct examination shortly before he asked the question) about why her knees were not together. In response to a question from Crown counsel, the complainant testified that the accused opened her legs with his hands. The question and answer read as follows:

Q All right. And when your pants are still around your ankles during the time that he’s having […] that’s he’s performing oral sex on you, how does he get between your legs?

A He has -- he opens my legs with his hands.

idiotsonfire · 2016-12-01T11:54:31+00:00

Intoxicated means "consent cannot be given." Having sex with someone that's drunk and high means you're having sex with someone that cannot give consent, i.e., rape. This title is as inflammatory and misleading as it gets.

Also, this isn't the only reason this judge has been recommended to lose his job. There is a 100+ page complaint against this judge as to why this judge is losing his job, which includes ignorance of the law which he's required to uphold, contempt of the Crown, and a hell of a lot more than just being an insensitive douchebag. 10 minutes of research would have led to a much different conclusion.

rg57 · 2016-12-01T16:32:48+00:00

Welcome to Canada.

M_Justice · 2016-12-02T03:06:39+00:00

Rebuttal to lame feminist comments: your argument that a female cannot consent to oral sex and vaginal penetration in a restroom bathroom sink, while drunk and high: and that act between inebriated individuals justifies the criminal prosecution of a man for "rape" or "sexual assault" is beyond reason.

By that logic, she is also raping and sexually assaulting him, because he similarly cannot consent. The perverse prosecution of these laws needs to stop.

This judge is being punished for probing important facts which go to the heart off the issue. The elicited testimony shows just how insane it would be to send this guy to prison and destroy his life. For God's sakes, they are getting in on in a freaking restroom. Tax payers money should not be spent on this and public mob hysteria has no place in lynching the independent judiciary.

If that is the society you want to live, these prosecutions will come back to you.

SacredWeapon · 2016-12-01T15:57:24+00:00

I read the transcript of this and was left wondering why he was asking these questions, as opposed to a defense attorney.

thrway_1000 · 2016-12-01T10:56:26+00:00

https://archive.is/16hAW

pretzelzetzel · 2016-12-01T14:33:07+00:00

Committee composed of experts in Canadian judicial ethics: this judge needs to go

Some random fuck on reddit: FEMINISM IS DESTROYING OUR SOCIETY

Comments