This morning’s “I kid you not” headline;
“Ex-judge Reilly learns political ropes, remains advocate for downtrodden”
Adler weighs in.
* “Fingers” Reilly footnote: This marks the first time in post-modern media history that a Womyn’s Group was not approached for comment.
Now come on. We don’t know all of the facts of the case.
For all we know, maybe the girl’s family is known to be Conservative party supporters. Or perhaps the accused’s family name is Kennedy or Clinton.
If either of these are true, then the bitch likely got what she deserved.
I can see a new line on Iggy’s signs”
MY CANADA INCLUDES
SEX OFFENDERS.
WE FEEL
THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO
FIT RIGHT IN
It’s interesting to see the role that apologies are beginning to play in politics. The judged apologized. What is the point of the apology? He obviously believes what he said. The issuance of an apology in this case implies that a statement can be “taken back”, like the kid in the school yard who is forced to “take back” an insult, under threat of a wedgie.
This apology should be refused on the ground that it is entirely disingenuous. However, having said all that, I must admit that I don’t find what the judge said to be entirely offensive. At drunken teenage parties, awkward, testosterone filled boys can be led to do things that they would never consider in the light of day.
I hate Iggy to from the bottom of my feet to the top of my toes, but I have to reluctantly admit that in this case, if I were him I don’t think I’d throw this candidate under the Liberal bus.
Let it be known that on this 8th day of March 2011 that;
Sexually assaulted drunken sluts are hereby removed from the classification and inherit benefits of being “downtrodden” upon.
Further the new classification for said drunken sluts will be here-to-for known as “downtroddering drunken sluts” without advocates nor advocation.
He could be the Poster Boy for Liberal justice beliefs and that’s not a good endorsement. At least now the people of that riding know exactly what they would be getting. If I lived in his riding I think I’d move in shame.
“What is the point of the apology? He obviously believes what he said”
Someone once told me …. It never hurts to say you’re sorry. Even if you don’t mean it.
“At drunken teenage parties, awkward, testosterone filled boys can be led to do things that they would never consider in the light of day.”
Considering is one thing, we all consider bad things, acting on that consideration is another.
The drunken teenage manchild was not led at all, the girl was unconsious.
I realize I might not be the most popular poster on this issue but I’m with the judge on this one. The important thing, in the case described, is that the woman said no and the offender walked away. If there was any kind of force being used after she told him to stop, then he’s guilty, maybe there’s more to the story, but in this case the question of guilt or innocence hinges on whether no means no, and in this case it did indeed mean no. If I were the judge, I’d find for the defendant. An assault charge, maybe could stick but the sexual assault should depend on if the defendant stopped when he was told to. Wait, the judge is running for the Liberals? Well, then, he’s an idiot!
Rape, pillage, plunder…
Canadian values
In your Cities
In Canada
We’re not making this up.
Yep, we should just give in to the “Panty Brigade” because the guy was drunk.
Let’s make the same argument with driving, we should excuse the death of the other motorist and all physical damage to the rest of the public because the accused was drunk and therefore didn’t have the mens rea.
Can we call the accused to the stand, Pablo Rodrigues, MP:
Why did you not blow for the officer?
A: “Because I was drunk.”
Q: And how do you plead?
A: Guilty
Result: Suspended sentence, 2 years less a day.
The MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT walks…
Message to the public: Despite what the criminal law says drinking and driving is okay.
As with the drunk young man who beds down the young gal UNINVITED the message communicated to the public:
Drinking and ‘driving’ young ladies is okay.
The traditional method is to offer the young lady your committment to some kind of relationship longer than 5 minutes. Occasionally, it involves a ring of some sort…reportedly it also involves somebody you care about over long periods of time.
I’m not sure, but it hails from a long ago and ancient time. I believe it is known as marriage.
Maybe its time for MADD:
MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DATES
or perhaps its time for FOAD:
FATHERS OUTRAGED AGAINST DUMMIES
Young man I like to introduce you to my 0.45 calibre clue bat!
Q: And you will have my daughter home when?
A: ON TIME…
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
“I’m finding out there’s limitations on that, too.”
Epic fail. The state, through Parliament or the courts (both real and kangaroo) puts limitations on speech. Ordinary citizens criticize what others have said. A judge should know the difference.
NUTTY PROFESSOR SUPPORTS JUDGE WHO CLAIMED HE HAD A REPUTATION FOR BEING SOFT
Perhaps the judge identified with the person who was guilty of digital penetration.
“The important thing, in the case described, is that the woman said no and the offender walked away. If there was any kind of force being used after she told him to stop, then he’s guilty, maybe there’s more to the story, but in this case the question of guilt or innocence hinges on whether no means no, and in this case it did indeed mean no.”
So let me get this straight, you’re saying that consent doesn’t have to be given first?
So if the woman was unconsious throughout a complete sexual encounter from beginning to end including intercourse and the man left afterward that this wouldn’t be rape because she hadn’t said no?
Give your head a shake.
I suppose that if some stranger took your car and you hadn’t told him NO then it wouldn’t be car theft?
Iggy is all about building a digital economy
Oh goody!! Reilly is actually making it worse for himself again. “Outspoken ex-judge John Reilly won’t back down on mandatory minimum sentences.”
Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Outspoken+judge+John+Reilly+back+down+mandatory+minimum+sentences/4580333/story.html#ixzz1Ix4OI5pK
This nicely offsets the headline that Arcade Fire (based in Montreal)is telling youth that conservative policies are destructive. I know we’re in majority country (or darn close) and the fear-mongering is expected, but is an Indie rock group really the best they can come up with? Oh right… they’re trying to resurrect the Quebec Arts-funding reduction stink…
WE LOVE SLUTS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vOCnZOcr8w
Sluts demonstrating in Ontario
Had it been a conservative who said that, we all know how the playbook for that reads. The comment would have reflected a deep-seated hatred of women in ALL conservatives, not just him. Headline for CBC and CTV for weeks on how Harper’s extreme ideology supports this, yada yada yada.
But this guy? You’ll never hear it again after this weekend.
Enough with arguing the case that Ex-judge Reilly used as an example of why there shouldn’t be sentencing minimums.
Let’s look at why there are sentencing minimums at all.
There are sentencing minimums because Liberal judges want to have the power to capriciously let off individuals, who have been already convicted, with a lenient sentence that fits with a Liberal judge’s view of criminals being victims of society.
Reilly is a perfect Liberal as he is in perfect alignment with Trudeau’s Solicitor General, Jean Pierre Goyer who, in 1971 in Canada’s parliament, said:
“We have decided from now on to stress the rehabilitation of the individual RATHER THAN THE PROTECTION OF SOCIETY.”
Notice, he didn’t say the rehabilitation of the individual AND the protection of society. No, he said “rehabilitation RATHER THAN THE PROTECTION OF SOCIETY”.
In other words, lock up your daughters because under the Liberals, they will NOT be protected. Rather they will be staked out like goats on a tether as bait to lure in the lions. So the lions can be “rehabilitated”.
Simply put – Canada sucks.
Can’t wait to see the revised CBC Vote Compass with the new white supremist and drunken slut questions added.
In fact there are probably quite a few questions one could add….
The Ottawa press galary will have to contort themselves into the letter R to spin this as a positive for Team Liberal. Sickening the silence from victim right’s groups and wimmins groups, I expect Academia will also remain mute because that’s where the feminazis reside-well most of the professional ones.
And the DIPPERS are dipping….
http://www.nanosresearch.com/election2011/20110407-BallotE.pdf
The most telling was last night on P&P they had Jennifer Ditchburn on and quite fairly she said that if this was a Con candidate there would be apolictic screams from everyone including the MSM. The question is though where is her rage about this incident in response? Yeah sure she tells it like it is on that segment but where’s her filing smearing her guy then? If she has filed one can someone point it out?
On the one hand it shows the incredible hypocrisy of Iggy and the Libs, and on the other hand the ex-judge has a point: it’s a free speech issue.
After all, the judge had already resigned the bench and he was simply expressing his honest opinion — not exactly a “politically correct” opinion either. Should an adult “diddler” at a hedonistic party get the same condemnation as a guy who jumps out of the bushes and violently rapes a passing female jogger? — it’s a legitimate question for debate.
Lesson learned? The Libs and Iggy need to renounce once for all their politically-correct speech and social justice agenda — nobody is immune to its oxymoronic logic and there is simply no legal basis to it.
To be fair to progressive feminist groups they have been awfully busy searching for sexism in Harper’s Family Income Tax Plan. There simply isn’t enough time and manpower to criticize both income splitting and the trivialization of sexual assault by Liberal candidates and the liberal justice system.
@ Rose: This is what I posted yesterday…as for the feminazis coming to the defense of women FAHGED ABOUTIT! Conservatives aren’t LIEberal enough. It would appear that all the ‘feminazis’ have been suddenly struck dumb and mute!
“This is the judicial equivalent of ‘gag em, bag em and shag em’.
So the accused is excused, because he ‘found a drunken pair of hips in the snowbank and helped himself’.
Thus the inability to give consent is translated as tacit consent…that is just moronic.
Man what does that say to all the mute girls with disabilities?”
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
@ Rose: This is what I posted yesterday…as for the feminazis coming to the defense of women FAHGED ABOUTIT! Conservatives aren’t LIEberal enough. It would appear that all the ‘feminazis’ have been suddenly struck dumb and mute!
“This is the judicial equivalent of ‘gag em, bag em and shag em’.
So the accused is excused, because he ‘found a drunken pair of hips in the snowbank and helped himself’.
Thus the inability to give consent is translated as tacit consent…that is just moronic.
Man what does that say to all the mute girls with disabilities?”
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Years ago I came across this definition by Corrections Canada of members of the community (the bulk of us)
“Non convicted criminals living in the community”
It doesn’t matter if you stick your penny up a woman’s vagina or your fingers without her consent it’s rape, not sexual assult. The judge makes me recoil in disgust and revulsion.
“Should an adult “diddler” at a hedonistic party get the same condemnation as a guy who jumps out of the bushes and violently rapes a passing female jogger? — it’s a legitimate question for debate.”- ricardo
How about a different thought experiment:
In college you are playing drinking games with some dorm acquaintances. You pass out after drinking too much and wake up to find one of your “buddies” getting frisky with you while you were unconscious. Would you feel that is not that serious because this was just a hedonistic party gone horribly wrong?
Hard to muster much sympathy for drunken out of control people on either side of the equation.
Judge Reilly is a LIBERAL, the quest to follow the other kids jumping off the bridge never seems to leave a liebral, they are just stupid for life. Oliver Taber Simpson and all the willing accomplices, aiding and abbetting creeps like this should hang their head is shame or better yet jump off that bridge. Rape is rape, as Rose says, One can only hope for judge Reilly he never falls stoned drunk outside Svends place with only his boxers on.
LC Bennett at April 8, 2011 2:20 PM:
“You pass out after drinking too much and wake up to find one of your “buddies” getting frisky with you while you were unconscious. Would you feel that is not that serious…”
No, I think it is quite serious, and I can guarantee that I would get quite “frisky” with my fists on the perp’s face afterwards.
But my point was the free speech issue, and the debate about the level of condemnation in different circumstances. For example, I would not feel near as violated in the example you gave, as I would — for example — if I were to be gang-raped in prison.
“Should an adult “diddler” at a hedonistic party get the same condemnation as a guy who jumps out of the bushes and violently rapes a passing female jogger? — it’s a legitimate question for debate.”
Yes he should get the same condemnation.
The difference is only a matter of degree, not kind.
That’s why they have minimum sentences and maximum sentences and an area in between for discretionary sentencing.
Ex-judge Reilly doesn’t want to be constrained by minimum sentences in how lenient he can get with CONVICTED criminals who act outside of societies norms.
Normative action and consideration for a healthy male in our society is to protect women in case some of you didn’t know.
(as an aside, we don’t know how far the perp would have gone with that unconcious girl if she hadn’t regained consciouness and we don’t know whether or not he had taken advantage of other powerless females including children and not gotten caught)
Adler rightly asks, ” Plan to vote Liberal?
If you do, read this first. See what kind of man Iggy is standing by”
We should ask Mrs. Iggy whether she will vote for her husband or not after this revelation.
Oh, wait!! She can’t vote! She’s not a Canadian citizen.
Is Publo Rodriquez another one of Ignatieff’s “disgusting” candidates in this election?
Or does Igantieff approve of Rodriquez’s actions, which we have to assume, since he is not only still in the Liberal caucus, but also with a critic’s role, and has not been asked to remove himself from the caucus, until resolution of the serious criminal charges he is facing.
Oz,
I’m with you — I can see now the Lib’s reaction is hypocritical on multiple levels: 1/sexual assault; 2/criminal justice; PLUS 3/free speech. Their entire political approach creates irresolveable contraditions — Iggy’s “Cosa Nostra” (“Our Thing”) Pack.
Seems to me like a simple case of too many fingers in the pie.
…He piously said
As Whoopie so eloquently put it, “it wasn’t rape rape”.
Okaaay….
Make no mistake I find this more than a bit disturbing.
However, I divine that the criteria this Reilly makes is violence or lack thereof.
It is my position that rape is a crime of violence….physical assault combined with sexual invasion. It is the sexual invasion that results in the mental trauma that makes rape such a serious crime.
Basically Reilly is comparing a break and enter to a robbery with violence….not a valid anology.
At a viceral level, most of us regard defence against a rape as one of the few things meriting justifiable homecide. There was a time when rape was a capital offence…the ultimate deterant.
Maybe that is why I fail to see a woman raped and murdered as morally superior to the woman standing over a dead attempted rapist with a smoking gun…..
This is one offence, that I believe, MY CANADA will not condone or mitigate. This rests beyond the line in the sand.
This isn’t a free speech issue for the judge.
Free speech in this case is just dissembling on the part of the Liberals, it’s a dodge.
Nobody said ex-judge Reilly shouldn’t have free speech, it’s the content of that speech that is getting a reaction.
He said something controversial and he gets to take the heat for his radical abnormal ideas.
I think the guy is sick and never should have sat on the bench let alone get to be a Member of Parliament and influence legislation.
Waiting for Heather Mallice to come out swinging in her next column against this judge and the Liberal party for supporting him, or does she believe that some girls really are ‘just asking for it?’ I hope the girls who participate in these slutwalks will keep this in mind when they cast their votes!
%#$ing hypocrites!!!
Oz: “This isn’t a free speech issue for the judge.”
So you don’t think he should have the right to voice his personal views — after leaving the bench — on discretionary sentencing? Even if his views are odious? If you don’t, then you are in agreement with Ignatieff because he also did not think the judge had the right to express those views either, and the Libs forced him to make a whimpering public retraction (although they didn’t kick him out).
If we have the free speech rights to condemn those views, then he certainly should have the right to express them, and I have my druthers about the “social justice” consequences of it all.
Maybe that is why I fail to see a woman raped and murdered as morally superior to the woman standing over a dead attempted rapist with a smoking gun…..
Would this have been before, or after, she sobered up?
“So you don’t think he should have the right to voice his personal views — after leaving the bench — on discretionary sentencing?”
I didn’t say he didn’t have the right, who exactly did?
Do you have a reading comprehension problem, richardo?
Nobody that I know of said he shouldn’t have the right to say wrong things.
That’s why I say the free speech issue is a dodge.
NOBODY SAID HE SHOULDN’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY SOMETHING.
I’m glad he exercised his free speech.
That way we know just what kind of a dangerous bozo he is.
Oz,
Ignatieff said the judge didn’t have the right — don’t get excited, I just think people need to keep that in mind.
I haven’t yet read that Ignatieff said the judge shouldn’t have free speech.
(link?)
More about Reilly: I remember a case back in the ’90s where a young Stoney Indian had just gotten his “coming-of-age” cheque, bought a new pickup truck, gone out got drunk and killed to other young people on Highway 1 West of Calgary.
When the drunk Indian was told he’d killed 2 people he asked if they were Indians and was told, “No they were white.”
Drunk Indian replies, “That’s OK then.”
Judge Reilly gave him a suspended sentence.
Oz,
I saw it on TV last night — at least Iggy implied it with a fiery condemnation. And the judge followed up with a whimpering public apology. I don’t think anybody should be bullied into retracting their personal beliefs.
Plus it was “sleight of hand” on the Libs part — meanwhile they didn’t get rid of him, did they?
These criminal loving Judges where well weaned by this attitude. No wonder tier minds have become mush. Trudeau killed our Justice system. Communists love criminals. The Soviets use them s Guard in the Gulags. Thinking them more worthy than people who wanted political rights. To the Socialist its the middle class that should be in jail.
Canada’s pampered criminals
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/946010/posts