The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

A Judge Asks a Rape Vicitim "Why couldn’t you just keep your knees together?" Options
Chazlee
Posted: Saturday, September 10, 2016 3:49:22 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
A Candian judge, Robin Camp, may possibly lose his job after asking a rape victim "Why couldn't you just keep your knees together? Why didn't you just sink your bottom down into the basin so he couldn't penetrate you?" This same judge said "Young women want to have sex, particularly if they're drunk," and "some sex and pain sometimes go together and that's not necessarily a bad thing."

"The woman had accused a Calgary man, Alexander Wagar, of raping her over a bathroom sink during a house party. Camp acquitted Wagar in September 2014. The woman appealed, and the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned Camp's ruling, according to a statement of facts. Wagar is scheduled for a second trial in November."

"The woman, whose identity has been concealed, said the judge's remarks made her hate herself. 'He made me feel like I should have done something, like I was some kind of a slut,' she said. During the proceeding, Camp's daughter, who said she herself is a rape victim, testified that her father's comments were disgraceful."

Canada is doing the right thing by investigating what this man has said, and it is likely that he will lose his job, which is also the right thing to do. However, it is quite disturbing to read in the article where people are somewhat excusing the judge's comments on the fact that he is an older man,64, or that he simply did not understand how devastating rape is to the victims, or that he lacked sufficient understanding of the law as it applies to sex crimes.

His daughter "wrote that although her father is "old-fashioned in some ways" and does not completely understand "how women think," he is not "an inherent or dedicated sexist," CBC News reported. I have seen him advance in understanding and empathy for victims, vulnerable litigants and those who have experienced trauma," she wrote."

"Records say Camp did not receive any training or judicial education on sexual assault law or how to preside over sexual assault trials."

"A law professor who called Camp's comments "rude and stupid" testified Thursday that she had five educational sessions with Camp and believes he is now familiar with how to deal with sexual assault cases, CBC News reported."

What this judge said proves that he should no longer be allowed to preside over any cases at all. Actually, it would be great if Canada could disbar him and stop him from practicing law at all. His comments are disgraceful and Canada’s legal system deserves better.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/09/09/judge-could-lose-job-for-berating-rape-accuser-why-couldnt-you-just-keep-your-knees-together/




taurine
Posted: Saturday, September 10, 2016 8:09:57 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/20/2016
Posts: 564
Neurons: 50,903
The Canadian judge may, but do not must lose his job.
Citations related to the judge's expressions of his valuation of events in question are being given without a wider context.
It is easy to condemn a judge, while the words he used are recollected without methodological analysis of the surrounding context, consisting of statements, oral and written as well. The statements related to the rape, and analysing the behaviour of the participants during committing an offence. It is also important to note, that the very rape consists of certain stages, one of them may be called preparation, depending on the state of mind of the perpetrator. It is also possible to discern another stage, existing directly before the physical contact, related to the victim and her approach to the environment, she had later on found herself in. The latter one belongs to the Victimology, which constitutes a part of a material criminal law.

It is a deplorable experience to inadvertently read your unwise and harmful opinions about this case.
The words "(...)it is likely that he will lose his job, which is also the right thing to do." are imposing your not though over ideas about possible consequences on an audience at large. What is doing no good to any reader willing to make his mind about it.

By the way, is it not a strange curiosity, that we were not given to read an article from Canada, instead U.S.?
Chazlee
Posted: Saturday, September 10, 2016 9:00:16 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
taurine wrote:
The Canadian judge may, but do not must lose his job.
Citations related to the judge's expressions of his valuation of events in question are being given without a wider context.
It is easy to condemn a judge, while the words he used are recollected without methodological analysis of the surrounding context, consisting of statements, oral and written as well. The statements related to the rape, and analysing the behaviour of the participants during committing an offence. It is also important to note, that the very rape consists of certain stages, one of them may be called preparation, depending on the state of mind of the perpetrator. It is also possible to discern another stage, existing directly before the physical contact, related to the victim and her approach to the environment, she had later on found herself in. The latter one belongs to the Victimology, which constitutes a part of a material criminal law.

It is a deplorable experience to inadvertently read your unwise and harmful opinions about this case.
The words "(...)it is likely that he will lose his job, which is also the right thing to do." are imposing your not though over ideas about possible consequences on an audience at large. What is doing no good to any reader willing to make his mind about it.

By the way, is it not a strange curiosity, that we were not given to read an article from Canada, instead U.S.?


Based on the way you have written your reply to my post, this is the only way I can respond to you.
Well, the criminal of it makes for the timing to be see as not so much to be so. Otherwise, the motive of the mistaken idea has been changed given that one makes over the other. It after having changed the circumstance of the entire plan would have left them open to more likely changes for the extension of law then clearly it would have reflected a continuation of the previous time. Thus, the damage to the super cautious exposure strains the place and citizen which lacks a clear answer to the motion.

Peace.
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, September 10, 2016 9:41:48 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,127
Neurons: 41,209
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Chazlee wrote:
taurine wrote:
The Canadian judge may, but do not must lose his job.
Citations related to the judge's expressions of his valuation of events in question are being given without a wider context.
It is easy to condemn a judge, while the words he used are recollected without methodological analysis of the surrounding context, consisting of statements, oral and written as well. The statements related to the rape, and analysing the behaviour of the participants during committing an offence. It is also important to note, that the very rape consists of certain stages, one of them may be called preparation, depending on the state of mind of the perpetrator. It is also possible to discern another stage, existing directly before the physical contact, related to the victim and her approach to the environment, she had later on found herself in. The latter one belongs to the Victimology, which constitutes a part of a material criminal law.

It is a deplorable experience to inadvertently read your unwise and harmful opinions about this case.
The words "(...)it is likely that he will lose his job, which is also the right thing to do." are imposing your not though over ideas about possible consequences on an audience at large. What is doing no good to any reader willing to make his mind about it.

By the way, is it not a strange curiosity, that we were not given to read an article from Canada, instead U.S.?


Based on the way you have written your reply to my post, this is the only way I can respond to you.
Well, the criminal of it makes for the timing to be see as not so much to be so. Otherwise, the motive of the mistaken idea has been changed given that one makes over the other. It after having changed the circumstance of the entire plan would have left them open to more likely changes for the extension of law then clearly it would have reflected a continuation of the previous time. Thus, the damage to the super cautious exposure strains the place and citizen which lacks a clear answer to the motion.

Peace.


Chazlee, if you are making fun of someone who is not a native English speaker, then please stop.

World food shortage that threatens five hundred million children could be alleviated at the cost of one day's warfare.
Chazlee
Posted: Saturday, September 10, 2016 12:12:57 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
Hope123 wrote:
Chazlee wrote:
taurine wrote:
The Canadian judge may, but do not must lose his job.
Citations related to the judge's expressions of his valuation of events in question are being given without a wider context.
It is easy to condemn a judge, while the words he used are recollected without methodological analysis of the surrounding context, consisting of statements, oral and written as well. The statements related to the rape, and analysing the behaviour of the participants during committing an offence. It is also important to note, that the very rape consists of certain stages, one of them may be called preparation, depending on the state of mind of the perpetrator. It is also possible to discern another stage, existing directly before the physical contact, related to the victim and her approach to the environment, she had later on found herself in. The latter one belongs to the Victimology, which constitutes a part of a material criminal law.

It is a deplorable experience to inadvertently read your unwise and harmful opinions about this case.
The words "(...)it is likely that he will lose his job, which is also the right thing to do." are imposing your not though over ideas about possible consequences on an audience at large. What is doing no good to any reader willing to make his mind about it.

By the way, is it not a strange curiosity, that we were not given to read an article from Canada, instead U.S.?


Based on the way you have written your reply to my post, this is the only way I can respond to you.
Well, the criminal of it makes for the timing to be see as not so much to be so. Otherwise, the motive of the mistaken idea has been changed given that one makes over the other. It after having changed the circumstance of the entire plan would have left them open to more likely changes for the extension of law then clearly it would have reflected a continuation of the previous time. Thus, the damage to the super cautious exposure strains the place and citizen which lacks a clear answer to the motion.

Peace.


Chazlee, if you are making fun of someone who is not a native English speaker, then please stop.



Hope,
Mind your own business. This fool was attacking me and he did so using English which made no sense at all. So mind your own business, or better yet, put me on your list of people who you wrote to me about who you say you will not respond to anymore. However, if a person decides to attack me, which this fool did, then I will respond in the way I want. Again, mind your own business.
BTW, do not send me PM messages anymore with complaints about other people on this site. I don't want or need to hear from you. This idiot attacked me and so I responded to him in an unkind way. If you don't like it, mind your own business, or write to him and tell him to keep his comments to himself. Yet, I don't think you will do that. So mind your own business.
If someone attacked you, I would not tell you how to respond. You respond the way you want to do, and I will do the same. Mind your own business. Apparently, you could not see that he was attacking me, or you think it was fine of him to do so and I would not reply. Well, you are wrong. Mind your own business. You do not need to get in the middle of something which doesn't apply to you. So mind your own business.
thar
Posted: Saturday, September 10, 2016 12:30:18 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 15,867
Neurons: 63,560

You behaved like a boor.
Deal with the consequences.

Chazlee
Posted: Saturday, September 10, 2016 12:37:30 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
thar wrote:
And maybe you should stop attacking people. Where is this 'attack' you refer to? In your mind.
If you have a problem with one person, maybe that is a personality clash. When you start conflicts with multiple people, and are proud of it, that suggests the problem is with you, and you really can't complain when people pull you up on it.
You behaved like a boor.
Deal with the consequences.
Mind your own business first.


Ok, I will deal with the consequences of any post I make. However, you should mind your own business as well. I attack Trump repeatly. You don't like it, well deal with it. You find it boring that I attack Trump all the time, but you read what I write, don't you? However, you don't like it. That is too bad for you.

There was nothing wrong with the original post I wrote about a judge in Canada who should not be a judge. Some fool attacked me because, well, I don't know why as his post made no sense to me but certain words did, and I responded to the attack.

You want to jump in this fight. That is fine. Hope will send you a PM message saying negative things about me, I am sure. I can deal with that. You can write back to her and then let the romance happen. However, again, you don't like what I write on this site because it is against Trump. Too bad. Deal with it.

BTW, I have problems with some people here, not all, because I attack Trump all the time. Many agree with me. Deal with that.
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, September 10, 2016 3:30:03 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,127
Neurons: 41,209
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Chazlee,

It is not only our business but our responsibility to see that we keep the forum civil. It is one thing to use your sarcasm on a native English speaker (and no one has called you on it before and maybe we should have ) but it is another matter to use it on someone who is not. Furthermore, he did not attack you but your opinion and choice of source. I was able to understand the English. We encourage new learners to participate - that's partly what the Forum is for. I suggest you read the Forum rules, not only about inflaming posts, but about disclosing info about private messages (and making exaggerations about them in the heat of anger). I always keep in mind that we are all legally responsible for what we write here.

Furthermore, I rarely write or receive private messages and did so twice - once to you re ideas for you to post about and against Trump, and a second in response to your response. Another person's name was mentioned as an explanation as to something concerning both you and me. And I said absolutely nothing I have not said on the forum directly to that person. I don't have a list about whose posts to read or not read.

I asked you politely to please stop making fun of someone's English.

May I make a gentle suggestion for your own good, that if you wish others to respond to your threads that you cool it.



World food shortage that threatens five hundred million children could be alleviated at the cost of one day's warfare.
Chazlee
Posted: Saturday, September 10, 2016 4:41:41 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
Hope123 wrote:
Chazlee,

It is not only our business but our responsibility to see that we keep the forum civil. It is one thing to use your sarcasm on a native English speaker (and no one has called you on it before and maybe we should have ) but it is another matter to use it on someone who is not. Furthermore, he did not attack you but your opinion and choice of source. I was able to understand the English. We encourage new learners to participate - that's partly what the Forum is for. I suggest you read the Forum rules, not only about inflaming posts, but about disclosing info about private messages (and making exaggerations about them in the heat of anger). I always keep in mind that we are all legally responsible for what we write here.

Furthermore, I rarely write or receive private messages and did so twice - once to you re ideas for you to post about and against Trump, and a second in response to your response. Another person's name was mentioned as an explanation as to something concerning both you and me. And I said absolutely nothing I have not said on the forum directly to that person. I don't have a list about whose posts to read or not read.

I asked you politely to please stop making fun of someone's English.

May I make a gentle suggestion for your own good, that if you wish others to respond to your threads that you cool it.




Hope you are wrong.
If a person who is not a native speaker of English attacks me or any other person on this site, then we have the right to respond with sarcasm, or any other way as long as certain vulgar words are not use, and as long as violence is not threatened.

I wrote a post. A person, who did not have to do so, wrote a negative response to me. The post was about a judge in Canada, and perhaps that is why you jumped to the person's defense. However, if he/she would not have written to me in a negative way, then this situation would not have happened. You can't see that and that is your problem.

Here is a bit of what the person wrote to me, since you don't want to take the time to read what was written. "It is a deplorable experience to inadvertently read your unwise and harmful opinions about this case."

So, if one attacks a post, then one needs to expect to get hit back. That is what happened, and you did not have a reason to respond to me. Did you write to the person and tell him/her to refrain from writing negative posts to others on this site? I said before that I don't think you did and I still don't think you did. Thus, I told you then, and I tell you now, to mind your own business.

Was the person being civil when he/she responded to my post? I know the answer even though you do not. You should have minded your own business.

I know people are legally responsible for what they say/write. So are you. Please don't throw that out as a threat. If what I have written to you or that fool who responded to me think it is worthy of a lawsuit, then go for it. I bet you don't do it, because you stuck your nose in where it didn't belong and now you are upset because I refuse to kowtow to your feelings. Again, mind your own business.

Also, don't tell me what he intended when he responded to me. How do you know? Again, mind your own business. I promise you that when you write less than kind things about anyone who attacks you, I will not tell you how to respond to them. So, don't do that to me. Just mind your own business.

You wrote "We encourage new learners to participate - that's partly what the Forum is for." Well, there is a difference between participation and attack. If a person does not know the difference, then they will learn soon enough.

Also, you wrote me a PM message. I responded to you. I said don't send me anymore PM messages. I did not tell 100% what you said to me, nor did I go into details. What I wrote publicly is the truth about your message to me. I did not divulge any names.

I really believe you jumped into this fight because the story was about a person from Canada. Even the fool who attacked me wrote "By the way, is it not a strange curiosity, that we were not given to read an article from Canada, instead U.S.?' I really have a hard time understanding this person's meaning, but I take it be that I should not have written about Canada. Yet, you write about the US all the time, and in the PM message I encouraged you not to stop posting just because others, as you said, had attacked you.

Why did you take it upon yourself to be the law enforcement officer for this site? Again, I wrote a post, a person responded to the post in a negative way, and I responded. Again, did you write to the person who responded to me and tell him/her to "cool it"? I say again I bet you did not.

You should have minded your own business. I laughed at, mocked, the person's negative reply to my post. There is nothing wrong with doing that. You have responded to others in less than nice ways at times. Why is that ok for you to do but not others?

Finally, you wrote "May I make a gentle suggestion for your own good, that if you wish others to respond to your threads that you cool it." Actually, I have never cared if anyone responds to what I write, and at times, like with your response, it is better if there is no reply. You may need someone to respond to what you write in order to feel good, but I do not. So, I will not "cool it" if that means not responding to someone who attacks what I have written, which means the person is actually attacking me.

BTW, until they change the name of this site to "Hope's Free Dictionary," then I ask you to mind your own business.
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, September 10, 2016 5:09:11 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,127
Neurons: 41,209
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
You make so many assumptions about people and what they think. I happen to agree that your thread was perfectly fine and the judge has been and is being reprimanded. It was the mocking manner of your response and had absolutely nothing to do with Canada.

Secondly, telling you how I write was not a threat. What you write is not my problem.

You have every right to respond to someone who you feel attacked you, but no right to insult him/her by mocking his attempts at the language.

And I have every right to express my opinion without your ridiculous overreactions. It's not Chazlee's private forum either and people ARE allowed to disagree with you. I did it politely without personal accusations which is more than I can say for you.

Be my guest and have the last word!







World food shortage that threatens five hundred million children could be alleviated at the cost of one day's warfare.
Listening . . .
Posted: Saturday, September 10, 2016 8:36:47 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 937
Neurons: 3,817
Brick wall Brick wall Brick wall Brick wall Brick wall Brick wall
Chazlee
Posted: Saturday, September 10, 2016 9:45:15 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
Listening . . . wrote:
Brick wall Brick wall Brick wall Brick wall Brick wall Brick wall



Please be careful not to break the new rule about sending unpleasant messages to other people's posts. Otherwise you will get a lecture reminding you of your bad behavior. Actually, I think your reply directly violates the new rule about sending sarcastic replies to people's posts. Thus, I must gently ask you to refrain from engaging in further misconduct on this site. Please keep in mind that this site is here for everyone, and it is possible that your wordless message could hurt the feelings of the person who made the original post. Thank you so much for your cooperation. Now please enjoy reading the other posts on TFD and have a lovely day.
Sincerely, yours truly, with much love, best wishes, take care, xoxoxo,
Chazlee.
Chazlee
Posted: Saturday, September 10, 2016 10:06:02 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
Hope123 wrote:
You make so many assumptions about people and what they think. I happen to agree that your thread was perfectly fine and the judge has been and is being reprimanded. It was the mocking manner of your response and had absolutely nothing to do with Canada.

Secondly, telling you how I write was not a threat. What you write is not my problem.

You have every right to respond to someone who you feel attacked you, but no right to insult him/her by mocking his attempts at the language.

And I have every right to express my opinion without your ridiculous overreactions. It's not Chazlee's private forum either and people ARE allowed to disagree with you. I did it politely without personal accusations which is more than I can say for you.

Be my guest and have the last word!







Officer Hope,

I need to report a person who has violated the new no-sarcasm rule on this site. The violator's name is Listening, and the offense happened on Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 8:36:47 PM. As a frequent visitor to this site, I believe my feelings have been damaged, no, actually they have been destroyed by this person's thoughtless actions. This person sent me a message which has lowered my self-esteem, and caused me to lose sleep, and I am unable to eat very much just thinking about what happened. Oh, I have also been crying a lot, which has caused me to have to spend more money than usual on tissues, and having to buy more tissues to dry my tears has placed a lot of financial burden upon me, and actually it has almost caused me to file for bankruptcy.

Thus, Officer Hope, I ask you to intervene and let this unkind person know that they are violating Rules 478, 225 and 690 in the TFD handbook about things people can't write when replying to a post. I even think the person may have violated Rule 508 about being mean to others.

Thank you so much Officer Hope. I feel much better knowing you are on the job!!

Sincerely, yours truly, with much love, best wishes, take care, xoxoxo,
Chazlee.

taurine
Posted: Sunday, September 11, 2016 3:50:41 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/20/2016
Posts: 564
Neurons: 50,903
Chazlee wrote:
taurine wrote:
The Canadian judge may, but do not must lose his job.
Citations related to the judge's expressions of his valuation of events in question are being given without a wider context.
It is easy to condemn a judge, while the words he used are recollected without methodological analysis of the surrounding context, consisting of statements, oral and written as well. The statements related to the rape, and analysing the behaviour of the participants during committing an offence. It is also important to note, that the very rape consists of certain stages, one of them may be called preparation, depending on the state of mind of the perpetrator. It is also possible to discern another stage, existing directly before the physical contact, related to the victim and her approach to the environment, she had later on found herself in. The latter one belongs to the Victimology, which constitutes a part of a material criminal law.

It is a deplorable experience to inadvertently read your unwise and harmful opinions about this case.
The words "(...)it is likely that he will lose his job, which is also the right thing to do." are imposing your not though over ideas about possible consequences on an audience at large. What is doing no good to any reader willing to make his mind about it.

By the way, is it not a strange curiosity, that we were not given to read an article from Canada, instead U.S.?


Based on the way you have written your reply to my post, this is the only way I can respond to you.
Well, the criminal of it makes for the timing to be see as not so much to be so. Otherwise, the motive of the mistaken idea has been changed given that one makes over the other. It after having changed the circumstance of the entire plan would have left them open to more likely changes for the extension of law then clearly it would have reflected a continuation of the previous time. Thus, the damage to the super cautious exposure strains the place and citizen which lacks a clear answer to the motion.

Peace.


The fact that you have attached a link to the press article and have issued your opinion does not make you a valuable contributor to the problem you have posted.
Your attention-seeking, cheap populist statements are unfounded and harmful for those of us who are trying to learn.
The logic applied by you to an article available on the Internet is faulty, at best.
Your knowledge of the law is probably on par level with the understanding of matters, you have boldly manifested your support for a radical solution. What is not only harmful to those of us who learn, whatever it is, but also shows disrespect while imposing your silly convictions.

Moron on the verge of a slip who slips on others' shoes.
Chazlee
Posted: Sunday, September 11, 2016 6:45:07 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
taurine wrote:
Chazlee wrote:
taurine wrote:
The Canadian judge may, but do not must lose his job.
Citations related to the judge's expressions of his valuation of events in question are being given without a wider context.
It is easy to condemn a judge, while the words he used are recollected without methodological analysis of the surrounding context, consisting of statements, oral and written as well. The statements related to the rape, and analysing the behaviour of the participants during committing an offence. It is also important to note, that the very rape consists of certain stages, one of them may be called preparation, depending on the state of mind of the perpetrator. It is also possible to discern another stage, existing directly before the physical contact, related to the victim and her approach to the environment, she had later on found herself in. The latter one belongs to the Victimology, which constitutes a part of a material criminal law.

It is a deplorable experience to inadvertently read your unwise and harmful opinions about this case.
The words "(...)it is likely that he will lose his job, which is also the right thing to do." are imposing your not though over ideas about possible consequences on an audience at large. What is doing no good to any reader willing to make his mind about it.

By the way, is it not a strange curiosity, that we were not given to read an article from Canada, instead U.S.?


Based on the way you have written your reply to my post, this is the only way I can respond to you.
Well, the criminal of it makes for the timing to be see as not so much to be so. Otherwise, the motive of the mistaken idea has been changed given that one makes over the other. It after having changed the circumstance of the entire plan would have left them open to more likely changes for the extension of law then clearly it would have reflected a continuation of the previous time. Thus, the damage to the super cautious exposure strains the place and citizen which lacks a clear answer to the motion.

Peace.


The fact that you have attached a link to the press article and have issued your opinion does not make you a valuable contributor to the problem you have posted.
Your attention-seeking, cheap populist statements are unfounded and harmful for those of us who are trying to learn.
The logic applied by you to an article available on the Internet is faulty, at best.
Your knowledge of the law is probably on par level with the understanding of matters, you have boldly manifested your support for a radical solution. What is not only harmful to those of us who learn, whatever it is, but also shows disrespect while imposing your silly convictions.

Moron on the verge of a slip who slips on others' shoes.



I am not posting to teach you anything. If you want to learn something, go to school, read a book, but don't read my posts. You are actually the moron since you come to this forum thinking people, like me, are going to teach you things. I have an opinion and I share my thoughts with others. Only an idiot like yourself would read the post of someone they felt had nothing to offer him/her, and then complain about not learning anything from a person whose opinion you don't like or respect. Think about that for a minute, which is probably the length of time you can actually think about a topic before you start to get a headache.

So you think I am not making a valuable contribution in my posts, but you are reading and replying to them. Again, this reveals you to be an idiot. My posts are actually "harmful" to you? You really wrote those words. I actually agree with you that my knowledge of the law is probably not at the same level as some others. Ok. So, then you think I am not entitled to have an opinion about a judge who verbally attacked a rape victim in his courtroom? Again, your words reveal you be a total clown. I do not even have an opinion as to your level of knowledge about the law or anything else, since I don't care about you at all.

Again, your whining reply about not learning anything from me or my posts is astonishing. I am not your teacher. I do not want to be your teacher. I have never said I would be your teacher. I have never said I would teach you anything. You are just a fool who decided to call me names so I am doing the same to you.

Class is dismissed. Oh, and you failed.


Hope123
Posted: Sunday, September 11, 2016 11:48:20 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,127
Neurons: 41,209
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Judge Camp, his wife, and daughter



"But (Judge Robin) Camp has since paid a justice, law professor and psychologist to mentor him about the law as well as the trauma of sexual assault.
His daughter Lauren Lee Camp, who is a rape victim herself, called her father's behavior 'disgraceful', but claimed he is a changed man with 'a new kind of sensitivity and understanding', according to the Globe and Mail. (He had been understanding and supportive of her when she was raped.)
Closing arguments in the judicial review take place Monday. The Canadian Judicial Council will then forward its final recommendation to the federal justice minister." Brackets are my addition from further reading.

Read More

This incident may make him a better, more careful judge in all areas, and also be a reminder to all judges to watch their words and attitudes, and apply the golden rule above all else. Fortunately there are appeals of cases and this one was appealed. This case took place two years ago in 2014.

I agree with his lawyer that his insensitive, rude comments are not grounds for dismissal especially since he (and others) learned from it. He has been humiliated and reprimanded as punishment, has apologized and taken steps to educate himself and change his attitudes, and I believe in second chances. This is a human being we are talking about, not just some figure in the news and no matter which country he comes from he and his family deserve some empathy for a first offence. He has been a good judge till now.

I will post results if I remember when it happens.


World food shortage that threatens five hundred million children could be alleviated at the cost of one day's warfare.
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, September 11, 2016 11:53:55 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,127
Neurons: 41,209
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
In a different case in July 2016 in Ontario, Justice Marvin Zuker says Canada needs to make changes in its treatment of rape victims. And there are signs that this is happening. Lately in the news there have been politicians and high profile men who have had consequences for sexual harassment in the workplace.

"A judge in Ontario has used his verdict in a sexual assault trial to deliver a scathing critique of rape myths, the treatment of sexual assault complainants in Canada’s legal system and expectations on how survivors should act after an assault...It doesn’t matter if the victim was drinking, out at night alone, sexually exploited, on a date with the perpetrator, or how the victim was dressed. No one asks to be raped.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/22/canada-judge-sexual-assault-rape-case-critique

It is good that the news reached the US and the UK but it is to be hoped that both pieces of news have become greater international news so that other countries' legal systems, as well as the UK and the US, can grade themselves as to where rape victims and women in the workplace stand in the ever ending quest for women's equality, and in men's attitudes towards women.

I am sure the accused judge does not stand alone in his previous attitude that women ask for rape, enjoy it, and need to keep their knees together. Mothers and Grandmothers can teach sons to respect women, and daughters to respect men, but also have respect for themselves. Fathers and grandfathers are the role models for both genders.

At the very least, these cases should bring international awareness of a very big problem for women around the world. But there also has to be scrupulous fact taking so that an innocent man is not accused and found guilty. This happens too.

The golden rule of treat others as you wish to be treated covers all rules for social interaction. You get what you give. Rudeness and insensitivity need to be called out no matter where they occur, as the Canadian justice system did.


World food shortage that threatens five hundred million children could be alleviated at the cost of one day's warfare.
thar
Posted: Sunday, September 11, 2016 12:46:10 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 15,867
Neurons: 63,560
Of course these comments were outrageous, but on your general point of treatment of rape victims and accused - that issue is never going to be solved. Simply because you can have the act, and if there is no external evidence then who do you believe? It is necessary to treat all complaints seriously, but if it does come down to a 'he said/she said' (or even he said/he said) then that is never going to be clear. Like any legal decision, you just have to make your best possible judgement.
It is unfortunate that the evidence for that 'judgement' seems to need the inclusion of the victim's past history or prior actions, when that is not relevant. That intimidation needs to be stopped. Men have to stop ducking responsibility on that - it is not that hard to tell if someone is actively participating! And if you are 'too high or drunk to tell' then you have to treat sex like driving - if you are so intoxicated that you can't recognise consent or lack of it, then you are not fit to have sex, as you risk committing rape. It needs a shift in responsibility.
Starting with the assumption that inability to give consent means rape, and that no prior actions mitigate that or non-consent, you are just left with evidence of motive - is the victim being truthful about an assault or making a malicious and false allegation? Is the accused being truthful or lying about it being consensual (ie wittingly so) at that point in time? I think in most circumstances that is an easier judgement to make. And, if in reasonable doubt of that, you can't convict. That does cause injustice, to victims who have been raped if their rapist is not found guilty or case dropped on the assumption it cannot be won. But that is the way the western justice system is set up, to prefer injustice over miscarriage of justice. There is no way around that, that does not risk equal injustice to those falsely accused.

It can be a juddering progress, but I think things are generally getting better in a lot of places. Unfortunately they are getting horrifically worse in a lot of other places. The best way to stop accusations of rape is to stone women to death for 'adultery' if they make an allegation, thereby admitting intercourse happened! Or require the presence of three men (who just happened to be standing around watching the rape) or it is not considered true and the woman is flogged for lying about it. There are countries with very low rates of reported rape - but which probably hide the highest instances. The fact this is a scandal in Canada, and these things are in the public domain again, is still a good thing.
Chazlee
Posted: Sunday, September 11, 2016 1:50:21 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
There have certainly been well-known cases in the US where innocent men have gone to prison for rape, and have been set free after DNA evidence showed the person did not commit the crime. (Gary Dotson is one such person). However, with the Canadian judge, the problem as I see it is that his comments had nothing to do with justice, but they did have everything to do with his own personal basis against at least one woman who claimed to have been raped.

It is also incredible that any adult would be unable to know that he should not have spoken to a possible rape victim in the way this judge did, especially when that person has a daughter who had been raped. (His daughter called his words disgraceful).

Judges are human and they make mistakes. However, I do wonder if he has contacted the woman he said these things about and apologized to her. Perhaps it would be a fair thing to get input from her as to what she thinks should ultimately happened to him, since she was victimized by him. In any event, he should never be a judge again.

Hope123
Posted: Sunday, September 11, 2016 2:03:44 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,127
Neurons: 41,209
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I agree with everything you said, Thar, plus I learned a new British word - 'juddering'. ;)

:::::

http://ablawg.ca/2015/11/02/judging-sexual-assault-cases-free-of-myths-and-stereotypes/

At the appeal of r v wagar, a new trial was ordered last October. I can't find a set date.

:::

Thar, what do you think about this 'revenge porn' case where a judge's late husband allegedly posted pictures of her in stages of undress and encouraged his former client to sleep with her? Here's what happened to her and how the 'judicial committee' are being taken to task in this excerpt. The author says she should have been the subject and not the object of the enquiry. And that when the tribunal insisted upon viewing the photos of her (I don't know if they were ordered to be removed from online), that they made her the object. The images became more important than the blackmail. Something was done to her - she did not act - and that is a big difference under Canadian law and rights. They had the fact that she was unclothed. They did not need to see the photos.

She was the victim but ended up quitting her job.

https://leeakazaki.com/2014/12/08/a-self-harming-of-judicial-independence-the-legacy-of-the-inquiry-into-loridouglas/

All people need to feel free from cyber-stalking and privacy breaches and this tribunal dropped the ball here. These were private photos taken by a trusted person and IMHO as such she had no obligation to note them on her application. What is your opinion about her obligation, Thar? Also, what do you think about Chazlee's suggestion that people who are rude and insensitive should apologize to those to whom they were rude? Whistle (It's a rhetorical question.)




World food shortage that threatens five hundred million children could be alleviated at the cost of one day's warfare.
Chazlee
Posted: Sunday, September 11, 2016 3:16:09 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
Hope123 wrote:
I agree with everything you said, Thar, plus I learned a new British word - 'juddering'. ;)

:::::

http://ablawg.ca/2015/11/02/judging-sexual-assault-cases-free-of-myths-and-stereotypes/

At the appeal of r v wagar, a new trial was ordered last October. I can't find a set date.

:::

Thar, what do you think about this 'revenge porn' case where a judge's late husband allegedly posted pictures of her in stages of undress and encouraged his former client to sleep with her? Here's what happened to her and how the 'judicial committee' are being taken to task in this excerpt. The author says she should have been the subject and not the object of the enquiry. And that when the tribunal insisted upon viewing the photos of her (I don't know if they were ordered to be removed from online), that they made her the object. The images became more important than the blackmail. Something was done to her - she did not act - and that is a big difference under Canadian law and rights. They had the fact that she was unclothed. They did not need to see the photos.

She was the victim but ended up quitting her job.

https://leeakazaki.com/2014/12/08/a-self-harming-of-judicial-independence-the-legacy-of-the-inquiry-into-loridouglas/

All people need to feel free from cyber-stalking and privacy breaches and this tribunal dropped the ball here. These were private photos taken by a trusted person and IMHO as such she had no obligation to note them on her application. What is your opinion about her obligation, Thar? Also, what do you think about Chazlee's suggestion that people who are rude and insensitive should apologize to those to whom they were rude? Whistle (It's a rhetorical question.)




Hope I have apologized to you, and I have apologized to others. Give it a rest. I was attacked by another fool in this thread. Did you tell him to cool it? Probably not. Why are you afraid of others? If you have something to say to me, say it. You don't need to play silly games by asking silly questions to others when I was not speaking to you.

I think you are looking for trouble. Are you bored with your life? You try to be the law enforcement officer for this site. Was I rude to you lately? Again, I have apologized to other people on this site. When have you ever done that? I know you apologized to me in the PM you sent to me, but I did it publicly. You said nice things to me in your PM message. Why don't you try to keep that going in public? What's the matter are your feelings hurt? Do you need another apology from me? Will that make you feel better?

You're a silly person. How many times have I been rude and insensitive to you? Are you upset with me since I said a judge who told a rape victim to hold her legs tight together to stop a rape and that would do the trick should no longer be a judge? What if the victim had been someone you know? Would you still believe the judge has already paid a high enough price for his words? This all started since some fool wrote a negative reply to my post and you, being the self-appointed law enforcement officer for this site did not like my reply. Well too bad about that.

Give it a rest and I will do the same. Otherwise, let's just attack each other endlessly on this site. But then you can't claim the high moral ground, which you seem to like to do. Ok, Officer Hope?
taurine
Posted: Sunday, September 11, 2016 3:20:02 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/20/2016
Posts: 564
Neurons: 50,903

I like primitivism, especially in the shape of Henri Rousseau paintings.
What you have displayed, is a way ahead of my expectations.
taurine
Posted: Sunday, September 11, 2016 3:23:48 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/20/2016
Posts: 564
Neurons: 50,903
A nice photo, certain Hope123.
Regretfully, I am 86 years old, and your interesting looking daughter is well beyond of my dream;-)

(Poor woman)
Chazlee
Posted: Sunday, September 11, 2016 3:25:07 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
taurine wrote:

I like primitivism, especially in the shape of Henri Rousseau paintings.
What you have displayed, is a way ahead of my expectations.


Did you get dropped on your head a lot when you were a baby? Was it done on purpose by unhappy family members? I'm just wondering.Think
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, September 11, 2016 3:27:15 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,127
Neurons: 41,209
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Hi Taurine. Glad you are entering discussions. But that photo is of the judge's wife and daughter. I do have granddaughters who are beautiful inside and out.

Edited to add - Just ignore rudeness. If you've been reading TFD lately, you will know we are not all like that.

World food shortage that threatens five hundred million children could be alleviated at the cost of one day's warfare.
Chazlee
Posted: Sunday, September 11, 2016 3:34:41 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
Hope123 wrote:
Hi Taurine. Glad you are entering discussions. But that photo is of the judge's wife and daughter. I do have granddaughters who are beautiful inside and out.

Edited to add - Just ignore rudeness. If you've been reading TFD lately, you will know we are not all like that.


Now you got another person to help you Officer Hope. BTW, do you think Taurine is rude? He came over to this thread to call me names. What do you think about that Officer Hope? Did you tell him to cool it? Why not? C'mon Officer Hope. Talk to me. We'll make it a therapy session. Let's begin at the point that you decided to tell some people what to post but not others. You can include what you wrote in your 2 PMs to me. Let's talk about why you dislike some people here. Since you were writing to me so it wasn't me you were speaking about. Let's start there.
taurine
Posted: Sunday, September 11, 2016 3:37:34 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/20/2016
Posts: 564
Neurons: 50,903
Chazlee wrote:
taurine wrote:

I like primitivism, especially in the shape of Henri Rousseau paintings.
What you have displayed, is a way ahead of my expectations.


Did you get dropped on your head a lot when you were a baby? Was it done on purpose by unhappy family members? I'm just wondering.Think


Taking into account your ill-conceived and wrongly assumed perceptions of the environment surrounding the problem related to the alleged misbehaviour of a judge in Canada, as reported by a U.S. newspaper, I believe that I am rightly assuming your insane stance as a one which is dictated by the fact of your deficiency in sane reasoning.

I wish you well.
thar
Posted: Sunday, September 11, 2016 3:40:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 15,867
Neurons: 63,560
Yugh. That is the first time I have read the actual comments, and not just about the enquiry (edit - including the headline phrase and a bit more). They are pretty vile, both patronising and misogynistic, which is quite hard to do at the same time!

The second one - I am confused. Was an investigation started against her for 'conduct unbecoming' in effect, and her defence was she didn't make them public? In which case it does clearly seem that the content is irrelevant - that is all about her actions. And for that you have to consider her possible motivation vs alternative theories! That seems to be a monumental failure of legal focus, and basic notions of justice apart from anything else.

As for revenge porn - well, the US at least seems to have finally realised how awful it is. Didn't some guy get a seriously long sentence recently, in California I think?
You can already use 'assault' to cover emotional distress. (I know that is Common Law, so I don't know how much it exists in Canada, and even more so in the US). The trouble is you then have to prove the 'level of distress caused' - ie paint yourself as a victim. If you can just assert that there was reasonable expectation that it would cause distress (ie you don't have to prove the hurt, or the intent to hurt - just the intent to post the pictures without consent) - then you can just assess the crime on the actions.

But there, you definitely need to see the pictures - however embarrassing (if they are contesting the case) - you have a right to have evidence examined. And that is tough on the person who doesn't want them out there, but you can't ignore them. It is the same as the potential embarrassment and shame of testifying in any rape or sexual assault trial. You need to put the shame on the person who posted them, not the person in them. Make testifying about any rape, sexual assault, or assault about what happened, not how much it has hurt you. But that is another issue - and it relates to all areas of criminal law, doesn't it.

The law is always behind the times - by its very nature it looks back instead of forward. Like not being guilty of murder if the death occurred over a year and a day after an assault. That made some sense in the past, where you couldn't link a cause to a distal event - but with modern medicine people could survive for years and yet still die due to their injuries. Eventually the law changed to keep up. It just has to adapt to the new way the world works - not be complacent. Most of the laws you need for 'new offences' seem already to be in place - they just have to be used with common sense and vigour, and recognising new realities. Like taking research (I sure some has been done) about what effect revenge porn has on the victim, and scaling the offence accordingly - rather than having to go through the test each time, punishing the victim.

At least with revenge porn there is usually clear evidence (though with snapchat,maybe not - you can't recover that, can you?) - "they did this to hurt me" - that is assault. And I can understand the motive. Not condone, of course, but revenge, or an abusive relationship, is something people recognise and can understand. It is a crime of emotional violence.
Cyber bullying, on the other hand - I have so much trouble understanding that. Why anyone would want to do it, what they get out of it? I cannot get my head around how some people enjoy making other people feel bad. I guess that means I don't understand bullying, but I can see the 'high' in seeing someone cowering in front of you. But when you never see them, just troll them online, or try to destroy people you don't know - I just don't get that. That actually scares me, that there are so many people out there for whom that constitutes a good time. And the law is not a useful instrument against that yet, as far as I know. With generations growing up where constant cyber life is important, if not addictive - I can only see that getting worse, before people in general realise they can choose to switch off from their abusers, for their own mental health.
That last bit was a natural segue from your question, not in any way a comment about what has been posted in this thread. I have said my bit in defense of others, and then I ignore anything further that I know won't be constructive. Not what I visit the threads for, so not worth reading. Rhetorical question disappearing questfully into the ether...Whistle


There was legislation proposed in Iceland which seeks to classify revenge porn as a sexual assault punishable by a jail term. (Although in Iceland, jail is pretty cushy!) But I don't think it got through debate (lots of other things going on, government-wise...Whistle ). Personally, I don't believe it is useful to pass a new law for every new situation - just interpret the wording of the old law. But I guess that gives lawyers too much opportunity for an out. But if you go down that route, you need a new law for each 'method' of committing what is the same crime really - abuse, from emotional bullying, to cyber attacks, to rape. Just a continuum. (of course I am not putting them all on the same level).

Yoiks. Another wall of words. I need to stop writing so much. The poor electrons are getting worn out.
taurine
Posted: Sunday, September 11, 2016 3:46:29 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/20/2016
Posts: 564
Neurons: 50,903
Hope123 wrote:
Hi Taurine. Glad you are entering discussions. But that photo is of the judge's wife and daughter. I do have granddaughters who are beautiful inside and out.

Edited to add - Just ignore rudeness. If you've been reading TFD lately, you will know we are not all like that.


Granddaughters are my dream. I do believe in the beauty of a woman, who not only looks good, but may deliver more than a lovely insights into her displayed valuable assets.
It is a pleasure to have a hope about finding a soul mate. What about "Liquid Soul", one of my favourite music players in the field of inciting, devious, respecting Grandmas' ugly cavemen?

I forgot to admit, I am 84 years old now, so my prospective soul-mate must like "Aes Dana".
Chazlee
Posted: Sunday, September 11, 2016 3:48:19 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
taurine wrote:
Chazlee wrote:
taurine wrote:

I like primitivism, especially in the shape of Henri Rousseau paintings.
What you have displayed, is a way ahead of my expectations.


Did you get dropped on your head a lot when you were a baby? Was it done on purpose by unhappy family members? I'm just wondering.Think


Taking into account your ill-conceived and wrongly assumed perceptions of the environment surrounding the problem related to the alleged misbehaviour of a judge in Canada, as reported by a U.S. newspaper, I believe that I am rightly assuming your insane stance as a one which is dictated by the fact of your deficiency in sane reasoning.

I wish you well.


I wish you well also. It is too bad you chose to ignore my questions, but I guess by ignoring them you have actually given me an answer.
taurine
Posted: Sunday, September 11, 2016 3:50:24 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/20/2016
Posts: 564
Neurons: 50,903
Chazlee wrote:
taurine wrote:
Chazlee wrote:
taurine wrote:

I like primitivism, especially in the shape of Henri Rousseau paintings.
What you have displayed, is a way ahead of my expectations.


Did you get dropped on your head a lot when you were a baby? Was it done on purpose by unhappy family members? I'm just wondering.Think


Taking into account your ill-conceived and wrongly assumed perceptions of the environment surrounding the problem related to the alleged misbehaviour of a judge in Canada, as reported by a U.S. newspaper, I believe that I am rightly assuming your insane stance as a one which is dictated by the fact of your deficiency in sane reasoning.

I wish you well.


I wish you well also. It is too bad you chose to ignore my questions, but I guess by ignoring them you have actually given me an answer.


Your questions are not ignored. Your ignorance should be ignored.
taurine
Posted: Sunday, September 11, 2016 3:59:30 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/20/2016
Posts: 564
Neurons: 50,903
thar wrote:
Yugh. That is the first time I have read the actual comments, and not just about the enquiry. They are pretty vile, both patronising and misogynistic, which is quite hard to do at the same time!

The second one - I am confused. Was an investigation started against her for 'conduct unbecoming' in effect, and her defence was she didn't make them public? In which case it does clearly seem that the content is irrelevant - that is all about her actions. And for that you have to consider her possible motivation vs alternative theories! That seems to be a monumental failure of legal focus, and basic notions of justice apart from anything else.

As for revenge porn - well, the US at least seems to have finally realised how awful it is. Didn't some guy get a seriously long sentence recently, in California I think?
You can already use 'assault' to cover emotional distress. (I know that is Common Law, so I don't know how much it exists in Canada, and even more so in the US). The trouble is you then have to prove the 'level of distress caused' - ie paint yourself as a victim. If you can just assert that there was reasonable expectation that it would cause distress (ie you don't have to prove the hurt, or the intent to hurt - just the intent to post the pictures without consent) - then you can just assess the crime on the actions.

But there, you definitely need to see the pictures - however embarrassing (if they are contesting the case) - you have a right to have evidence examined. And that is tough on the person who doesn't want them out there, but you can't ignore them. It is the same as the potential embarrassment and shame of testifying in any rape or sexual assault trial. You need to put the shame on the person who posted them, not the person in them. Make testifying about any rape, sexual assault, or assault about what happened, not how much it has hurt you. But that is another issue - and it relates to all areas of criminal law, doesn't it.

The law is always behind the times - by its very nature it looks back instead of forward. Like not being guilty of murder if the death occurred over a year and a day after an assault. That made some sense in the past, where you couldn't link a cause to a distal event - but with modern medicine people could survive for years and yet still die due to their injuries. Eventually the law changed to keep up. It just has to adapt to the new way the world works - not be complacent. Most of the laws you need for 'new offences' seem already to be in place - they just have to be used with common sense and vigour, and recognising new realities. Like taking research (I sure some has been done) about what effect revenge porn has on the victim, and scaling the offence accordingly - rather than having to go through the test each time, punishing the victim.

At least with revenge porn there is usually clear evidence (though with snapchat,maybe not - you can't recover that, can you?) - "they did this to hurt me" - that is assault. And I can understand the motive. Not condone, of course, but revenge, or an abusive relationship, is something people recognise and can understand. It is a crime of emotional violence.
Cyber bullying, on the other hand - I have so much trouble understanding that. Why anyone would want to do it, what they get out of it? I cannot get my head around how some people enjoy making other people feel bad. I guess that means I don't understand bullying, but I can see the 'high' in seeing someone cowering in front of you. But when you never see them, just troll them online, or try to destroy people you don't know - I just don't get that. That actually scares me, that there are so many people out there for whom that constitutes a good time. And the law is not a useful instrument against that yet, as far as I know. With generations growing up where constant cyber life is important, if not addictive - I can only see that getting worse, before people in general realise they can choose to switch off from their abusers, for their own mental health.
That last bit was a natural segue from your question, not in any way a comment about what has been posted in this thread. I have said my bit in defense of others, and then I ignore anything further that I know won't be constructive. Not what I visit the threads for, so not worth reading. Rhetorical question disappearing questfully into the ether...Whistle


There was legislation proposed in Iceland which seeks to classify revenge porn as a sexual assault punishable by a jail term. (Although in Iceland, jail is pretty cushy!) But I don't think it got through debate (lots of other things going on, government-wise...Whistle ). Personally, I don't believe it is useful to pass a new law for every new situation - just interpret the wording of the old law. But I guess that gives lawyers too much opportunity for an out. But if you go down that route, you need a new law for each 'method' of committing what is the same crime really - abuse, from emotional bullying, to cyber attacks, to rape. Just a continuum. (of course I am not putting them all on the same level).

Yoiks. Another wall of words. I need to stop writing so much. The poor electrons are getting worn out.



It happens not so often to have an opportunity to read so wise words
Chazlee
Posted: Sunday, September 11, 2016 4:16:35 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
taurine wrote:
Chazlee wrote:
taurine wrote:
Chazlee wrote:
taurine wrote:

I like primitivism, especially in the shape of Henri Rousseau paintings.
What you have displayed, is a way ahead of my expectations.


Did you get dropped on your head a lot when you were a baby? Was it done on purpose by unhappy family members? I'm just wondering.Think


Taking into account your ill-conceived and wrongly assumed perceptions of the environment surrounding the problem related to the alleged misbehaviour of a judge in Canada, as reported by a U.S. newspaper, I believe that I am rightly assuming your insane stance as a one which is dictated by the fact of your deficiency in sane reasoning.

I wish you well.


I wish you well also. It is too bad you chose to ignore my questions, but I guess by ignoring them you have actually given me an answer.


Your questions are not ignored. Your ignorance should be ignored.


Well, then why are you not ignoring my ignorance? If a person does not ignore an ignorant person, does that make the one who is not ignoring the ignorance more or less ignorant than the original ignorant one? Also, why are you dodging the original questions? Do they bring back bad memories from your childhood? Talk to me, taurine. I can tell you are a person in need.

You came over here with a lot of hostility. What is causing it? Let's get to the root of the problem. You attacked another person on this site who had said nothing to you. That reveals a problem you're having. Then you keep coming back to where the problems are. Again, these are signs of deep despair within you. Please let me help you, taurine!

If you really were dropped on your head as a baby, we can get you the help you need. We will work together to find the best plastic surgeons to get the dents in your head fixed. I really want to help you, taurine.

Well, I've made the offer. I believe you need time to think things over, but remember I am here for you. I will always be ready to help make you whole again.

Respectfully,
Dr. Chazlee.
thar
Posted: Sunday, September 11, 2016 4:18:05 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 15,867
Neurons: 63,560
Thank you taurine, nice of you to say so! Sorry it got a bit long!
I am not sure how wise they are - I can always express strong opinions, but generally they are based on limited experience! Which is always a bit dodgy. Whistle


On a lighter note - but also a serious one, in terms of attitudes, new laws, and the media.


Meanwhile, in Britain....

Quote:
The Archers: Verdict revealed in Helen Titchener trial

WARNING: This story contains spoilers

The jury deliver their verdict in The Archers

The Archers' Helen Titchener has been found not guilty of attempting to murder her abusive husband Rob.
Millions of listeners to the BBC Radio 4 soap were expected to tune in as the fictional trial drew to a close with the jury's verdict.
The high-profile domestic abuse plot culminated in the first hour-long episode in show's 65-year history.
A star cast of jurors, including Dame Eileen Atikins and Catherine Tate, were heard deliberating Helen's fate.
After a week-long trial, the jury at Borchester Crown Court also found her not guilty of wounding with intent over the incident, in which Rob was stabbed.

Rob issued a chilling warning to Helen after the verdict was delivered
Discharged from the court room following the majority verdict, Helen had an emotional reunion with her parents.
Her mother Pat told her: "You're a survivor, all right. You didn't deserve any of this - that's what the jury decided, remember that."
But moments later, Helen was confronted by Rob. "Congratulations Helen, you must be chuffed with yourself," he said.
Issuing a chilling warning, he added: "You might have fooled everyone else but you haven't got rid of me - and as long as we have a child together you never will."
She replied: "The whole world knows what you are now Rob... You've failed, I'm free."
A family court hearing has been set for September 14, where the custody of Helen's two sons - Henry and Jack - will be decided.

National debate

The fictional stabbing followed Rob's long-term emotional abuse of Helen - which had been slowly drip fed to listeners of The Archers over two and a half years.
The much-debated storyline portrayed by actors Timothy Watson and Louiza Patikas has gripped listeners, sparked a national debate about domestic violence and a flood of donations to the women's charity Refuge.
The verdict prompted thousands of comments on social media, including a Tweet from the shadow justice minister, Jo Stevens, who wrote: "Absolute applause to @BBCRadio4 @BBCTheArchers for brilliantly scripted/acted story of DV (domestic violence) and women in prison".

The plot was inspired by a new law against "coercive or controlling behaviour" in relationships, with writers consulting lawyers, charities and abuse survivors to get the details right.
The relationship between organic cheesemaker Helen Archer and farm manager Rob Titchener began in 2013, leading to marriage and a baby.
Avoiding the standard depiction of abuse as daily physical violence, the drama centred on his systematic undermining of her personality.
For the gentle soap opera set in the fictional English village of Ambridge, the storyline has proved a sensational departure from the cosy country life usually depicted.


Ms Patikas, who has played Helen for 16 years, said: "I feel relieved - the secret's out.
"Finally I can talk to friends and family about it and I'm really intrigued to see what the public makes of the verdict."
She said she was looking forward to rebuilding Helen, who may take her time processing the implications of the verdict.
"I hope that she'll soon get back behind the wheels of her car and start some therapeutic cheese-making when she feels up to it."
The actress, who met survivors of domestic violence in preparation for the role, said she hoped anyone listening to the programme who was experiencing domestic abuse would find the courage to get help.
More than 7,500 people have supported a JustGiving fundraising page for the women's charity Refuge set up by fan Paul Trueman, "because for every fictional Helen, there are real ones".
With more than £150,000 raised so far, Sandra Horley, chief executive of Refuge, said: "Never before in my 33-year career at Refuge have I seen such amazing public support for our work."

'Not the end'
Programme editor Sean O'Connor said while he was aware the storyline was controversial, he had been "surprised by the intensity of the reaction to it and how it has inspired a national debate about a previously hidden issue in British culture".
Mr O'Connor added: "In many ways, while this is the climax to the story it's not the end of the story - because Helen and Rob are still married, they have two children, one of whom they share together...
"In many ways this story could be a 20 or 30-year story - as long as Helen and Rob share that child between them."

Helen's verdict was kept a strict secret on the show, Mr O'Connor said.
"We just made an agreement we wouldn't tell anybody, it was very old-fashioned, it was all hush hush."
The Archers was first broadcast in five pilot episodes in 1950, in the hope of educating farmers about modern agricultural methods to help feed a Britain still subject to food rationing.
Some five million people listen to the show, which is broadcast in six episodes a week.


This is a BBC post about a BBC programme, so it is not unbiased in its praise! - but as far as I know it has been a talking point among listeners, whether justice would be done where the damage is emotional, not physical!
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, September 11, 2016 5:24:54 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,127
Neurons: 41,209
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Thanks, Thar. I agree with Taurine that you usually give common sense points of view about most things. I have even copied and kept to read again one of your posts about "Life". (Edited - you posted the BBC part while I wrote - I will read it now.)

I think what happened in the female judge's case if I recall correctly, is that instead of looking at her as victim who had this done to her, they put her on trial and said she should have disclosed that those pictures were in her husband's repertoire. She probably never even thought of them as they were private. She already admitted that she was not fully clothed in the pictures. He did it to embarrass her as a judge and it worked. She retired. He got off scott free. I guess I was the one who thought it fit into the "revenge of an ex porn".

She had already admitted to the judicial group point two - that they were embarrassing to a person working as a judge. They were not deciding if her husband should be censured, but whether or not her job was compromised because of something she did - she allowed the pictures to be taken, she didn't say on her application her husband had them - and therefore she should be fired. i.e. the pix could be used against her and the actual images were irrelevant as she had admitted they were damaging to her job.

That is why I said they didn't need to see the photos in this particular case. Usually they would need to see them. But there again, I am only giving an opinion and know no law. It just did not seem right what happened. But I hope she is enjoying early retirement. Applause

These are the questions they were considering in the investigation of whether or not she should be fired -

"Whether Douglas ought to have disclosed the existence of the photographs at the time of applying to be a judge, because they “could reflect negatively on yourself or the judiciary, and which should be disclosed.” Candidate Douglas had answered “No” on the application questionnaire.

Whether the photos could be seen as inherently contrary to the image and concept of integrity of the judiciary, such that the confidence of individuals appearing before the judge, or of the public in its justice system, could be undermined."

World food shortage that threatens five hundred million children could be alleviated at the cost of one day's warfare.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.