Does the judge have a point?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last edited:
Camper6 said:
I hate to open a can of worms again, but I think the judge was set up. The complaint was issued by a woman's coalition.

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

This is the transcript from the trial.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And, of course it would be a women's coalition making the complaint! They watch for misogynistic stuff like he spouted -- that's why they exist.
 
I dont recall saying the judge on the travel ban was set up.

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

Im saying setup for this topic is because the case should never have gone to court in the first place.
 
Just saw this topic and the amount of replies. The only question asked by the judge was in the 1st. sentence. No answer was given or at least not in the article.

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

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

Read the whole thread. The case went to appeal. On a retrial by a different judge the defendant was acquitted again so the judge as not wrong in his decision. He applied the law fairly in my opinion.
 
I reread the article and found one paragraph relating to the outcome. Two sentences out of the long explanation of why the judge resigned.
Quote
"At the end of that trial, Camp ruled to acquit the accused man — a decision that was later overturned on appeal. A retrial ensued, and in January, the accused was again acquitted by the Alberta Provincial Court."

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

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

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

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

Do you think the council right in their findings?
 
Camper6 said:
Read the whole thread. The case went to appeal. On a retrial by a different judge the defendant was acquitted again so the judge as not wrong in his decision. He applied the law fairly in my opinion.
Click to expand...
So, it appears that while the Judge did offend some by his phrasing, he did properly interpret the law. And after all is that not a Judge's main responsibility?
 
By repeatedly referring to the young woman as the accused and speaking to her in a disrespectful and demeaning manner he violated his role as a neutral interpreter of the law. Bias is clearly the antithesis of lawful judicial conduct. In effect, he attempted to denigrate her credibility. It is exceedingly difficult to get a conviction for rape in Canada as it is. The type of attitude illustrated by this judge is an indication as to why.
 
Ray said:
So, it appears that while the Judge did offend some by his phrasing, he did properly interpret the law. And after all is that not a Judge's main responsibility?
Click to expand...

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

The judge was biased, disrespectful and misogynistic, and what he said showed his bias and tainted the proceedings. The end does not justify the means.
 
Camper6 said:
I dont recall saying the judge on the travel ban was set up.

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

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

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

QUOTE FROM YOUR POST:

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

Judge Robart didn't do it on his own. Someone put the bug in his ear. Who was that someone? Was it done for spite?"
END QUOTE
 
Butterfly said:
Here is what you said in the travel ban matter, and about the judge's possibly being influenced by someone else:

QUOTE FROM YOUR POST:

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

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

Thats fine. Where did I say he w as set up? Thats your claim.
 
Butterfly said:
The judge's responsibility is to follow the rule of law, which requires certain rights and respect be given to BOTH parties, and the rules of court be followed. He can't just ride roughshod over the rules to get to the "right" end. I would also point out that a verdict of "not guilty" does not mean the defendant was innocent. It means under the rules, the defendant was not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

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

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

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

The judge was biased, disrespectful and misogynistic, and what he said showed his bias and tainted the proceedings. The end does not justify the means.
Click to expand...
I fully agree - his words were inappropriate. But, as I said, he did get to the proper end result.
 
Shalimar said:
By repeatedly referring to the young woman as the accused and speaking to her in a disrespectful and demeaning manner he violated his role as a neutral interpreter of the law. Bias is clearly the antithesis of lawful judicial conduct. In effect, he attempted to denigrate her credibility. It is exceedingly difficult to get a conviction for rape in Canada as it is. The type of attitude illustrated by this judge is an indication as to why.
Click to expand...

You may be right but we cannot overlook such cases as the cases of Tawana Brawley and the Duke lacrosse team. I am not saying they are the same but I am saying that looking at the accuser is not necessarily inappropriate.
 
Shalimar said:
By repeatedly referring to the young woman as the accused and speaking to her in a disrespectful and demeaning manner he violated his role as a neutral interpreter of the law. Bias is clearly the antithesis of lawful judicial conduct. In effect, he attempted to denigrate her credibility. It is exceedingly difficult to get a conviction for rape in Canada as it is. The type of attitude illustrated by this judge is an indication as to why.
Click to expand...

You may be right but we cannot overlook such cases as that of of Tawana Brawley and the Duke lacrosse team. I am not saying they are the same but I am saying that looking at the accuser is not necessarily inappropriate.
 
I guess I read the article wrong. I thought the article was about the judge's conduct in court that led to his resignation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top