Don't know where else to put this, but Winnipeg finally won in Regina, snapping an 11-year losing streak. It was a fucked-up game, too. Even before that weird last 1:30 of play it seemed like everyone on both sides had mad sacrifices to strange and ineffable gods of chance and fortune.
The CFL very desperately needs to fix the rulebook and the officials who enforce the rulebook.
The officials miss things, and that happens, but they miss things too often. The ones we have can't seem to keep up with the game at times. Officiating is never perfect, calls will be missed no matter what, but the frequency needs to be reduced. Hopefully the partnership with the NFL on officiating pays some long term dividends.
The rulebook, yikes. I actually am not one who complains when an official calls a borderline PI call because in most of those cases they're only calling what's in the rulebook and what they're told to call. For as much as we dump on them one thing i will say is that they have been mostly consistent there, where if it looks like a DB is breathing on the receiver they're throwing the flag. the CFL needs to fix the PI rule, and they need to do it this offseason.
And this goes with the rulebook, but the new challenge system this year had great intentions, and I was originally a fan of it, but the unintended consequences are too much. I know the league made a small change a couple weeks ago to how timeouts work with challenges, but they need to basically throw these changes out next season.
As for today: what a game between the TiCats and Argos. That lived up to the classic name. And I don't want to talk about the Edmonton/Calgary debacle.
Lastly: can the CFL stop screwing with tradition please? the Labour Day Classic has been Argos/TiCats at 1ET and Esks/Stamps at 4ET forever. I have no idea why they feel the need to tinker with the marquee event of the regular season.
CFL will never be as entertaining as it was listening to games on the radio when the Roughriders played the Roughriders.
you mean the Roughriders and the Rough Riders. Get the name right! :biggrin: I was pretty young when the Rough Riders folded but I remember media people, especially radio, always making sure to emphasise the two separate words of Rough Riders....or just always calling them Ottawa and Saskatchewan.
Don't know where else to put this, but Winnipeg finally won in Regina, snapping an 11-year losing streak. It was a fucked-up game, too. Even before that weird last 1:30 of play it seemed like everyone on both sides had mad sacrifices to strange and ineffable gods of chance and fortune.
I lost two bets totaling a 40 of Jack and a bottle of Auchentoshan. So close!
A judge in Canada is facing removal from the bench after asking a woman who said she had been raped why she couldn’t “skew her pelvis” or “just keep your knees together” during the attack. Justice Robin Camp’s lawyer argued this week that the judge has a “strong moral compass” and simply needs counseling and reeducation to avoid saying shit like that in the future.
Camp, who’s now a federal judge, made several outrageous comments during the trial two years ago, when he was still a provincial court judge in Calgary. According to a document filed by the Canadian Judicial Council, informing the judge that an inquiry had been opened into his conduct, Camp had a variety of opinions about the conduct of the woman, who was then 19 and homeless. She testified that she was raped over a bathroom sink; Camp asked why she didn’t “skew her pelvis” or lower herself into the sink to avoid being penetrated, and then asked, “Why couldn’t you just keep your knees together?”
Camp also had a variety of thoughts about sex, per the CJC document. “Young women want to have sex, particularly if they’re drunk,” he said. And: “Some sex and pain sometimes go together...[T]hat’s not necessarily a bad thing.” And: “Sex is very often a challenge.”
He also opined, according to the document, that the attack didn’t sound all that violent to him: “There is no real talk of real force.”
Camp now faces removal from the bench; on Monday, his lawyer Frank Addario told the CJC that his comments were due to ignorance about sexual assault, which he’s since corrected, “not animus or bad character.” Camp testified Friday that he’s “very sorry” for saying “hurtful” things.
The judge's argument is just disgusting. He didn't say "hurtful" things, he said horrible, prejudicial comments that showed that he is unfit for the bench. Hopefully, the CJC makes that point clear to him.
I can live with the judge getting to stay on the bench if he's truly repentant (for some definition of true and repentant). Throwing him off the bench isn't really going to do feminism (and women) any favours. Blah blah remedial rather than punitive justice system blah.
On another note, Niki Ashton reminds me why I like her, post-Elbowgate:
For example, Ashton told me that in the spring, she was at a committee meeting on employment insurance when a witness “went on and on about how millennials just don’t want to work.”
“This person made reference to some guy bringing his mom to a job interview,” Ashton said, “and even though the meeting was about EI and not this one guy, this is what my colleagues on both aisles chose to hook onto.”
There was no evidence, she said, as to who “this guy” was or whether he was representative of a larger group of lazy people his age, and yet some of the older policy-makers in the room determined that “this was a real problem.”
Yes, apparently, our elected officials, just like your crotchety uncle, enjoy sharing stories about that “one guy” who just so happens to confirm everything wrong with kids these days.
I can live with the judge getting to stay on the bench if he's truly repentant (for some definition of true and repentant). Throwing him off the bench isn't really going to do feminism (and women) any favours. Blah blah remedial rather than punitive justice system blah.
Sorry, but no. The judicial system does not exist to enable this judge's personal growth. “Why couldn’t you just keep your knees together?” is not something that any judge should ever say to a rape victim while running a trial.
I can live with the judge getting to stay on the bench if he's truly repentant (for some definition of true and repentant). Throwing him off the bench isn't really going to do feminism (and women) any favours. Blah blah remedial rather than punitive justice system blah.
Sorry, but no. The judicial system does not exist to enable this judge's personal growth. “Why couldn’t you just keep your knees together?” is not something that any judge should ever say to a rape victim while running a trial.
I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe someone can actually learn from their mistakes and be better at their job.
I'd rather not take the risk and use it as an example about how backwards shit like that is not welcome.
I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe someone can actually learn from their mistakes and be better at their job.
I'd rather not take the risk and use it as an example about how backwards shit like that is not welcome.
It's more that whether he can is irrelevant to the point. The problem is that whenever any judge makes comments like that towards rape victims, it undermines the judicial system, making victims less likely to come forward out of fear that they will be further attacked and traumatized by the system. The judiciary needs to restore trust, and the way to do that is by removing judges who make such comments, as their doing so is a demonstration of their unfitness to serve on the bench. The argument that we should consider if the judge has truly learned a lesson and regrets the comment is problematic because it shifts the discussion away from the actual issue of faith in the judiciary being breached, and instead makes it about the judge and whether they have grown enough.
There are more than enough qualified lawyers who can serve as judges. The judiciary doesn't need to retain judges who slut-shame rape victims.
I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe someone can actually learn from their mistakes and be better at their job.
I'd rather not take the risk and use it as an example about how backwards shit like that is not welcome.
It's more that whether he can is irrelevant to the point. The problem is that whenever any judge makes comments like that towards rape victims, it undermines the judicial system, making victims less likely to come forward out of fear that they will be further attacked and traumatized by the system. The judiciary needs to restore trust, and the way to do that is by removing judges who make such comments, as their doing so is a demonstration of their unfitness to serve on the bench. The argument that we should consider if the judge has truly learned a lesson and regrets the comment is problematic because it shifts the discussion away from the actual issue of faith in the judiciary being breached, and instead makes it about the judge and whether they have grown enough.
There are more than enough qualified lawyers who can serve as judges. The judiciary doesn't need to retain judges who slut-shame rape victims.
You mistake my position. The judiciary has, in my opinion, does not have my trust when it comes to handling sexual assault and rape. The issue is not singular bad judges; it's all - or most - of them. The judiciary itself needs to be reformed, and aggressively targeting individual judges for extreme consequences for "politically incorrect" behaviour is only going to make the reform process harder, by making judges feel targeted and driving their sexism underground.
Again, I don't think it serves feminism to make examples out of certain men. It just makes enemies, who are well-positioned to resist needed reforms for a very long time.
I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe someone can actually learn from their mistakes and be better at their job.
I'd rather not take the risk and use it as an example about how backwards shit like that is not welcome.
It's more that whether he can is irrelevant to the point. The problem is that whenever any judge makes comments like that towards rape victims, it undermines the judicial system, making victims less likely to come forward out of fear that they will be further attacked and traumatized by the system. The judiciary needs to restore trust, and the way to do that is by removing judges who make such comments, as their doing so is a demonstration of their unfitness to serve on the bench. The argument that we should consider if the judge has truly learned a lesson and regrets the comment is problematic because it shifts the discussion away from the actual issue of faith in the judiciary being breached, and instead makes it about the judge and whether they have grown enough.
There are more than enough qualified lawyers who can serve as judges. The judiciary doesn't need to retain judges who slut-shame rape victims.
You mistake my position. The judiciary has, in my opinion, does not have my trust when it comes to handling sexual assault and rape. The issue is not singular bad judges; it's all - or most - of them. The judiciary itself needs to be reformed, and aggressively targeting individual judges for extreme consequences for "politically incorrect" behaviour is only going to make the reform process harder, by making judges feel targeted and driving their sexism underground.
Again, I don't think it serves feminism to make examples out of certain men. It just makes enemies, who are well-positioned to resist needed reforms for a very long time.
Underground is better then above ground. Judges that exhibit behaviour in court in direct contravention to their role in a rape trial should be canned because there's zero reason to tolerate that shit.
The fact that you are hand-wringing over "making an example" of a guy saying disgusting shit is pretty disgusting honestly. "We can't fix sexism cause it might make sexists feel bad" is a terrible terrible argment.
I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe someone can actually learn from their mistakes and be better at their job.
I'd rather not take the risk and use it as an example about how backwards shit like that is not welcome.
It's more that whether he can is irrelevant to the point. The problem is that whenever any judge makes comments like that towards rape victims, it undermines the judicial system, making victims less likely to come forward out of fear that they will be further attacked and traumatized by the system. The judiciary needs to restore trust, and the way to do that is by removing judges who make such comments, as their doing so is a demonstration of their unfitness to serve on the bench. The argument that we should consider if the judge has truly learned a lesson and regrets the comment is problematic because it shifts the discussion away from the actual issue of faith in the judiciary being breached, and instead makes it about the judge and whether they have grown enough.
There are more than enough qualified lawyers who can serve as judges. The judiciary doesn't need to retain judges who slut-shame rape victims.
You mistake my position. The judiciary has, in my opinion, does not have my trust when it comes to handling sexual assault and rape. The issue is not singular bad judges; it's all - or most - of them. The judiciary itself needs to be reformed, and aggressively targeting individual judges for extreme consequences for "politically incorrect" behaviour is only going to make the reform process harder, by making judges feel targeted and driving their sexism underground.
Again, I don't think it serves feminism to make examples out of certain men. It just makes enemies, who are well-positioned to resist needed reforms for a very long time.
Underground is better then above ground. Judges that exhibit behaviour in court in direct contravention to their role in a rape trial should be canned because there's zero reason to tolerate that shit.
The fact that you are hand-wringing over "making an example" of a guy saying disgusting shit is pretty disgusting honestly. "We can't fix sexism cause it might make sexists feel bad" is a terrible terrible argment.
When I say, "underground," I do not mean that they won't be biased in their rulings. They just won't say the abhorrent things that make it obvious. E.g. the situation as is.
Personally, I despise the man, so please, let's not play this whole, see who's clutching their feminist pearls harder game. The Jezebel column doesn't even fucking mention the fact that his daughter, who wrote a statement of support for her father, was herself a rape victim, a fact he knew before making the idiotic statements that he did. I've been following this goddamned story the whole fucking time, and I've managed to both hand-wringing and disgusted at the same time.
Kicking this man off the bench does nothing, in judicial terms, for the other women whose sexual assault cases are up for trial or might never get that far. He's one judge out of thousands. The idea that expelling him from the bench will "restore trust" is laughable. Excoriating him personally for all the crimes committed by the judiciary towards women over the years moves us, at best, exactly one judge forward. Meanwhile, all the other sexist judges out there will continue to make the rulings they make, just without asking the questions aloud. Huzzah, a true victory for feminism.
(Seriously, I defend the necessity of radical feminism to the feminist movement and society quite a bit, but I can't be the only one who's noticed that feminism's having a real "allies" problem and no shortage of enemies.)
The judge should be censured; he should be demoted (if possible); he should never again live a month of his life without having to participate in a women's issues seminar; he should have to donate half his salary to a women's charity; he should be forced to publicly and personally apologize to the victim in the case, as well as to all the women in his life who wrote statements of support for him. And then he should go back to work and do his damn job properly with his tail between his legs covering up the scar from where we removed his fucking balls.
Kicking him from the bench. Pfft. You guys just aren't creative enough.
That's an argument for making sure to continue to hold the CJC's feet to the fire on this matter, and to hold judges accountable for biased rulings. And nobody is saying that this removal would immediately fix everything wrong with how Canadian courts deal with sexual assault and rape. It would, however, be a good start and show that concerns are being taken seriously.
And at this point, what's been going on in the US election should put the lie to the argument that having bigotry out in the open is a positive step because it allows it to be dealt with. Because when bigotry is out in the open, that isn't a sign that it's being dealt with - it's a sign that it's been normalized. Dealing with judges putting sexist biases into rulings behind the scenes is a step forward from judges openly slut-shaming rape victims on the stand.
That's an argument for making sure to continue to hold the CJC's feet to the fire on this matter, and to hold judges accountable for biased rulings. And nobody is saying that this removal would immediately fix everything wrong with how Canadian courts deal with sexual assault and rape. It would, however, be a good start and show that concerns are being taken seriously.
And at this point, what's been going on in the US election should put the lie to the argument that having bigotry out in the open is a positive step because it allows it to be dealt with. Because when bigotry is out in the open, that isn't a sign that it's being dealt with - it's a sign that it's been normalized. Dealing with judges putting sexist biases into rulings behind the scenes is a step forward from judges openly slut-shaming rape victims on the stand.
Please don't bring up bigotry and the US election and pretend things are better. The fact that Trump is polling so high is more of a sign of a cup about to boil over than anything else. He's literally running on a campaign of hate and fear and it's working, regardless of what the echo chamber of the American election thread believes.
That's an argument for making sure to continue to hold the CJC's feet to the fire on this matter, and to hold judges accountable for biased rulings. And nobody is saying that this removal would immediately fix everything wrong with how Canadian courts deal with sexual assault and rape. It would, however, be a good start and show that concerns are being taken seriously.
And at this point, what's been going on in the US election should put the lie to the argument that having bigotry out in the open is a positive step because it allows it to be dealt with. Because when bigotry is out in the open, that isn't a sign that it's being dealt with - it's a sign that it's been normalized. Dealing with judges putting sexist biases into rulings behind the scenes is a step forward from judges openly slut-shaming rape victims on the stand.
Please don't bring up bigotry and the US election and pretend things are better. The fact that Trump is polling so high is more of a sign of a cup about to boil over than anything else. He's literally running on a campaign of hate and fear and it's working, regardless of what the echo chamber of the American election thread believes.
That was the point. There's an argument that I see brought up from time to time in lefty circles that forcing bigotry underground is a bad thing, because it's harder to fight than bigotry out in the open. It's a bad argument, because when bigotry is out in the open (like what we're seeing with the US election), that's a sign that it's being normalized in society. Bigotry going underground is a sign of shame, a sign that it is seen as an aberration.
That's an argument for making sure to continue to hold the CJC's feet to the fire on this matter, and to hold judges accountable for biased rulings. And nobody is saying that this removal would immediately fix everything wrong with how Canadian courts deal with sexual assault and rape. It would, however, be a good start and show that concerns are being taken seriously.
And at this point, what's been going on in the US election should put the lie to the argument that having bigotry out in the open is a positive step because it allows it to be dealt with. Because when bigotry is out in the open, that isn't a sign that it's being dealt with - it's a sign that it's been normalized. Dealing with judges putting sexist biases into rulings behind the scenes is a step forward from judges openly slut-shaming rape victims on the stand.
Please don't bring up bigotry and the US election and pretend things are better. The fact that Trump is polling so high is more of a sign of a cup about to boil over than anything else. He's literally running on a campaign of hate and fear and it's working, regardless of what the echo chamber of the American election thread believes.
That was the point. There's an argument that I see brought up from time to time in lefty circles that forcing bigotry underground is a bad thing, because it's harder to fight than bigotry out in the open. It's a bad argument, because when bigotry is out in the open (like what we're seeing with the US election), that's a sign that it's being normalized in society. Bigotry going underground is a sign of shame, a sign that it is seen as an aberration.
Open bigotry seems to have a pretty good chance of winning the election... What positive change do you see happening in that case?
That's an argument for making sure to continue to hold the CJC's feet to the fire on this matter, and to hold judges accountable for biased rulings. And nobody is saying that this removal would immediately fix everything wrong with how Canadian courts deal with sexual assault and rape. It would, however, be a good start and show that concerns are being taken seriously.
And at this point, what's been going on in the US election should put the lie to the argument that having bigotry out in the open is a positive step because it allows it to be dealt with. Because when bigotry is out in the open, that isn't a sign that it's being dealt with - it's a sign that it's been normalized. Dealing with judges putting sexist biases into rulings behind the scenes is a step forward from judges openly slut-shaming rape victims on the stand.
Please don't bring up bigotry and the US election and pretend things are better. The fact that Trump is polling so high is more of a sign of a cup about to boil over than anything else. He's literally running on a campaign of hate and fear and it's working, regardless of what the echo chamber of the American election thread believes.
That was the point. There's an argument that I see brought up from time to time in lefty circles that forcing bigotry underground is a bad thing, because it's harder to fight than bigotry out in the open. It's a bad argument, because when bigotry is out in the open (like what we're seeing with the US election), that's a sign that it's being normalized in society. Bigotry going underground is a sign of shame, a sign that it is seen as an aberration.
Open bigotry seems to have a pretty good chance of winning the election... What positive change do you see happening in that case?
I'm saying that is a Bad Thing. I'm saying that the argument that "it's better to have bigotry out in the open" is an incredibly goosey argument that ignores that open bigotry signals that bigotry is acceptable to society, while it being pushed underground shows that it has some degree of social opprobrium.
In short, I agree with you, which is the point of the comment.
That's an argument for making sure to continue to hold the CJC's feet to the fire on this matter, and to hold judges accountable for biased rulings. And nobody is saying that this removal would immediately fix everything wrong with how Canadian courts deal with sexual assault and rape. It would, however, be a good start and show that concerns are being taken seriously.
And at this point, what's been going on in the US election should put the lie to the argument that having bigotry out in the open is a positive step because it allows it to be dealt with. Because when bigotry is out in the open, that isn't a sign that it's being dealt with - it's a sign that it's been normalized. Dealing with judges putting sexist biases into rulings behind the scenes is a step forward from judges openly slut-shaming rape victims on the stand.
Please don't bring up bigotry and the US election and pretend things are better. The fact that Trump is polling so high is more of a sign of a cup about to boil over than anything else. He's literally running on a campaign of hate and fear and it's working, regardless of what the echo chamber of the American election thread believes.
That was the point. There's an argument that I see brought up from time to time in lefty circles that forcing bigotry underground is a bad thing, because it's harder to fight than bigotry out in the open. It's a bad argument, because when bigotry is out in the open (like what we're seeing with the US election), that's a sign that it's being normalized in society. Bigotry going underground is a sign of shame, a sign that it is seen as an aberration.
Open bigotry seems to have a pretty good chance of winning the election... What positive change do you see happening in that case?
I'm saying that is a Bad Thing. I'm saying that the argument that "it's better to have bigotry out in the open" is an incredibly goosey argument that ignores that open bigotry signals that bigotry is acceptable to society, while it being pushed underground shows that it has some degree of social opprobrium.
In short, I agree with you, which is the point of the comment.
I must have read that totally wrong. Sorry, I should not be allowed to speak with humans before consuming caffeine.
That's an argument for making sure to continue to hold the CJC's feet to the fire on this matter, and to hold judges accountable for biased rulings. And nobody is saying that this removal would immediately fix everything wrong with how Canadian courts deal with sexual assault and rape. It would, however, be a good start and show that concerns are being taken seriously.
And at this point, what's been going on in the US election should put the lie to the argument that having bigotry out in the open is a positive step because it allows it to be dealt with. Because when bigotry is out in the open, that isn't a sign that it's being dealt with - it's a sign that it's been normalized. Dealing with judges putting sexist biases into rulings behind the scenes is a step forward from judges openly slut-shaming rape victims on the stand.
Nothing you've stated has shown that removing the judge from the bench is a way to denormalize it.
Destroy a man, and all you have is the space that he once occupied. Destroy a man's spirit, and you can rebuild him to your heart's desire. The way to denormalize the bad behaviour is to take judges who are misbehaving, correct their misbehaviour, and then put them back on the bench and monitor them properly to ensure they're behaving properly. This is basic (effective) disciplinary strategy, applied to everybody from violent Islamic extremists to kindergarten children.
You want to use the US as an example? There's a country that's almost exclusively pursued retributive punishment for political incorrectness, driven by mob thinking rather than careful, deliberate, future-forward thinking. And guess what, the US is still plagued with racists, sexists, and homophobes; they just use ever-changing dog whistles now to speak in code, mask themselves as mainstream organizations who oppose a politically correct culture gone too far, infiltrate others and twist them into false ideological soldiers, and silently wait for someone like Trump or Farage to come along. How's that been working out for ya?
Pointlessly punitive justice systems are expressly one thing that distinguishes the US and Canada, and I'm quite proud of it. Our approach to multiculturalism is a positive one, promoting its virtues rather than punishing its detractors, and it works. I'm not interested in feel-good justice that doesn't actually make the world better for the underprivileged. I'd rather we actually take the problem seriously rather than just showing that we are.
That's an argument for making sure to continue to hold the CJC's feet to the fire on this matter, and to hold judges accountable for biased rulings. And nobody is saying that this removal would immediately fix everything wrong with how Canadian courts deal with sexual assault and rape. It would, however, be a good start and show that concerns are being taken seriously.
And at this point, what's been going on in the US election should put the lie to the argument that having bigotry out in the open is a positive step because it allows it to be dealt with. Because when bigotry is out in the open, that isn't a sign that it's being dealt with - it's a sign that it's been normalized. Dealing with judges putting sexist biases into rulings behind the scenes is a step forward from judges openly slut-shaming rape victims on the stand.
Nothing you've stated has shown that removing the judge from the bench is a way to denormalize it.
Destroy a man, and all you have is the space that he once occupied. Destroy a man's spirit, and you can rebuild him to your heart's desire. The way to denormalize the bad behaviour is to take judges who are misbehaving, correct their misbehaviour, and then put them back on the bench and monitor them properly to ensure they're behaving properly. This is basic (effective) disciplinary strategy, applied to everybody from violent Islamic extremists to kindergarten children.
You want to use the US as an example? There's a country that's almost exclusively pursued retributive punishment for political incorrectness, driven by mob thinking rather than careful, deliberate, future-forward thinking. And guess what, the US is still plagued with racists, sexists, and homophobes; they just use ever-changing dog whistles now to speak in code, mask themselves as mainstream organizations who oppose a politically correct culture gone too far, infiltrate others and twist them into false ideological soldiers, and silently wait for someone like Trump or Farage to come along. How's that been working out for ya?
Pointlessly punitive justice systems are expressly one thing that distinguishes the US and Canada, and I'm quite proud of it. Our approach to multiculturalism is a positive one, promoting its virtues rather than punishing its detractors, and it works. I'm not interested in feel-good justice that doesn't actually make the world better for the underprivileged.
Removal and censure is a pretty damn explicit statement of opposition by society to the action being censured. If a judge openly slut-shaming a rape victim on the stand, causing her to slip into depression and suicidal ideation isn't grounds enough to have a judge removed, what is?
Why is it so important for society to be involved in this man's redemption? If this judge wants to work at being a better human being, he can do it on his own time. But society should not be in the business of condoning this behavior from the judiciary.
That's an argument for making sure to continue to hold the CJC's feet to the fire on this matter, and to hold judges accountable for biased rulings. And nobody is saying that this removal would immediately fix everything wrong with how Canadian courts deal with sexual assault and rape. It would, however, be a good start and show that concerns are being taken seriously.
And at this point, what's been going on in the US election should put the lie to the argument that having bigotry out in the open is a positive step because it allows it to be dealt with. Because when bigotry is out in the open, that isn't a sign that it's being dealt with - it's a sign that it's been normalized. Dealing with judges putting sexist biases into rulings behind the scenes is a step forward from judges openly slut-shaming rape victims on the stand.
Nothing you've stated has shown that removing the judge from the bench is a way to denormalize it.
Destroy a man, and all you have is the space that he once occupied. Destroy a man's spirit, and you can rebuild him to your heart's desire. The way to denormalize the bad behaviour is to take judges who are misbehaving, correct their misbehaviour, and then put them back on the bench and monitor them properly to ensure they're behaving properly. This is basic (effective) disciplinary strategy, applied to everybody from violent Islamic extremists to kindergarten children.
You want to use the US as an example? There's a country that's almost exclusively pursued retributive punishment for political incorrectness, driven by mob thinking rather than careful, deliberate, future-forward thinking. And guess what, the US is still plagued with racists, sexists, and homophobes; they just use ever-changing dog whistles now to speak in code, mask themselves as mainstream organizations who oppose a politically correct culture gone too far, infiltrate others and twist them into false ideological soldiers, and silently wait for someone like Trump or Farage to come along. How's that been working out for ya?
Pointlessly punitive justice systems are expressly one thing that distinguishes the US and Canada, and I'm quite proud of it. Our approach to multiculturalism is a positive one, promoting its virtues rather than punishing its detractors, and it works. I'm not interested in feel-good justice that doesn't actually make the world better for the underprivileged.
Removal and censure is a pretty damn explicit statement of opposition by society to the action being censured. If a judge openly slut-shaming a rape victim on the stand, causing her to slip into depression and suicidal ideation isn't grounds enough to have a judge removed, what is?
Why is it so important for society to be involved in this man's redemption? If this judge wants to work at being a better human being, he can do it on his own time. But society should not be in the business of condoning this behavior from the judiciary.
Because that's how society gets better. You want to get your jollies off punishing people for things you disapprove of, go ahead, but keep it in the US and outta my country, please. It's extremely notable how you've said nothing about how removing the judge from the bench makes things better, and instead focused relentlessly on how much he deserves it. You're unable to articulate why a series of remedial, but still punitive, consequences as I proposed is worse than simple removal from the bench other than the fact that you just want it to be harsher. You're more concerned about the image of looking tough on sexism than you are on actually fixing sexism, and that kinda populist BS drives me nuts. Human society has so much time learning that harsher punishments don't reduce injustice, and instead perpetuate it by spreading hatred, but you'd rather just throw that all out because it'll make you feel better.
I mean, if we're going to go American-style on this, why don't we just execute the man? That'll send a real message about how spr-srs we are about it. That'll denormalize the behaviour right swift, eh? (Note, sarcasm.)
Why is it so important for society to be involved in this man's redemption? Because we're Canadians. And we believe in building society by bringing people together and making people better, not by shunning and eliminating our undesirables. (Or at least, we used to.)
That's an argument for making sure to continue to hold the CJC's feet to the fire on this matter, and to hold judges accountable for biased rulings. And nobody is saying that this removal would immediately fix everything wrong with how Canadian courts deal with sexual assault and rape. It would, however, be a good start and show that concerns are being taken seriously.
And at this point, what's been going on in the US election should put the lie to the argument that having bigotry out in the open is a positive step because it allows it to be dealt with. Because when bigotry is out in the open, that isn't a sign that it's being dealt with - it's a sign that it's been normalized. Dealing with judges putting sexist biases into rulings behind the scenes is a step forward from judges openly slut-shaming rape victims on the stand.
Nothing you've stated has shown that removing the judge from the bench is a way to denormalize it.
Destroy a man, and all you have is the space that he once occupied. Destroy a man's spirit, and you can rebuild him to your heart's desire. The way to denormalize the bad behaviour is to take judges who are misbehaving, correct their misbehaviour, and then put them back on the bench and monitor them properly to ensure they're behaving properly. This is basic (effective) disciplinary strategy, applied to everybody from violent Islamic extremists to kindergarten children.
You want to use the US as an example? There's a country that's almost exclusively pursued retributive punishment for political incorrectness, driven by mob thinking rather than careful, deliberate, future-forward thinking. And guess what, the US is still plagued with racists, sexists, and homophobes; they just use ever-changing dog whistles now to speak in code, mask themselves as mainstream organizations who oppose a politically correct culture gone too far, infiltrate others and twist them into false ideological soldiers, and silently wait for someone like Trump or Farage to come along. How's that been working out for ya?
Pointlessly punitive justice systems are expressly one thing that distinguishes the US and Canada, and I'm quite proud of it. Our approach to multiculturalism is a positive one, promoting its virtues rather than punishing its detractors, and it works. I'm not interested in feel-good justice that doesn't actually make the world better for the underprivileged.
Removal and censure is a pretty damn explicit statement of opposition by society to the action being censured. If a judge openly slut-shaming a rape victim on the stand, causing her to slip into depression and suicidal ideation isn't grounds enough to have a judge removed, what is?
Why is it so important for society to be involved in this man's redemption? If this judge wants to work at being a better human being, he can do it on his own time. But society should not be in the business of condoning this behavior from the judiciary.
Because that's how society gets better. You want to get your jollies off punishing people for things you disapprove of, go ahead, but keep it in the US and outta my country, please. It's extremely notable how you've said nothing about how removing the judge from the bench makes things better, and instead focused relentlessly on how much he deserves it. You're unable to articulate why a series of remedial, but still punitive, consequences as I proposed is worse than simple removal from the bench other than the fact that you just want it to be harsher. You're more concerned about the image of looking tough on sexism than you are on actually fixing sexism, and that kinda populist BS drives me nuts. Human society has so much time learning that harsher punishments don't reduce injustice, and instead perpetuate it by spreading hatred, but you'd rather just throw that all out because it'll make you feel better.
I mean, if we're going to go American-style on this, why don't we just execute the man? That'll send a real message about how spr-srs we are about it. That'll denormalize the behaviour right swift, eh? (Note, sarcasm.)
Why is it so important for society to be involved in this man's redemption? Because we're Canadians. And we believe in building society by bringing people together and making people better, not by shunning and eliminating our undesirables. (Or at least, we used to.)
The fact that you continue to view the matter as solely an issue of punishment, and not the removal of an individual who has demonstrated manifest unsuitability for his position is telling. You want to say I'm the one who is looking to be harsher, but I'm not the one who argued for publicly shaming the man, concluding with a fucking castration joke.
All I am saying is that a judge who openly slut-shames a rape victim on the stand in court has demonstrated unfitness to serve on the judiciary. And as such, he should be removed as a judge.
So let me turn it around on you - explain why a judge who, in an adversarial judicial system where they are supposed to be a nominally neutral party, openly slut-shamed a rape victim on the stand, effectively calling her a liar, has not demonstrated that he is unfit to serve on the bench. Even when you take the horrible sexism out of the equation, he violated one of the key aspects of his position.
That's an argument for making sure to continue to hold the CJC's feet to the fire on this matter, and to hold judges accountable for biased rulings. And nobody is saying that this removal would immediately fix everything wrong with how Canadian courts deal with sexual assault and rape. It would, however, be a good start and show that concerns are being taken seriously.
And at this point, what's been going on in the US election should put the lie to the argument that having bigotry out in the open is a positive step because it allows it to be dealt with. Because when bigotry is out in the open, that isn't a sign that it's being dealt with - it's a sign that it's been normalized. Dealing with judges putting sexist biases into rulings behind the scenes is a step forward from judges openly slut-shaming rape victims on the stand.
Nothing you've stated has shown that removing the judge from the bench is a way to denormalize it.
Destroy a man, and all you have is the space that he once occupied. Destroy a man's spirit, and you can rebuild him to your heart's desire. The way to denormalize the bad behaviour is to take judges who are misbehaving, correct their misbehaviour, and then put them back on the bench and monitor them properly to ensure they're behaving properly. This is basic (effective) disciplinary strategy, applied to everybody from violent Islamic extremists to kindergarten children.
You want to use the US as an example? There's a country that's almost exclusively pursued retributive punishment for political incorrectness, driven by mob thinking rather than careful, deliberate, future-forward thinking. And guess what, the US is still plagued with racists, sexists, and homophobes; they just use ever-changing dog whistles now to speak in code, mask themselves as mainstream organizations who oppose a politically correct culture gone too far, infiltrate others and twist them into false ideological soldiers, and silently wait for someone like Trump or Farage to come along. How's that been working out for ya?
Pointlessly punitive justice systems are expressly one thing that distinguishes the US and Canada, and I'm quite proud of it. Our approach to multiculturalism is a positive one, promoting its virtues rather than punishing its detractors, and it works. I'm not interested in feel-good justice that doesn't actually make the world better for the underprivileged.
Removal and censure is a pretty damn explicit statement of opposition by society to the action being censured. If a judge openly slut-shaming a rape victim on the stand, causing her to slip into depression and suicidal ideation isn't grounds enough to have a judge removed, what is?
Why is it so important for society to be involved in this man's redemption? If this judge wants to work at being a better human being, he can do it on his own time. But society should not be in the business of condoning this behavior from the judiciary.
Because that's how society gets better. You want to get your jollies off punishing people for things you disapprove of, go ahead, but keep it in the US and outta my country, please. It's extremely notable how you've said nothing about how removing the judge from the bench makes things better, and instead focused relentlessly on how much he deserves it. You're unable to articulate why a series of remedial, but still punitive, consequences as I proposed is worse than simple removal from the bench other than the fact that you just want it to be harsher. You're more concerned about the image of looking tough on sexism than you are on actually fixing sexism, and that kinda populist BS drives me nuts. Human society has so much time learning that harsher punishments don't reduce injustice, and instead perpetuate it by spreading hatred, but you'd rather just throw that all out because it'll make you feel better.
I mean, if we're going to go American-style on this, why don't we just execute the man? That'll send a real message about how spr-srs we are about it. That'll denormalize the behaviour right swift, eh? (Note, sarcasm.)
Why is it so important for society to be involved in this man's redemption? Because we're Canadians. And we believe in building society by bringing people together and making people better, not by shunning and eliminating our undesirables. (Or at least, we used to.)
The fact that you continue to view the matter as solely an issue of punishment, and not the removal of an individual who has demonstrated manifest unsuitability for his position is telling. You want to say I'm the one who is looking to be harsher, but I'm not the one who argued for publicly shaming the man, concluding with a fucking castration joke.
All I am saying is that a judge who openly slut-shames a rape victim on the stand in court has demonstrated unfitness to serve on the judiciary. And as such, he should be removed as a judge.
So let me turn it around on you - explain why a judge who, in an adversarial judicial system where they are supposed to be a nominally neutral party, openly slut-shamed a rape victim on the stand, effectively calling her a liar, has not demonstrated that he is unfit to serve on the bench. Even when you take the horrible sexism out of the equation, he violated one of the key aspects of his position.
Because being unfit to serve on the bench isn't an intrinsic quality of human beings.
Again, you're more focused on the perpetrator than the actual behaviour. You're just living out your own morality play here.
And by the way, it's not public shaming for the purpose of public shaming. This sort of remedy - learning, apologizing, and then continued monitoring - works. How do we know it works? Because it's what we deploy in elementary schools nowadays. Children who misbehave are asked to apologize to the class for misbehaving, for being inconsiderate. They're not just punished in increasingly dramatic ways for the sake of deterrence, because deterrence doesn't work, nor are they sent off somewhere away from view. We explicitly preach the importance of being considerate and respectful, and we model how to do it publicly - but note that the kid's not fucking trotted out at a general assembly for "public shaming". You make them better people, not just banish them to the wild, which - again - how has that worked out for America and racists? Oh, they just started hanging out with each other and being racist together? Well then.
That's an argument for making sure to continue to hold the CJC's feet to the fire on this matter, and to hold judges accountable for biased rulings. And nobody is saying that this removal would immediately fix everything wrong with how Canadian courts deal with sexual assault and rape. It would, however, be a good start and show that concerns are being taken seriously.
And at this point, what's been going on in the US election should put the lie to the argument that having bigotry out in the open is a positive step because it allows it to be dealt with. Because when bigotry is out in the open, that isn't a sign that it's being dealt with - it's a sign that it's been normalized. Dealing with judges putting sexist biases into rulings behind the scenes is a step forward from judges openly slut-shaming rape victims on the stand.
Nothing you've stated has shown that removing the judge from the bench is a way to denormalize it.
Destroy a man, and all you have is the space that he once occupied. Destroy a man's spirit, and you can rebuild him to your heart's desire. The way to denormalize the bad behaviour is to take judges who are misbehaving, correct their misbehaviour, and then put them back on the bench and monitor them properly to ensure they're behaving properly. This is basic (effective) disciplinary strategy, applied to everybody from violent Islamic extremists to kindergarten children.
You want to use the US as an example? There's a country that's almost exclusively pursued retributive punishment for political incorrectness, driven by mob thinking rather than careful, deliberate, future-forward thinking. And guess what, the US is still plagued with racists, sexists, and homophobes; they just use ever-changing dog whistles now to speak in code, mask themselves as mainstream organizations who oppose a politically correct culture gone too far, infiltrate others and twist them into false ideological soldiers, and silently wait for someone like Trump or Farage to come along. How's that been working out for ya?
Pointlessly punitive justice systems are expressly one thing that distinguishes the US and Canada, and I'm quite proud of it. Our approach to multiculturalism is a positive one, promoting its virtues rather than punishing its detractors, and it works. I'm not interested in feel-good justice that doesn't actually make the world better for the underprivileged.
Removal and censure is a pretty damn explicit statement of opposition by society to the action being censured. If a judge openly slut-shaming a rape victim on the stand, causing her to slip into depression and suicidal ideation isn't grounds enough to have a judge removed, what is?
Why is it so important for society to be involved in this man's redemption? If this judge wants to work at being a better human being, he can do it on his own time. But society should not be in the business of condoning this behavior from the judiciary.
Because that's how society gets better. You want to get your jollies off punishing people for things you disapprove of, go ahead, but keep it in the US and outta my country, please. It's extremely notable how you've said nothing about how removing the judge from the bench makes things better, and instead focused relentlessly on how much he deserves it. You're unable to articulate why a series of remedial, but still punitive, consequences as I proposed is worse than simple removal from the bench other than the fact that you just want it to be harsher. You're more concerned about the image of looking tough on sexism than you are on actually fixing sexism, and that kinda populist BS drives me nuts. Human society has so much time learning that harsher punishments don't reduce injustice, and instead perpetuate it by spreading hatred, but you'd rather just throw that all out because it'll make you feel better.
I mean, if we're going to go American-style on this, why don't we just execute the man? That'll send a real message about how spr-srs we are about it. That'll denormalize the behaviour right swift, eh? (Note, sarcasm.)
Why is it so important for society to be involved in this man's redemption? Because we're Canadians. And we believe in building society by bringing people together and making people better, not by shunning and eliminating our undesirables. (Or at least, we used to.)
The fact that you continue to view the matter as solely an issue of punishment, and not the removal of an individual who has demonstrated manifest unsuitability for his position is telling. You want to say I'm the one who is looking to be harsher, but I'm not the one who argued for publicly shaming the man, concluding with a fucking castration joke.
All I am saying is that a judge who openly slut-shames a rape victim on the stand in court has demonstrated unfitness to serve on the judiciary. And as such, he should be removed as a judge.
So let me turn it around on you - explain why a judge who, in an adversarial judicial system where they are supposed to be a nominally neutral party, openly slut-shamed a rape victim on the stand, effectively calling her a liar, has not demonstrated that he is unfit to serve on the bench. Even when you take the horrible sexism out of the equation, he violated one of the key aspects of his position.
Because being unfit to serve on the bench isn't an intrinsic quality of human beings.
Again, you're more focused on the perpetrator than the actual behaviour. You're just living out your own morality play here.
(And by the way, it's not public shaming for the purpose of public shaming. This sort of remedy - learning, apologizing, and then continued monitoring - works. How do we know it works? Because it's what we deploy in elementary schools nowadays. Children who misbehave are asked to apologize to the class for misbehaving, for being inconsiderate. They're not just punished in increasingly dramatic ways for the sake of deterrence, because deterrence doesn't work, nor are they sent off somewhere away from view. We explicitly preach the importance of being considerate and respectful, and we model how to do it publicly - but note that the kid's not fucking trotted out at a general assembly for "public shaming".)
We are not discussing a child who has misbehaved here.
We are discussing a judge who slut-shamed a rape victim on the stand, effectively calling her a liar.
She testified that she was raped over a bathroom sink; Camp asked why she didn’t “skew her pelvis” or lower herself into the sink to avoid being penetrated, and then asked, “Why couldn’t you just keep your knees together?”
This is not misbehavior. This is gross malfeasance. And the constant dismissal of the actual seriousness of the actions as "misbehavior" is one way that sexism is normalized, through dismissal of the severity of the conduct and the subsequent consequences.
The CJC is not seeking to remove him because he said something "politically incorrect". They're seeking to remove him because he acted in a manner unfit for a member of the judiciary, demonstrating that he is unfit to serve as a judge.
So once again, let me ask you this - why should this individual be considered fit to serve on the bench, given his demonstration of gross malfeasance? Because you haven't answered that question.
To employ a shitty metaphor, its like the Judge asking a business why they didnt have better security / supervision of their goods, because maybe the thief really thought they were free, and they werent stealing.
That's an argument for making sure to continue to hold the CJC's feet to the fire on this matter, and to hold judges accountable for biased rulings. And nobody is saying that this removal would immediately fix everything wrong with how Canadian courts deal with sexual assault and rape. It would, however, be a good start and show that concerns are being taken seriously.
And at this point, what's been going on in the US election should put the lie to the argument that having bigotry out in the open is a positive step because it allows it to be dealt with. Because when bigotry is out in the open, that isn't a sign that it's being dealt with - it's a sign that it's been normalized. Dealing with judges putting sexist biases into rulings behind the scenes is a step forward from judges openly slut-shaming rape victims on the stand.
Nothing you've stated has shown that removing the judge from the bench is a way to denormalize it.
Destroy a man, and all you have is the space that he once occupied. Destroy a man's spirit, and you can rebuild him to your heart's desire. The way to denormalize the bad behaviour is to take judges who are misbehaving, correct their misbehaviour, and then put them back on the bench and monitor them properly to ensure they're behaving properly. This is basic (effective) disciplinary strategy, applied to everybody from violent Islamic extremists to kindergarten children.
You want to use the US as an example? There's a country that's almost exclusively pursued retributive punishment for political incorrectness, driven by mob thinking rather than careful, deliberate, future-forward thinking. And guess what, the US is still plagued with racists, sexists, and homophobes; they just use ever-changing dog whistles now to speak in code, mask themselves as mainstream organizations who oppose a politically correct culture gone too far, infiltrate others and twist them into false ideological soldiers, and silently wait for someone like Trump or Farage to come along. How's that been working out for ya?
Pointlessly punitive justice systems are expressly one thing that distinguishes the US and Canada, and I'm quite proud of it. Our approach to multiculturalism is a positive one, promoting its virtues rather than punishing its detractors, and it works. I'm not interested in feel-good justice that doesn't actually make the world better for the underprivileged.
Removal and censure is a pretty damn explicit statement of opposition by society to the action being censured. If a judge openly slut-shaming a rape victim on the stand, causing her to slip into depression and suicidal ideation isn't grounds enough to have a judge removed, what is?
Why is it so important for society to be involved in this man's redemption? If this judge wants to work at being a better human being, he can do it on his own time. But society should not be in the business of condoning this behavior from the judiciary.
Because that's how society gets better. You want to get your jollies off punishing people for things you disapprove of, go ahead, but keep it in the US and outta my country, please. It's extremely notable how you've said nothing about how removing the judge from the bench makes things better, and instead focused relentlessly on how much he deserves it. You're unable to articulate why a series of remedial, but still punitive, consequences as I proposed is worse than simple removal from the bench other than the fact that you just want it to be harsher. You're more concerned about the image of looking tough on sexism than you are on actually fixing sexism, and that kinda populist BS drives me nuts. Human society has so much time learning that harsher punishments don't reduce injustice, and instead perpetuate it by spreading hatred, but you'd rather just throw that all out because it'll make you feel better.
I mean, if we're going to go American-style on this, why don't we just execute the man? That'll send a real message about how spr-srs we are about it. That'll denormalize the behaviour right swift, eh? (Note, sarcasm.)
Why is it so important for society to be involved in this man's redemption? Because we're Canadians. And we believe in building society by bringing people together and making people better, not by shunning and eliminating our undesirables. (Or at least, we used to.)
The fact that you continue to view the matter as solely an issue of punishment, and not the removal of an individual who has demonstrated manifest unsuitability for his position is telling. You want to say I'm the one who is looking to be harsher, but I'm not the one who argued for publicly shaming the man, concluding with a fucking castration joke.
All I am saying is that a judge who openly slut-shames a rape victim on the stand in court has demonstrated unfitness to serve on the judiciary. And as such, he should be removed as a judge.
So let me turn it around on you - explain why a judge who, in an adversarial judicial system where they are supposed to be a nominally neutral party, openly slut-shamed a rape victim on the stand, effectively calling her a liar, has not demonstrated that he is unfit to serve on the bench. Even when you take the horrible sexism out of the equation, he violated one of the key aspects of his position.
Because being unfit to serve on the bench isn't an intrinsic quality of human beings.
Again, you're more focused on the perpetrator than the actual behaviour. You're just living out your own morality play here.
(And by the way, it's not public shaming for the purpose of public shaming. This sort of remedy - learning, apologizing, and then continued monitoring - works. How do we know it works? Because it's what we deploy in elementary schools nowadays. Children who misbehave are asked to apologize to the class for misbehaving, for being inconsiderate. They're not just punished in increasingly dramatic ways for the sake of deterrence, because deterrence doesn't work, nor are they sent off somewhere away from view. We explicitly preach the importance of being considerate and respectful, and we model how to do it publicly - but note that the kid's not fucking trotted out at a general assembly for "public shaming".)
We are not discussing a child who has misbehaved here.
We are discussing a judge who slut-shamed a rape victim on the stand, effectively calling her a liar.
She testified that she was raped over a bathroom sink; Camp asked why she didn’t “skew her pelvis” or lower herself into the sink to avoid being penetrated, and then asked, “Why couldn’t you just keep your knees together?”
This is not misbehavior. This is gross malfeasance. And the constant dismissal of the actual seriousness of the actions as "misbehavior" is one way that sexism is normalized, through dismissal of the severity of the conduct and the subsequent consequences.
The CJC is not seeking to remove him because he said something "politically incorrect". They're seeking to remove him because he acted in a manner unfit for a member of the judiciary, demonstrating that he is unfit to serve as a judge.
So once again, let me ask you this - why should this individual be considered fit to serve on the bench, given his demonstration of gross malfeasance? Because you haven't answered that question.
I don't consider him fit for the bench. Which is why I recommend remedial action. (Note, I do not have his judicial record in front of me, so I can only presume he was considered fit to serve on the bench at some previous point in time.)
Again, you're endlessly focused on what he did as opposed to how to make things better. Putting him back on the bench with a dramatically altered worldview is a decidedly better outcome than removing him from the bench without even having made the effort.
And if you don't like the kindergarten analogy, we can use radical extremists instead. As it turns out, putting them in prison doesn't help, because they just remain radical extremists behind bars, and radicalize other people. Shunning them from society doesn't help, because it just cuts them off from societal interaction with anybody who isn't also a radical extremist, and makes them all the more radical. What does help? Increased social interaction with a broad swath of society, the opening of new opportunities, and constant vigilant monitoring. OKAY? I'm pretty sure judge falls somewhere in between kindergartener and radical extremist in seriousness, right?
I can't believe I'm even having to argue this point. I figured pretty much everybody in this "liberal echo chamber" has pretty much gotten on board with the fact that harsh punishment != effective punishment and that X-strike laws are patently stupid, never mind 1-strike laws. (Also, I said misbehaviour because I was trying to generalize your position to its underlying principles, not to minimize the event.)
I think turning an enemy into an advocate is a good goal and absent this abhorrent behaviour presumably he's a qualified jurist.
I still side with Hedgie that the optics to victims of sexual assault is worth removing him.
It's not solely to deter but also to reassure victims that this is not tolerated.
Will rehabilitating him send the same message? Maybe. I've never been in the shoes of a rape victim.
I think turning an enemy into an advocate is a good goal and absent this abhorrent behaviour presumably he's a qualified jurist.
I still side with Hedgie that the optics to victims of sexual assault is worth removing him.
It's not solely to deter but also to reassure victims that this is not tolerated.
Will rehabilitating him send the same message? Maybe. I've never been in the shoes of a rape victim.
Testifying at the hearing Friday, Camp offered this defense for his comments: "a non-existent" knowledge of Canadian criminal law.
The South African-born judge said he didn't receive training on sex assault cases. In his legal career, he focused mostly on contract and bankruptcy cases, he said.
"My colleagues knew my knowledge of Canadian law was very minimal. It was non-existent," he said at the hearing Friday. "Please remember I wasn't in this country through the 1960s, '70s and '80s."
That was part of his defense - that he didn't understand Canadian criminal law.
I see it a bit on both sides, despite the judge trying hard to show that he has learned from this (and maybe he has, the people involved with working with him in regards to this believe he has) but at the same point I think he should be removed or moved into another role. The last thing we want to do is to breed contempt in people who sincerely want to change, it doesnt help anything. All you get is an angry man spouting off on how the liberals and PC police destroyed his career, instead of a man who could be an ally. Punishment is him not being on the bench, rehabilitation and education continues after that and then maybe he gets reinstated.
Hah holy shit, we let a south African judge who hasn't ingrained knowledge of Canadian Law preside over a sexual assault case? Or any case?
Don't people have to recertify or something?
I plead ignorance on this, really didn't know too much detail on the case beyond headlines.
Posts
but how many ruses did they score
The officials miss things, and that happens, but they miss things too often. The ones we have can't seem to keep up with the game at times. Officiating is never perfect, calls will be missed no matter what, but the frequency needs to be reduced. Hopefully the partnership with the NFL on officiating pays some long term dividends.
The rulebook, yikes. I actually am not one who complains when an official calls a borderline PI call because in most of those cases they're only calling what's in the rulebook and what they're told to call. For as much as we dump on them one thing i will say is that they have been mostly consistent there, where if it looks like a DB is breathing on the receiver they're throwing the flag. the CFL needs to fix the PI rule, and they need to do it this offseason.
And this goes with the rulebook, but the new challenge system this year had great intentions, and I was originally a fan of it, but the unintended consequences are too much. I know the league made a small change a couple weeks ago to how timeouts work with challenges, but they need to basically throw these changes out next season.
As for today: what a game between the TiCats and Argos. That lived up to the classic name. And I don't want to talk about the Edmonton/Calgary debacle.
Lastly: can the CFL stop screwing with tradition please? the Labour Day Classic has been Argos/TiCats at 1ET and Esks/Stamps at 4ET forever. I have no idea why they feel the need to tinker with the marquee event of the regular season.
Hell of a game though...
With all their faults I'm pretty happy we have a premier that will attend pride.
Was crazy busy even with the shit weather.
you mean the Roughriders and the Rough Riders. Get the name right! :biggrin: I was pretty young when the Rough Riders folded but I remember media people, especially radio, always making sure to emphasise the two separate words of Rough Riders....or just always calling them Ottawa and Saskatchewan.
I lost two bets totaling a 40 of Jack and a bottle of Auchentoshan. So close!
The crazy thing is that they are replacing guns that are a minimum of 60 years old...
I never finish anyth
"the guaranteed annual orgasm" Now there's a policy I can get behind! And in front of, and under, and over, and...
Didn't they also want to declare war on Belgium? But then Belgians sent them some beer and chocolate so they rescinded?
Still better foreign policy then the CPC
The judge's argument is just disgusting. He didn't say "hurtful" things, he said horrible, prejudicial comments that showed that he is unfit for the bench. Hopefully, the CJC makes that point clear to him.
On another note, Niki Ashton reminds me why I like her, post-Elbowgate:
MP Niki Ashton battling perceptions about millennials: Teitel
Sorry, but no. The judicial system does not exist to enable this judge's personal growth. “Why couldn’t you just keep your knees together?” is not something that any judge should ever say to a rape victim while running a trial.
I didn't say it was.
I'd rather not take the risk and use it as an example about how backwards shit like that is not welcome.
It's more that whether he can is irrelevant to the point. The problem is that whenever any judge makes comments like that towards rape victims, it undermines the judicial system, making victims less likely to come forward out of fear that they will be further attacked and traumatized by the system. The judiciary needs to restore trust, and the way to do that is by removing judges who make such comments, as their doing so is a demonstration of their unfitness to serve on the bench. The argument that we should consider if the judge has truly learned a lesson and regrets the comment is problematic because it shifts the discussion away from the actual issue of faith in the judiciary being breached, and instead makes it about the judge and whether they have grown enough.
There are more than enough qualified lawyers who can serve as judges. The judiciary doesn't need to retain judges who slut-shame rape victims.
You mistake my position. The judiciary has, in my opinion, does not have my trust when it comes to handling sexual assault and rape. The issue is not singular bad judges; it's all - or most - of them. The judiciary itself needs to be reformed, and aggressively targeting individual judges for extreme consequences for "politically incorrect" behaviour is only going to make the reform process harder, by making judges feel targeted and driving their sexism underground.
Again, I don't think it serves feminism to make examples out of certain men. It just makes enemies, who are well-positioned to resist needed reforms for a very long time.
Underground is better then above ground. Judges that exhibit behaviour in court in direct contravention to their role in a rape trial should be canned because there's zero reason to tolerate that shit.
The fact that you are hand-wringing over "making an example" of a guy saying disgusting shit is pretty disgusting honestly. "We can't fix sexism cause it might make sexists feel bad" is a terrible terrible argment.
When I say, "underground," I do not mean that they won't be biased in their rulings. They just won't say the abhorrent things that make it obvious. E.g. the situation as is.
Personally, I despise the man, so please, let's not play this whole, see who's clutching their feminist pearls harder game. The Jezebel column doesn't even fucking mention the fact that his daughter, who wrote a statement of support for her father, was herself a rape victim, a fact he knew before making the idiotic statements that he did. I've been following this goddamned story the whole fucking time, and I've managed to both hand-wringing and disgusted at the same time.
Kicking this man off the bench does nothing, in judicial terms, for the other women whose sexual assault cases are up for trial or might never get that far. He's one judge out of thousands. The idea that expelling him from the bench will "restore trust" is laughable. Excoriating him personally for all the crimes committed by the judiciary towards women over the years moves us, at best, exactly one judge forward. Meanwhile, all the other sexist judges out there will continue to make the rulings they make, just without asking the questions aloud. Huzzah, a true victory for feminism.
(Seriously, I defend the necessity of radical feminism to the feminist movement and society quite a bit, but I can't be the only one who's noticed that feminism's having a real "allies" problem and no shortage of enemies.)
The judge should be censured; he should be demoted (if possible); he should never again live a month of his life without having to participate in a women's issues seminar; he should have to donate half his salary to a women's charity; he should be forced to publicly and personally apologize to the victim in the case, as well as to all the women in his life who wrote statements of support for him. And then he should go back to work and do his damn job properly with his tail between his legs covering up the scar from where we removed his fucking balls.
Kicking him from the bench. Pfft. You guys just aren't creative enough.
And at this point, what's been going on in the US election should put the lie to the argument that having bigotry out in the open is a positive step because it allows it to be dealt with. Because when bigotry is out in the open, that isn't a sign that it's being dealt with - it's a sign that it's been normalized. Dealing with judges putting sexist biases into rulings behind the scenes is a step forward from judges openly slut-shaming rape victims on the stand.
Please don't bring up bigotry and the US election and pretend things are better. The fact that Trump is polling so high is more of a sign of a cup about to boil over than anything else. He's literally running on a campaign of hate and fear and it's working, regardless of what the echo chamber of the American election thread believes.
In other news!
http://www.vox.com/2016/9/15/12915200/canada-heroin-injection-site?utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
Finally. Pretty happy our goverment is actually finally to start treating addiction like a diereses.
That was the point. There's an argument that I see brought up from time to time in lefty circles that forcing bigotry underground is a bad thing, because it's harder to fight than bigotry out in the open. It's a bad argument, because when bigotry is out in the open (like what we're seeing with the US election), that's a sign that it's being normalized in society. Bigotry going underground is a sign of shame, a sign that it is seen as an aberration.
Open bigotry seems to have a pretty good chance of winning the election... What positive change do you see happening in that case?
I'm saying that is a Bad Thing. I'm saying that the argument that "it's better to have bigotry out in the open" is an incredibly goosey argument that ignores that open bigotry signals that bigotry is acceptable to society, while it being pushed underground shows that it has some degree of social opprobrium.
In short, I agree with you, which is the point of the comment.
I must have read that totally wrong. Sorry, I should not be allowed to speak with humans before consuming caffeine.
Nothing you've stated has shown that removing the judge from the bench is a way to denormalize it.
Destroy a man, and all you have is the space that he once occupied. Destroy a man's spirit, and you can rebuild him to your heart's desire. The way to denormalize the bad behaviour is to take judges who are misbehaving, correct their misbehaviour, and then put them back on the bench and monitor them properly to ensure they're behaving properly. This is basic (effective) disciplinary strategy, applied to everybody from violent Islamic extremists to kindergarten children.
You want to use the US as an example? There's a country that's almost exclusively pursued retributive punishment for political incorrectness, driven by mob thinking rather than careful, deliberate, future-forward thinking. And guess what, the US is still plagued with racists, sexists, and homophobes; they just use ever-changing dog whistles now to speak in code, mask themselves as mainstream organizations who oppose a politically correct culture gone too far, infiltrate others and twist them into false ideological soldiers, and silently wait for someone like Trump or Farage to come along. How's that been working out for ya?
Pointlessly punitive justice systems are expressly one thing that distinguishes the US and Canada, and I'm quite proud of it. Our approach to multiculturalism is a positive one, promoting its virtues rather than punishing its detractors, and it works. I'm not interested in feel-good justice that doesn't actually make the world better for the underprivileged. I'd rather we actually take the problem seriously rather than just showing that we are.
Removal and censure is a pretty damn explicit statement of opposition by society to the action being censured. If a judge openly slut-shaming a rape victim on the stand, causing her to slip into depression and suicidal ideation isn't grounds enough to have a judge removed, what is?
Why is it so important for society to be involved in this man's redemption? If this judge wants to work at being a better human being, he can do it on his own time. But society should not be in the business of condoning this behavior from the judiciary.
Because that's how society gets better. You want to get your jollies off punishing people for things you disapprove of, go ahead, but keep it in the US and outta my country, please. It's extremely notable how you've said nothing about how removing the judge from the bench makes things better, and instead focused relentlessly on how much he deserves it. You're unable to articulate why a series of remedial, but still punitive, consequences as I proposed is worse than simple removal from the bench other than the fact that you just want it to be harsher. You're more concerned about the image of looking tough on sexism than you are on actually fixing sexism, and that kinda populist BS drives me nuts. Human society has so much time learning that harsher punishments don't reduce injustice, and instead perpetuate it by spreading hatred, but you'd rather just throw that all out because it'll make you feel better.
I mean, if we're going to go American-style on this, why don't we just execute the man? That'll send a real message about how spr-srs we are about it. That'll denormalize the behaviour right swift, eh? (Note, sarcasm.)
Why is it so important for society to be involved in this man's redemption? Because we're Canadians. And we believe in building society by bringing people together and making people better, not by shunning and eliminating our undesirables. (Or at least, we used to.)
The fact that you continue to view the matter as solely an issue of punishment, and not the removal of an individual who has demonstrated manifest unsuitability for his position is telling. You want to say I'm the one who is looking to be harsher, but I'm not the one who argued for publicly shaming the man, concluding with a fucking castration joke.
All I am saying is that a judge who openly slut-shames a rape victim on the stand in court has demonstrated unfitness to serve on the judiciary. And as such, he should be removed as a judge.
So let me turn it around on you - explain why a judge who, in an adversarial judicial system where they are supposed to be a nominally neutral party, openly slut-shamed a rape victim on the stand, effectively calling her a liar, has not demonstrated that he is unfit to serve on the bench. Even when you take the horrible sexism out of the equation, he violated one of the key aspects of his position.
Because being unfit to serve on the bench isn't an intrinsic quality of human beings.
Again, you're more focused on the perpetrator than the actual behaviour. You're just living out your own morality play here.
And by the way, it's not public shaming for the purpose of public shaming. This sort of remedy - learning, apologizing, and then continued monitoring - works. How do we know it works? Because it's what we deploy in elementary schools nowadays. Children who misbehave are asked to apologize to the class for misbehaving, for being inconsiderate. They're not just punished in increasingly dramatic ways for the sake of deterrence, because deterrence doesn't work, nor are they sent off somewhere away from view. We explicitly preach the importance of being considerate and respectful, and we model how to do it publicly - but note that the kid's not fucking trotted out at a general assembly for "public shaming". You make them better people, not just banish them to the wild, which - again - how has that worked out for America and racists? Oh, they just started hanging out with each other and being racist together? Well then.
We are not discussing a child who has misbehaved here.
We are discussing a judge who slut-shamed a rape victim on the stand, effectively calling her a liar.
This is not misbehavior. This is gross malfeasance. And the constant dismissal of the actual seriousness of the actions as "misbehavior" is one way that sexism is normalized, through dismissal of the severity of the conduct and the subsequent consequences.
The CJC is not seeking to remove him because he said something "politically incorrect". They're seeking to remove him because he acted in a manner unfit for a member of the judiciary, demonstrating that he is unfit to serve as a judge.
So once again, let me ask you this - why should this individual be considered fit to serve on the bench, given his demonstration of gross malfeasance? Because you haven't answered that question.
MWO: Adamski
I don't consider him fit for the bench. Which is why I recommend remedial action. (Note, I do not have his judicial record in front of me, so I can only presume he was considered fit to serve on the bench at some previous point in time.)
Again, you're endlessly focused on what he did as opposed to how to make things better. Putting him back on the bench with a dramatically altered worldview is a decidedly better outcome than removing him from the bench without even having made the effort.
And if you don't like the kindergarten analogy, we can use radical extremists instead. As it turns out, putting them in prison doesn't help, because they just remain radical extremists behind bars, and radicalize other people. Shunning them from society doesn't help, because it just cuts them off from societal interaction with anybody who isn't also a radical extremist, and makes them all the more radical. What does help? Increased social interaction with a broad swath of society, the opening of new opportunities, and constant vigilant monitoring. OKAY? I'm pretty sure judge falls somewhere in between kindergartener and radical extremist in seriousness, right?
I can't believe I'm even having to argue this point. I figured pretty much everybody in this "liberal echo chamber" has pretty much gotten on board with the fact that harsh punishment != effective punishment and that X-strike laws are patently stupid, never mind 1-strike laws. (Also, I said misbehaviour because I was trying to generalize your position to its underlying principles, not to minimize the event.)
I still side with Hedgie that the optics to victims of sexual assault is worth removing him.
It's not solely to deter but also to reassure victims that this is not tolerated.
Will rehabilitating him send the same message? Maybe. I've never been in the shoes of a rape victim.
Actually...
That was part of his defense - that he didn't understand Canadian criminal law.
Don't people have to recertify or something?
I plead ignorance on this, really didn't know too much detail on the case beyond headlines.