Made with Love

Judge's sex-assault comments spark rally

Maurice Boscorelli

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
19,322
About 100 people rallied at the Manitoba Law Courts building in Winnipeg on Friday, expressing anger about comments made by a judge during a sexual assault sentencing.
Carrying placards with statements such as, "No such thing as implied consent," the protesters also stormed inside the building chanting and calling for the resignation of Justice Robert Dewar.
They also called for Dewar to come down and speak to them before being escorted out by security.
The rally wrapped up after about an hour, at 1 p.m.
Dewar said "sex was in the air" when he spared a man jail time by handing him a two-year conditional sentence last week instead and allowed him to remain free in the community.
During the sentencing, Dewar also commented on the way the woman was dressed and her actions the night she was forced to have sex by a man in the woods along a dark highway outside Thompson, Man., in 2006.
The man and a friend met the woman, who is now 25, and her girlfriend earlier that night outside a bar under what Dewar called "inviting circumstances."
The judge pointed out the victim and her friend were dressed in tube tops, no bras, and high heels and noted they were wearing plenty of makeup.
Dewar called the man a "clumsy Don Juan" who may have misunderstood what the victim wanted.
The sentence was delivered last week in Thompson.
The victim, who spoke to CBC News on Friday, did not attend the rally but was aware of it and grateful to those who took part.
She said she remains traumatized from the sexual assault and is afraid to go places.
"I feel like I'm a prisoner in my own home and I can't trust anyone," she said, adding she is extremely upset with Dewar's comments.
"I don't think what he said was right. We were young and we were dressed classy. For him to say that the way we looked was basically asking for it is wrong and makes me angry."
The woman said she went into the bushes off the road to urinate and the man followed her in.
"I wanted out of there and he wouldn't stop," she said about the attack, which left her covered in bruises.
"I had to do what I had to do to survive because I was out there alone. I wanted to get away."
She agrees with protesters who called for Dewar's resignation, saying, "I think he should not judge again."
Then she added, "I think all rapists should be treated like a murderer because they take a part of your life."
Lorraine Parrington, who co-ordinates the sexual assault crisis program at Klinic, a community health centre in Winnipeg, said Dewar's remarks show there needs to be more education about how women should be treated in sexual assault cases.
Fewer than 10 per cent of sexual assault cases are actually reported and Parrington worries Dewar's comments will discourage future victims from coming forward.
"I'd like to say I was shocked. Unfortunately, I'm not after doing this work for lots of years," she said. "But I was appalled. I was outraged. I was disheartened."
Men have to learn women can change their minds, and no, at any point in an encounter, means no, she said.
"People have a right to change their mind. If I decide that I want to be engaged in certain sexual behaviour with somebody I can do that and I'm allowed to say, 'Stop, I don't want to do it any more.' That needs to be respected."
Angela Senyshyn, a burlesque dancer who was at the rally, told CBC News she dresses how she likes and there is no invitation to anything.
"I don't get dressed, you know, for a night out on the town in hopes to get raped."


Wow this one is going to cause a shit storm with woman's rights groups.
 
I heard this story yesterday...

NO... means no.

End of story. :???:

The (knuckle dragging) judge in question should be severely reprimanded.
 
First of all I'd like to say: we don't know the whole story so maybe we should withhold comment until we do?

I don't base my opinion on excerpts, I'd like to read the whole judgement.

If "no means no" then the following is sexual assault:

You're sitting on the couch with your wife watching tv. You start messing around with her boobs and kissing her neck and she says "no honey, I want to watch this", if you touch her ONE more time, that's sexual assault.

If you sneak up behind her while she's doing the dishes and grab her boobs, she sayd "no honey, not now, I have to finish this dishes" that's sexual assault.

I'm still looking for the complete statement but (as I figured) any news article only states the excerpts.....
 
Cycleguy007 said:
I heard this story yesterday...

NO... means no.

End of story. :???:

The (knuckle dragging) judge in question should be severely reprimanded.

Sounds like the judge wasn't convinced that a rape took place.

But if he believed that then why find guilt at all, and give a light sentence.

Too me it's either they are guilty and get a severe penalty or found innocent and set free. As I have said before a minimum 25 year sentence should be imposed.

This whole blaming the vic thing I'm not buying at all either. A crime is a crime period.

That having been said I'm divided on the vic's decision here to leave a bar intoxicated with a man I presume she didn't know. On the one hand that certainly isn't an invitation to get raped but on the other why put yourself at that risk?

An analogy if I may. When I was living in NYC years ago it was off limits to go to Harlem if you were white. If I was to go in there and get mugged or assaulted then I can guarantee you I would get blamed for making the decision to be there. Therefore nobody I knew ventured into that territory.
 
As much as "a crime is a crime" as you stated, there are mitigating circumstances ie: your harlem example.

Same as putting a wad of $100 bills on the sidewalk in front of your house and charging someone with theft if they pick it up.

See, thankfully judges look at the entire event before passing sentence.

If a woman is walking home from work on a well lit street in a good neighbourhood and gets pulled down an alley and gets raped that's one thing. Then if a woman dresses like a tramp, flashing her boobs, gets drunk and walks out of the bar with a total stranger and gets into his car willingly, starts making out, then gets raped, sorry, some may disagree, but that's another thing entirely.

I compare it to using power tools without safety glasses. If you want to take the risk, you have to accept SOME of the responsibility. It isn't a question of IF you're going to get hurt, just a question of when. Like that old adage about people who ride motorcycles: there are only two types: those that have fallen off, and those that are going to. So you prepare for the times when you do by wearing a helmet, protective clothing, gloves (even when it's 100 deg out).

It'd be awesome if a woman could dress anyway she wants, do whatever she wants, anywhere she wants but that only happens in utopia and the last I heard, we don't live in a utopian world.

Put it another way: has anyone ever taken a stripper out for coffee after her shift? I have. Do you see how they dress when they leave work? Jeans, sweater, jacket, nothing at all how they dress inside the club.....ever wondered why? To not attract attention to themselves.....

Here's another analogy: we ALL use condoms when we have sex with escorts? Why? To protect ourselves in the off chance that they might have something. Escorts get tested more often than civilian women so the chances are, they don't but we wear condoms anyways right?
 
I also would like to know more before I make a comment or judge in a discriminatory way. The bottom line to is being dressed in a sexy or slutty way does not say I am here to get fucked guys. It says I am sexy, like my body and like to show it off (may be naive or stupid but their prerogative).

Does not mean you can fuck me without my consent, drunk or not.

End of story.
 
...well this judge or any liars out there will not get any hugs from me...including ass grabbing. :great:
 
If I choose to leave my doors unlocked and windows down when parked in a crappy neighborhood, would you tell me I'm stupid?

I'm not saying that theft would be excused or justified. But the reality is that a risk was deliberately and consciously accepted in the first instance.

And before I get shat upon, no, I'm not talking about assaults by familiar persons, domestic situations, etc.
 
Nothingtodo said:
I also would like to know more before I make a comment or judge in a discriminatory way. The bottom line to is being dressed in a sexy or slutty way does not say I am here to get fucked guys. It says I am sexy, like my body and like to show it off (may be naive or stupid but their prerogative).

Does not mean you can fuck me without my conset, drunk or not.

End of story.

You're right, it doesn't indicate that at all but what it does do is add what is called "mitigating circumstances" and those circumstances do apply or are considered when sentencing or passing judgement.

I mean, the judge in question DID find him guilty afterall.......

Now I thought of another example, but kind of apropos:

You book a flight to Miami. You get on the plane, get settled in your seat, and the flight is now over kentucky. You decide, hey, I don't want to go to miami, land and let me off...kind of too late for that isn't it?

My point is: before you even get on the plane (or leave the bar with a stranger) you'd better be damned sure you know what you're doing and it is what you want to be doing.

I know plenty of women who go out, have a good time, meet guys, dress sexy (in a classy way), and have lived their entire lives with never having been raped or assaulted or ?? Why? Because they don't get so drunk they lose control, or when they do, they have someone around to keep an eye out for them, and if those people DO say "hey you've had too much" they listen to them.

I've had a couple female (platonic) friends say to me: if we go out will you keep an eye on me? I say "sure, but I don't want any arguments when I say it's time to go, or you've had enough, do you agree to that"? No, I don't want you to be my father...then I say "well then, the answer is no." WHYYYYY I said "because the minute you start drinking, your judgement will be impaired and mine won't be. If you don't trust my judgement now when you're sober, how are you going to trust me when you're drunk"??? "then when you don't listen to me, and if you get into trouble, you'll just blame ME and I'm not going to take that responsibility, that's YOUR responsibility now when you're sober...".
 
Interesting comments on what is probably a little more complex than the excerpt says.

The problem I have with this is that the entire legal system is based on the judges opinion and his opinion shifts on how he feels, what he ate for lunch, whether his wife is pissing him off or not ect ect ect.

It's a know truth that people who show up in court well dressed and polite get lighter sentences than people who look shabby and have attitude. The facts come in second in a two man race.
 
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way skiier. Judges are chosen to sit on the bench because they are supposed to be able to take their "person" out of the equation. How he "feels" that day or what he ate for lunch isn't supposed to affect his decisions. Hence why they are supposed to be impartial.

Attitude, on the other hand, DOES come into play. If one demonstrates respect for the court and the law, then yes they SHOULD receive lighter sentences because they are demonstrating that they probably won't recommit.

As for the way one dresses for court, well, that too speaks volumes. I mean really, it costs no more than $3.00 to wash your clothes so if you can't muster up enough respect to be clean and neat for a day in court, what ELSE are you going to show lack of respect for?

Now I only had to spend 2 days in court years ago but I could't believe how some people came in. Kind of like those showing up for a job interview without even bothering to comb their hair or brush their teeth.....
 
tboy said:
My point is: before you even get on the plane (or leave the bar with a stranger) you'd better be damned sure you know what you're doing and it is what you want to be doing.

Point well taken. Yes the judge sentenced him but not all are as smart as your friends. Rape is rape no matter how you look at it. The victim may have a drinking problem or not too sharp up there but isn't that what our judicial system is for. To protect the weak and sorry to say this...the stupid. All I am saying is the dude should've had a long long prison sentence. Judge has to tell the people crime doesn't pay not blame it on the way she was dressed.
 
You are right, the judges are supposed to be able to separate their personal opinions but lets face we are all human. it happens. There are as many good judges as there are mediocre ones.

I'll bet being a judge is not as easy job and becoming jaded is an occupational hazard.

This makes me think of a great line from the the tv show MASH. Frank Burns says ... work in a hospital? are you kidding ? those places are full of sick people.

I'd like to be the judge in the old movie The Star Chamber. Michael Douglas was the newly appointed judge. He soon discovers that all the other judges are fed up with the system and when someone beats the charge on technicalities they simply hire an assassin and fix the problem themselves
 
Nothingtodo said:
Judge has to tell the people crime doesn't pay not blame it on the way she was dressed.

Yeah otherwise we give these vermin free license to prey on the victims who are making unwise choices.
 
[video]https://www.americanbankingnews.com/2011/02/26/judges-sex-assault-comments-spark-rally/[/video]
 
Nothingtodo said:
Point well taken. Yes the judge sentenced him but not all are as smart as your friends. Rape is rape no matter how you look at it. The victim may have a drinking problem or not too sharp up there but isn't that what our judicial system is for. To protect the weak and sorry to say this...the stupid. All I am saying is the dude should've had a long long prison sentence. Judge has to tell the people crime doesn't pay not blame it on the way she was dressed.

But isn't that what evolution is supposed to do? Weed out the weak and the stupid from the gene pool?

Sorry, I disagree (and so does the law): rape is not rape no matter how you look at it. Is it rape when you sleep with a woman and she decides it wasn't a good idea the next morning and charges you with rape?

I have yet to meet a guy who has not had a woman say "no" to him at some point in the seduction process only to eventually get her so hot she ends up having sex with him....is that rape?

How many guys have been doing it with a woman and she says: No oh No OHHH NOOoooOOOOOooooo? Is that rape? according to "no means no" it is........

Like I said: if a woman is walking home from work and gets pulled into an alley, that's one thing. If a woman goes into a bar, dressed like a tramp, picks up a guy, takes him out to his car and gets naked and halfway through says "no", that's a different thing entirely.

Using that mentality if you're in a car and get into an accident (due to weather conditions or a blown tire) and a passenger dies, the driver should be charged with murder. Now you're going to say that is different, no, not really. The driver is in charge of maintaining the tires, deciding whether it is safe to drive or not, the passenger also has the responsibility to say "I'm not going to ride in a car that isn't well maintained" or "the weather is too bad to be driving in".....

Sorry, the argument that "women can wear whatever they want, act however they want" simply shirks any responsibility for their actions onto someone else, just like everyone else is doing these days.

This is for the married guys or guys with common law gf's: in all your years of being with them, have you EVER had sex when they really weren't into it? According to the "rape is rape" that's rape......
 
Licky said:
[video]https://www.americanbankingnews.com/2011/02/26/judges-sex-assault-comments-spark-rally/[/video]

Oh man, I stopped watching when someone stated "...to think that someone deserved to be sexually assaulted"....in a typically female response they added their own spin to the ruling. At no time did the judge or ANYONE say "she deserved" anything.....

Shit, maybe we need laws like "incite to riot" whereby a woman dressed too provacatively gets charged?

Oh man I'd like to obtain the transcripts from the case......for all we know all the guy did was kiss her or grab her ass, because afterall, that's sexual assault.....
 
Tboy, your examples are extremely stupid. Most people can tell the difference between a normal guy trying to convince a girl to have sex with him and a rapist. Certainly girls can tell the the difference; they virtually never flee in terror, leaving their pants behind, when confronted with just a normal guy trying to convince them to have sex, and they virtually never bring rape charges against a normal guy trying to convince them to have sex (if anything, they seem to often err in the opposite direction, blaming themselves for supposed mixed signals when the real problem is that they were dealing wtih a rapist).

But there are a few people who apparently can't tell the difference, who can read about a case where the woman ended up covered with bruises, and fled the scene leaving her pants behind (from other reports, apparently Rhodes also admitted to telling this woman "it will only hurt for a little while"), and somehow fail to notice that it is light years away from a normal guy trying to convince a girl to have sex with her. And those are the people the feminists are trying to address; if you can't tell the difference between a normal guy trying to convince a girl to have sex and rape, they don't want you taking any chances. Quite sensibly, they want you to just stop immediately and completely at the first hint of rejection, lest your efforts to convince her slide over the line into rape (since you don't seem to have a clue where the line is).
 
Back
Top Bottom