Fuck these corrupt judges, fuck the judicial system. Name and shame those gang rapers so that this follows them for the rest of their lives. Fucking rapists.
this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2025
47 points (98.0% liked)
Canada
10183 readers
1005 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Related Communities
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
- Anmore (BC)
- Burnaby (BC)
- Calgary (AB)
- Comox Valley (BC)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Guelph (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Niagara Falls (ON)
- Niagara-on-the-Lake (ON)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Squamish (BC)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Whistler (BC)
- Windsor (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Hockey
- Main: c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- Montréal Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
- Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
💻 Schools / Universities
- BC | UBC (U of British Columbia)
- BC | SFU (Simon Fraser U)
- BC | VIU (Vancouver Island U)
- BC | TWU (Trinity Western U)
- ON | UofT (U of Toronto)
- ON | UWO (U of Western Ontario)
- ON | UWaterloo (U of Waterloo)
- ON | UofG (U of Guelph)
- ON | OTU (Ontario Tech U)
- QC | McGill (McGill U)
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
🗣️ Politics
- General:
- Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- By Province (alphabetical):
🍁 Social / Culture
- Ask a Canadian
- Bières Québec
- Canada Francais
- Canadian Gaming
- EhVideos (Canadian video media)
- First Nations
- First Nations Languages
- Indigenous
- Inuit
- Logiciels libres au Québec
- Maple Music (music)
Rules
- Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
I'll admit I wanted to be outraged at the not guilty verdicts, but then there is this which reduces the victims credibility, which doesn't mean assault didn't happen but it causes doubt:
Some of the complainant’s testimony was proven to be wrong by video evidence, the judge says.
For example, E.M. testified that she felt isolated at the bar, that she tried to sneak away but was followed, the judge said. But video shows she had an extended conversation with a bouncer while there, whom she said was a friend.
E.M. also said she was completely out of it when she arrived at the hotel, the judge recounted. However, she added, video showed E.M. exiting the cab, checking her phone, and walking up the stairs without difficulty.
Anyone can check their phone while wasted and talk to a bouncer while tripping balls. Fuck this verdict.
This has unfortunately been the case in sexual assault cases since...forever, really.
There are almost never any witnesses, human memory is fallible, alcohol is sometimes a factor...the justice system is not well-equipped to handle it.
… not equipped to handle what, exactly?
Sexual assault is a pretty serious charge, and it appears in this case that the alleged victim seriously damaged her own credibility on several claims. I fully admit to not knowing a lot of this specific case but it sure seems like the justice system prevailed in upholding justice given the facts we have.
So I read into it, and her testimony spanned 9 days with seven cross examinations. Not to mention she's recounting events that happened seven years ago while possibly very drunk.
Not to mention they switched from a trial by jury to a judge only verdict after the defense was found talking to jurors in one instance and "laughing" at them another time (don't really get that).
Not saying that proves one thing or another, but just shows how problematic it can be holding trial over sexual assault charges.
Our court systems are setup to require "beyond reasonable doubt" but sexual assault cases struggle to meet that threshold anytime there is even a little bit of grey area, then they also struggle on the defendants side when it comes to reputational loss.
It sounds like there was a reasonable bit of doubt there. Are we set up to handle that in our system ?