Canada hates women, again.

[Gncq]

beta.cp24.com/news/2020/6/4/1_4969716.html

Canada has ruled that a defense that "sorry your honour I was so intoxicated I didn't know what I was doing" is fine as a defense for raping someone.

Apparently, not allowing this defense violates the rights of the accused.

“I don't see it as seriously undermining the rights of victims,” Zwibel said. “This is a rarely used provision; it's not this widespread, systemic concern.”

Right "this never happens" series 2.

You let one in, you let them all in.

So wrong. So, so wrong. I don't get how they could allow this, I just don't understand at all.

Does this defence work across the board then? Can you be too drunk to be found guilty of drink driving? What about manslaughter or murder? FFS.

Yes quite Fluff there should be at least a charge for "drunk raping" instead of fucking nothing.

Misogynistic cunts aren’t even pretending not to want free reign to rape and abuse anymore.

Arrrgh

Sorry but FFS & the bloody headline

Why does Canada hate women so very much?

they said the law violated an accused's rights by holding them accountable for violence they really had no control over

FFS

Just a couple of months ago this guy was acquitted for attacking a woman while high on mushrooms. He ran inside her house naked and beat her with a broom. But of course this hardly ever happens in Canada.

calgaryherald.com/news/crime/former-mru-hockey-captain-acquitted-of-drug-induced-attack-on-female-professor-in-her-home

This is a rarely used provision

But in the article below it says:

Another judge determined a section of the Criminal Code that prohibited self-induced intoxication as a defence to crimes of violence was unconstitutional.

(It's the article about Mount Royal University hockey captain Matthew Brown, who beat a woman with a weapon during a home invasion.)

So perhaps it's a "rarely used provision" because it has only been available as a defence for rapists and woman-beaters for a few months. I'm sure it will come in very handy for many violent criminals in future. Good work, Canada.

As another poster mentioned - is drunk driving still a crime in Canada? How can that not be "unconstitutional" too by whatever fucked up logic that judge used?

This is a terrible ruling by the Ontario Supreme Court, but I wish people here would stop saying “Canada” hates women. My country is comprised of a wide variety of opinions, including feminists and misogynists. A country does not hold an opinion, and court decisions will vary from judge to judge, province to province etc.

All countries have a long way to go before women are heard, safe, etc. I am frustrated by the bandwagon support for trans issues, even when they conflict with women’s rights (also massively concerned about kids and teens and the rush to affirm). But I feel slandered and profiled when people state that “Canada” hates women.

This is a terrible ruling by the Ontario Supreme Court, but I wish people here would stop saying “Canada” hates women

Agree. It just makes me take whatever they have to say less seriously. The trans things is awful and deserves critique, but it's happening everywhere. Canada has up to 18-month maternity leave, £300+/month tax benefit per child, child maintenance enforcement taken much more seriously. It varies province to province, but most hospitals have private or max. 2-bed rooms in the maternity ward. You can start to draw a gov't pension from the age of 60. Heavily unionized workforce.

Lots of gaps still to fill, but it's far from the hell-scape suggested.

Jeez that is some dramatic threat title. Canada isn't perfect but it certainly doesn't hate women. I am self employed and have had 3 children in Canada and have been very well supported both as a business owner and as a mother. My daughter's have so many opportunities in Canada i find your statement really offensive. The ruling on this case is indeed disgraceful but to say
Canada hates woman is ridiculous.

Whatever happened to 'in vino veritas'?
Violent people are just even more violent when drunk.

The 'it wasnt voluntary because He was drunk/high' argument is rubbish - was he forced to drink too much? The voluntary action occurred before, and directly influenced, the assult.
How can you set legal precedent and excuse yourself by saying it won't often be used?

Just awful

What else is fine when really really drunk? Arson? Running people over in cars? Stabbing people? Theft?

Yeah ok sorry for the title, bit when their rape crisis shelters are being vandalised and their funding stopped and women's bookshops closed down, and all the rest of it, now this, you can't help but get a bit angry.

What exactly has happened to Canada and why? This is insane. They protect Yaniv, but not female victims of rape.

If you choose to drink - and the drink contributes conveniently provides cover to commit crimes and helps you get away with it to you commuting a crime- ITS STILL YOUR FAULT - ITS YOUR BEHAVIOUR. Why is this so difficult to understand?

I take the point about the broad generalisation, but can I ask the Canadians here, do you have an equivalent of WPUK or Fair Play for Women or indeed this forum where women can talk about what's happening and push back? Because Meghan Murphy and Vancouver Rape Relief aside, I've not heard about anything.
I can understand how crazy anti women laws get passed, but when they seem to get so little resistance then that really does scare me.

@Floisme I haven’t heard of anything like WPUK or Fair Play here (in Canada), but having lived in both countries I have a few ideas about why.

In the UK you have almost double our population in a tiny fraction of our land mass. You have one time zone, we have six. I noticed when I lived in England that you share experiences differently because of that. The news hits everyone at the same moments as you’re all (shift workers aside) in roughly the same work clock. I felt more tribal cohesion when in the UK because of that than I ever have in Canada. So I think it’s far easier to have a national response to issues there than it is in Canada.

Additionally I suspect the provinces having so much control over social issues (how health money is spent, social services, education) means that struggles over issues that affect women and girls in those areas is splintered into provincial and territorial activism.

Add into that that my perception of England (not sure about the rest) was that the English are a bit more naturally ready to stick two fingers up to authority than we are. We like rules, Royal Commissions, endless meetings where nothing much gets done. And the Canadian tendency to not want to offend is kicking in hard on trans identified males issues as somehow a lot of people equate saying yes to single sex spaces for women and girls to homophobia. And people seem to love the heck out of virtue signalling here (I see this a lot on my neighbourhood fb page where people want to shame others about not wearing masks).

There are loads of women here working behind the scenes on feminist issues, Meaghan is the only one I’m aware of brave enough (& self-employed so loss of income not an issue for her, though I mean to take nothing from her incredible bravery by noting that) to be public about it. So far!

This has been the case in Canadian law for a long time - I remember stumbling across it in a philosophy course back in the late 80s and thinking "what the fuck?" It's just that (as a PP notes) it's rarely applied.

But there's all sorts of shit goes on behind the scenes of Canada's "most liberal country evah" image, not just the trans stuff. The treatment of Indigenous peoples, especially indigenous women, is horrific. For all its reputation for natural beauty, friends who live there tell me that as soon as you step outside of a protected national park type environment, the systematic damage to the environment in pursuit of oil shale/minerals/just plain old logging is horrific.

And in answer to an earlier question about drunk driving - that was the context it came up in on my philosophy course. Under Canadian law, the crime was getting that drunk in the knowledge that once you were that drunk, you might do something stupid up to and including killing someone, not the crime of killing the person (you had a free pass on that one because your judgement was presumed to be impaired by alcohol to the point where you were no longer responsible for your actions).

"The Appeal Court decision setting aside the law came in a pair of separate cases in which two men, both high on drugs, either killed or injured close relatives."
"Their defence, however, ran afoul of the ban on arguing extreme intoxication."
"In overturning their convictions on Wednesday, Justices David Paciocco, David Watt and Peter Lauwers said a person must act voluntarily to commit a crime. While lawmakers might have sought to help victims attain justice, they said the law violated an accused's rights by holding them accountable for violence they really had no control over."

So, there we are. If you want to kill or sexually assault someone and get away with it, then simply get as plastered as possible on alcohol or drugs and the Canadian (il)legal system will protect you.
Because that is a fundamental freedom according to Cara Zwibel.
Canada has lost the plot.

cfe.ryerson.ca/people/cara-zwibel

There is no solidarity with women.

Women matter less than the default humans.

It's all just variations on a theme.

Thanks Rita that's interesting, particularly about following rules. I've only been in Canada once, many years ago, but I remember how everyone waited at the crossings for the pedestrian light, even when the road was empty - very sensible but a new experience! Also by the number of houses flying the national flag. I went to an ice hockey match and everyone sang the national anthem. (Mind you it was also the most violent game I'd ever seen )

At the time I was impressed - I was travelling alone and it felt safe plus I liked the way patriotism didn't seem to have the nationalistic connotations it has here. But I guess the downside might be that, if the general vibe is law abiding and patriotic, then you're (general you) less likely to question what your government does.

This is shocking! Can we all just run around committing crime now when we're drunk?!

And, biologically speaking, if the man was so drunk that he didn't know what he was doing, he wouldn't have been able to actually perform anyway. So being too drunk is absolute bollocks as a defence for rape.

What planet are these judges on?!