OTTAWA – John Reilly, a retired judge and Liberal candidate for the Alberta riding of Wild Rose, was forced to apologize Thursday for suggesting in a radio interview that not all sexual offenders should be incarcerated.
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff called an Alberta candidate’s comments on sexual offenders "disgraceful,” but said he has accepted Reilly’s apology and he’ll continue to serve as the party’s candidate for the riding.
Alberta Liberal candidate John Reilly apologizes for remarks on sexual assault
The "sexual assault":
she goes, gets into bed naked, he goes up, he’s thinking he’s going to be able to, that she’ll probably agree to have sex with him, he fondles her privates, and she wakes up and tells him to go away, and he goes away. They report it, he’s charged with sexual offence, he has digitally penetrated her,
Judge John Reilly interview
Most likely the defendant did not stick the entire finger in there but just passed the limit with one phalanx. Also he was ill advised and probably admitted the penetration before getting a lawyer’s advice. Of course, the women would always be believed anyway
Now this does not look like a habitual predator, the judge is totally right.
But, this is an example how powerful the feminist language distortion is. Call some behavior "rape" or "sexual assault", and the perpetrator is to be crucified. If you told it by the real name, "fondling the privates of a naked girl while sleeping at a party", that would not cause the
feeding punishing frenzy in the interviewer and the populace. You can notice this in the strong reactions of the interviewer in the written and his aggravated tone in the audio transcript.
Former judge John Reilly’s interview with The Rutherford Show Transcript
JR: There are. But I believe that the percentage of ‘bad dudes’ that are in there is a lot lower than the, I mean, this is one of my problems with the criminal justice system the way it is, is that I say we put too much emphasis on the offence and not enough emphasis on the offender. If you’re looking at what the Conservative government wants to do is say if this is the offence, you go to jail. And that’s going to put people in jail that don’t need to be there.
Host: But what kind of offences though?
JR: Sexual assault.
Host: You shouldn’t go to jail for a sex assault?
See. The term "sexual assault" triggers the automatic punishing knee jerk reflex in the host.
JR: Well, you know, there are sexual assaults and there are sexual assaults.
The host does not get it. I am stunned how well the feminist language distortion tactic works. Change the name and get instant conviction from the press and a jury that would not convict if the crime was named by its real name.
JR: And I had another young man, not a young offender, but a 19, 20 year old. He’s at a party, there’s a lot of sexual innuendo, one of these women is being very aggressive with her boyfriend and they’re drinking a lot, the boyfriend passes out, she goes, gets into bed naked, he goes up, he’s thinking he’s going to be able to, that she’ll probably agree to have sex with him, he fondles her privates, and she wakes up and tells him to go away, and he goes away. They report it, he’s charged with sexual offence, he has digitally penetrated her,
Judge John Reilly interview
So the guy saw a naked women at the end of a hot party, touched her, and went a bit overboard. He was not her partner, so he clearly went too far, without consent. When the clear non-consent was given, he stopped.
Men, as a gender, are dumb victims of feminist victimhood ploys. If women committed such things, feminist women long ago would have found a sexual frenzy syndrome, similar to the "battered woman syndrome" that gets women light suspended sentences for clearly meticulously planned and long premeditated murder
No, I am not saying his behavior is defensible. I am not saying he did not overstep boundaries. He just was a bit dumb, maybe drunk, more dumb even for probably admitting his transgression. No indication that he is more then a harmless drunk dummy. The judge was quite correct that he does not deserve mandatory 3 years in jail.
the crown prosecutor says this is a digital penetration of a woman’s vagina, he should go to jail for three years, that’s the starting point for this sexual offence. And I’m looking at this 20 year old, socially inept young man, and his offence is a sexual assault and it’s one that they consider a major sexual assault because it involves digital penetration. I don’t think in those circumstances that that what happened there should put that young man in a penitentiary for three years.
Host: Unless it’s your daughter, and then maybe you’ve got a whole another perspective! You haven’t mentioned the word ‘victim’ once yet!
This is why you would not put the father in the jury. A father can get angry, chide the perpetrator. But he should not be given the right to jail a guy for a few years for a minor offense, or to castrate the girl’s boyfriend, as Human Stupidity reported recently from Germany.
For my daughter, I would prefer a light penetration with a finger to getting the face dilacerated with a broken glass!
JR: You know, I am concerned about victims, but what I’m concerned about is our society as a whole. Often, these minimum sentences that I’m stuck with, if I have an assault occasioning bodily harm, that’ll qualify now as a crime of violence. Again, a couple of guys have too much to drink in a bar and get into a fight, maybe somebody gets hit with a glass. I had a woman in front of me who was charged with assault occasioning bodily harm. She was drunk, guy offended her, she went to throw the beer in her glass in his face and she hit his face with the glass and it broke and there was huge damage done to his face. Now, they’re saying she’s got to go to jail, this is an aggravated assault because it has caused serious bodily injury.
Gender discrimination: no excuse demanded from John Reilly for leniency for woman causing serious bodily injury
Judge John Reilly was not forced to apologize for not wanting to jail a woman that caused serious facial injury to a man, who could even have caused blindness had she hit him slightly differently. No!
Look the difference. The girl had malicious intent (to throw beer in the guy’s face). She hurt him badly in disfiguring way. I wonder if there is proof that this really was non-intentional. We suspect that here he differentiates because the perpetrator is a woman.
Women slapping men is not a crime
And it just so happens that women slapping men (or throwing water, beer and things at men) is portrayed as "normal" non-offense by Hollywood. A man who lightly shoves or slaps a woman immediately is considered a felon, even if the "victim" does not have the slightest mark or injury. Now if a man shoves a woman lightly, she trips, falls badly and gets a serious head injury, no judge would claim leniency.
Yes, maybe, and I repeat, maybe she did not have the intent to injure. But she intentionally engaged in aggressive behavior, and caused serious damage, even if maybe she did not intend to do that. She is a person with anger control issues, probably more dangerous then the guy with the wandering finger. A drunk driver is not excused for much less intent to hurt then that drunk girl who had the intent to throw something into the victim’s face.
Host: You say booze.
Hey host, did you not notice Judge Reilly forgot to mention the word "victim" for the disfigured seriously hurt guy! Well, a guy with a cut-up face is not a victim. A women that sleeps naked in a semi-public place and gets groped, she is a much more serious victim. No, I am not saying the groping behavior is correct and defensible
JR: No, I just say is this a person that needs to go to a federal penitentiary, and if I can keep her out of the federal penitentiary, that guy has just suffered a big financial loss, because this is going to cost him a lot. If we send the offender to jail automatically, this is the offence he’s committed, he’s not able to earn the money that’s going to allow him to make restitution for the damage he’s done. And so some of these things you know . .
This, of course, could spin into interesting issues about alternative penalties, which is beyond the scope of this article.
RELATED STORIES FROM AROUND THE WEB
- Liberal candidate regrets sex assault view Edmonton Sun, Canada Thursday, April 07, 2011
- Ex-judge and Liberal hopeful apologizes for sex assault remarks Toronto Sun Thursday, April 07, 2011
- Alberta Liberal candidate apologizes for remarks on sexual assault Saskatoon StarPhoenix, Canada Thursday, April 07, 2011
6 thoughts on “Judge John Reilly forced to apologize for differentiating nerd’s groping from sexual assault”
The Judge is completely right. Three years for a momentary act? Completely ridiculous. Women who mutilate men’s genitals get less time.
Well, I have to disagree somewhat.
See, you never used the word “intent” once.
Throwing a drink in someone’s face is not the act of aggression that cutting someone’s face with a bottle is. Throwing a drink in someone’s face is done probably millions of times a day with no injuries (unless it leads to a fight), so in the case of the woman you were talking about , I don’t see mens rea, so I see opportunity for some leniency.
Because our drunk man decided to penetrate someone (he had intent) he is more guilty for his action than she for hers, though her action arguably hurt someone more.
That does not mean neither deserves punishment, what it means -to me at least – is that both deserve mercy.
One because he STOPPED. Rapists don’t stop. The other one because she was acting stupidly and through unfortunate and unusual circumstance (trust me on this, throwing a drink is NOT equaivalent to drunk driving in terms of injury incidence)she hurt someone .
And yeah, I don’t believe either of them needs multiple years in jail.
Our justice system needs more mercy if it is to live up to its name.
I think shaken babies need more than a meager 2 year sentence- I’m definitely with you there. But then, I’ve worked in dependency court and I’ve seen too many kids physically ruined by a short burst of temper.
I’m just saying that being “penetrated” isn’t a little thing. To think that I could wake up, sleeping after some drinking at a party and some…acquaintance? a virtual stranger? Has his finger in my vagina horrifies me. And yes, I’d call such a person an “opportunist”, because if I did not wake up to stop them, how much further would they have gone without consent?
(An unconscious partner is NOT a consenting partner!)
Granted, if my boyfriend found out, a jail sentence would be the least of the transgressor’s worries.
I rephrased it as a male on male encounter because you do not have a vagina- I’m assuming- so it might be hard to imagine what it would be like to have that very, VERY personal space invaded by a stranger. Its like me trying to imagine being kicked in the nads. I can try, but I know I’ll never fully understand the agony. ((And I don’t find “groin-kicking humor” generally amusing.))
“So, the guys were joking at the party- nothing serious but there was a lot of sexual innuendo flying around- he’s flirting with his girlfriend and saying sexual things to everybody. He goes bed early- he strips naked and falls asleep. The other guy- thinking he’s going to get lucky, that he’ll probably agree to have sex with him, he fondles the other man’s privates, and he wakes up and tells him to go away, and he goes away. The crown prosecutor says this is a digital penetration of a man’s anus, he should go to jail for three years, that’s the starting point for this sexual offense. They report it, he’s charged with sexual offense, he has digitally penetrated him.”
…still think its okay?
I wrote twice in blue color that his behavior is not OK. Exactly because of people like you who try to see things black and white and thing anyone who is against 3 or 10 year jail sentences for non-violent behavior thinks it is OK.
It is not ok. And it is not worse then shaking a baby into brain damage (2 years) or severely cutting up a guy’s face. I agree with the judge that the guy is not a predator who needs jail. Now it is good to tell him that is is not OK.
And I don’t think the woman will not suffer any long term damage. Except due to hysteria. That does not make it OK.