Kinsella slams Blatchford over hateful Rehtaeh Article
- Thread starter Mowich
- Start date
Kinsella fell right into Blatchford's trap. This is her speciality--having, and causing outrage. The more outrage, the better for her.
I highly doubt Christie was waiting for him to do so, and to be fair what she had to say about both the victim and boys who allegedly raped her was, IMO, an indictment of neither.
I didn't see Blatchford's article as hateful or repugnant.... She simply asked some fundamental questions and took the unpopular view of the perspective from the accused's position.
I did find it interesting that Kinsella was sooo upset on Blatchford taking that position, especially in light of his shenanigans with the Human Rights Tribunals over the years.
Kinda makes me wonder if he's setting up the NP and Blatchford for an expensive trip to the kangaroo courts
Kinda makes me wonder if he's setting up the NP and Blatchford for an expensive trip to the kangaroo courts
Do you really think he has a leg to stand on, Captain? After all this is Kinsella, the Libs wunderkind - not that he seems to have been of any help what-so-ever to them lately. ;-)
Exactly, that's what Blatchford does--take the unpopualr view. "In latest news, smoking now good for you..." kind of hting. That's her scht8ick. I would imagine a political/media animal like Kinsella, would have known that.
She has no sources, but gossip columnists rarely do. She knows almost nothing of the law, but--again--gossip columnists rarely do. It is geared to evoking an emotional response, not to be true.
Oh, now I get it. Sorry, I hadn't noticed you were just another political hack. Nothing to do with anything expcet which party is wearing red and which one is wearing blue. How boring.
1. The boys are innocent until proven guilty.
2. A 15 year old CAN consent to anyone within 5 years of her age. That is the LAW.
3. The RCMP were perfectly correct, if she was coherent, laughing, naked on a bed with two guys, and refused to leave, a conviction would be impossible.
And rightfully so.
Kinsella is supposedly a lawyer, he should have been well aware of those points.
Well, I guess nobody ever claimed he was a competent lawyer.......
Congrats to Blatchford for having the guts to buck the torch-and pitchfork crowd mentality in this case.
All that said, the bloody lowlifes should have left the poor girl alone afterward......she was 15, and should never have been tortured for some bad decisions. We've all made them.
If my kids had been involved in this in any way when they were teens, they would have been oh so sorry. Except to support the unfortunate Ms. Parsons, which I am sure both would have done.
2. A 15 year old CAN consent to anyone within 5 years of her age. That is the LAW.
3. The RCMP were perfectly correct, if she was coherent, laughing, naked on a bed with two guys, and refused to leave, a conviction would be impossible.
And rightfully so.
Kinsella is supposedly a lawyer, he should have been well aware of those points.
Well, I guess nobody ever claimed he was a competent lawyer.......
Congrats to Blatchford for having the guts to buck the torch-and pitchfork crowd mentality in this case.
All that said, the bloody lowlifes should have left the poor girl alone afterward......she was 15, and should never have been tortured for some bad decisions. We've all made them.
If my kids had been involved in this in any way when they were teens, they would have been oh so sorry. Except to support the unfortunate Ms. Parsons, which I am sure both would have done.
Christie Blatchford is one of the most experienced, balanced, well spoken, and written reporters in the press today. She has walked with Canadian Soldiers in Afghanistan outside the wire and during firefights, she has worked the crime reporting section for more than a few National Newspapers.
I find it laughable when a mouthpiece for the Left like Warren Kinsella goes on the attack.
Her account is of the facts involving the case. Facts are a little different than knee jerk reactions by politicians and while the individuals involved may well have done what was implied the justice system is bound by evidence. Lack thereof is what Blatchford points out. She is neither condoning or apologizing for the alleged four, but showing how political expediency tries to override the justice system.
Warren Kinsella's editorial in the Huffington Post is filled with opinion and little else. I would say it's right up there with Bill OReilly, chock full of self righteous glib that attempts to provoke rather than invoke.
He calls her column Hateful Garbage? Really? The only one I see slinging around the hate is Kinsella with his fascist statement then immediate retraction. If Christie Blatchford is not a fascist, why the comparison Warren Baby?.
Sounds a lot like OReilly or Savage or some other Zealot be they left or right.
I find it laughable when a mouthpiece for the Left like Warren Kinsella goes on the attack.
Her account is of the facts involving the case. Facts are a little different than knee jerk reactions by politicians and while the individuals involved may well have done what was implied the justice system is bound by evidence. Lack thereof is what Blatchford points out. She is neither condoning or apologizing for the alleged four, but showing how political expediency tries to override the justice system.
Warren Kinsella's editorial in the Huffington Post is filled with opinion and little else. I would say it's right up there with Bill OReilly, chock full of self righteous glib that attempts to provoke rather than invoke.
He calls her column Hateful Garbage? Really? The only one I see slinging around the hate is Kinsella with his fascist statement then immediate retraction. If Christie Blatchford is not a fascist, why the comparison Warren Baby?.
Sounds a lot like OReilly or Savage or some other Zealot be they left or right.
Not if she's drunk, All Caps warrior. :lol:
Objective...not really. Opinion writers are rarely objective. Blatchford is no exception. They are there to give their opinion. "More than a few national newspapers"??? There's only two in Canada. D'oh! :lol:
Last edited:
You missed this:
"..........if she was coherent, laughing, naked on a bed with two guys, and refused to leave............"
That's the best response you got eh.
I stand corrected: More than a few Major Newspapers, two being The National Post and the Globe and Mail.
Other than that, do you have anything of substance to dispute about what she wrote or are you so far up Kinsella's *** licking the polyps in his colon that your alter ego "Homer Simpson" can only articulate a hardy D'oh?
Yes....but considering the boys are innocent until proven guilty, the prosecutor would have to prove she was FUBAR.
Good luck.
Yes, I believe the issue of substance I was offering is that Blatchford, like most current affair opinion writers, is hardly "objective." If they were objective, people wouldn't read them. Objective is boring. Controversey sells.
Exactly. So the original point being you were wrong. A 15 year old cannot always consent to sex. And how do you know that the boys were within five years anyway?
There was alcohol at the party, apparently, so it's exactly beyond the realm of possibility that she was drunk.. The thing the RCMP don't tell folks is that this happens everywhere every weekend. Teenager has too much to drink and gets passed around by the lads. The advent of social media provides a digital trace, so people are more aware now.
I don't think it's a case, as you indicate, of boys being boys. Frankly, I find that idea reprehensible. I have a duaghter, so I have a different view. Personally I'd like to see them go to jail for rape if they took advantage of a drunk girl and then spread the pictures on social media.
Now we are splitting hais, but if that's the way you wanna go.......I said she CAN consent to sex, that does not mean she MUST or that she WILL or that even she CAN in all circumstances....it means that Kinsella's denial of the POSSIBILITY of her consent is BS.
Which WAS my POINT.
I did not say it was a case of "boys being boys", nor did I insinuate that, or anything even close.
Quite the opposite, in fact.
I agree, if she was incoherent, and they can prove it, sexual assault charges are necessary.
What was controversial about what she wrote? She did not fall down on either side. She simply stated the facts of the case.
She simply stated the facts of the case? Ever read a court summation. They state the facts of the case in there. Quite boring, really, for all but the most spectacular of cases. Anyone "just stating the facts" wouldn't be writing for a newspaper--a national newspaper no less. :lol:
What I read is mainly a bunch of unsourced claims. The same sort of unsourced claims that Colby was complaining about, except from another vantage point. The girl claimed she was raped. The boys claimed she was begging for it. Two unsubstantiated claims. Two points of view.
The fact that you agree with her demonstrates your own bias. It's the same as left-wingers watching Michael Moore and thinking they are getting the straight dope, or right wingers watching Sun News and thinking they are getting fair and balanced reporting. Clearly you are more sympathetic to the boys point of view.
Frankly, I'm glad they have to reinvestigate. I don't really see the down side. If there's still no case, then there's no case. If something was missed, then it may be picked up. They are bound to know more after this investigation. Even if there isn't enough for criminal charges, it could inform civil proceedings.
My own thoughts are this thing happens all the time. Like getting your house broken into. The cops show up more or less to take the report. They're not exactly dusting the place for prints. I'm OK with some heat getting put on investigative agencies for this. Rape is a lot more serious than a B&E. It's coing out of the closet more now, with socail media. There's ben quite a few cases lately.
Last edited: