Kinsella slams Blatchford over hateful Rehtaeh Article

[captain morgan]

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. ;-)

I don't think that his tantrum will have any kind of positive results for him, but we'll have to wait and see.

I think that Kinsella is leveraging the age-old strategy of being the squeaky wheel in hopes of getting back into the light and being relevant... Likely won't happen though

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

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:

Okay whatever you were trying to convey above made little if no sense.

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.

No sources? How do you know there were no sources? You see we have this little law in this country we call liable and even if Christie Blatchford were a loose cannon (which she is not) her editor let alone the National Post wouldn't let it go that far unless she had suitable sources. Otherwise they could end up facing a huge lawsuit.

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.

Agree with what? Blatchford wrote about the facts surrounding the case. The reason the police didn't lay charges. If anything your bias is what is at play here. None of us were there. The police did not have the evidence to go to court. Sad but true.

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.

I have no issue with them taking a second look. I am a bit apprehensive about them introducing laws regarding the internet. We have enough issues with kangaroo courts like the HRC going after comedians and web posters on internet forums who don't have the good sense to change the channel.

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.

For as long as I've been alive kids have been cruel. This is nothing new, it's just a different venue. What needs to happen here is parents need to have an open frank discussion with their kids about the pitfalls of drinking to excess and sexual assault. As to what happened to this poor girl, it is a sad state of affairs, but there are already laws in place.

Regarding Blatchford's column: I saw nothing wrong with it. As to Kinsella's slam: Knee jerk - calling to the mob - garbage.

 

[karrie]

I feel that while the boys deserve an article pointing out that they have had no charges pressed, let alone a trial, they didn't need to publish a mock trial via an op/ed piece. Especially when Rehtaeh is not around to testify as to her own experience and character.

There are things about it that require hard questions and difficult conversations.

What I DO know about the case, is the character of the young men, who published porn of the young woman, and participated in community wide harassment of her from that point on. That makes the innocent act hard to swallow, and is why people are screaming for a trial. Because where there is smoke, there is fire.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

I feel that while the boys deserve an article pointing out that they have had no charges pressed, let alone a trial, they didn't need to publish a mock trial via an op/ed piece. Especially when Rehtaeh is not around to testify as to her own experience and character.

There are things about it that require hard questions and difficult conversations.

What I DO know about the case, is the character of the young men, who published porn of the young woman, and participated in community wide harassment of her from that point on. That makes the innocent act hard to swallow, and is why people are screaming for a trial. Because where there is smoke, there is fire.

As long as there are people who briing this to the public eye it will be scrutinized. As it should.

 

[Jonny_C]

The whole thing is sad and more than unfortunate, but I don't see reason for Kinsella's outrage. It seems to me that his column is more offensive than Blatchford's, if her column can be defined as offensive in the first place.

I think the best comment so far in this thread has been this one, by Colpy...

"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."

 

[Zipperfish]

Okay whatever you were trying to convey above made little if no sense.

I re-read it and it made sense to me. Perhaps you lack the requisite neurons.

Agree with what? Blatchford wrote about the facts surrounding the case. The
reason the police didn't lay charges. If anything your bias is what is at play
here. None of us were there. The police did not have the evidence to go to
court. Sad but true.

Yes, I can tell you're all choked up about it. There are lots of facts surrounding the case. Blatchford picked some, and ignored others to suit her point of view. This is what opinion columnists do.

I have no issue with them taking a second look. I am a bit apprehensive about
them introducing laws regarding the internet. We have enough issues with
kangaroo courts like the HRC going after comedians and web posters on internet
forums who don't have the good sense to change the channel.

I agree. A thoughtful approach is called for. We have to stop online bullies. I can think of four similar cases in the last year.

Regarding Blatchford's column: I saw nothing wrong with it. As to Kinsella's slam: Knee jerk - calling to the mob - garbage.

Two sides of the same coin as far as I'm concerned. "The punditocracy" I've heard it called.

The whole thing is sad and more than unfortunate, but I don't see reason for Kinsella's outrage. It seems to me that his column is more offensive than Blatchford's, if her column can be defined as offensive in the first place.

I think the best comment so far in this thread has been this one, by Colpy...

"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."

Not on the same page here. You take issue with people who automatically that Rehtaeh was raped, and th4en you automatically assume she she just "made a bad decision." Same thing. In one case they want to lynch the alleged perpetrators, in the others the boys were just being boys and she was drunk and horny.

 

[damngrumpy]

The time has come to treat these cases seriously. Yes she participated but the fact is she is
only fifteen and this should be front and center. These little punks deserve what they get
period. There should be a trial, and if they bullied her into this state there should be a charge
for that. Blatchford said some things I don't agree with. does that make them hateful? i
suppose it depends on who reads what she said. Officially no, she does point out the problems
and short comings of our society and that can be stressful, hateful and frustrating. Is that her
fault no. I have never been a fan of the National Post. They did not post a hate filled article in
my opinion. Why can we not, put our energies to fixing the problem with the law rather than
debating the message of the messenger?

 

[Zipperfish]

Why can we not, put our energies to fixing the problem with the law rather
than
debating the message of the messenger?

This!

 

[Colpy]

The time has come to treat these cases seriously. Yes she participated but the fact is she is
only fifteen and this should be front and center. These little punks deserve what they get
period. There should be a trial, and if they bullied her into this state there should be a charge
for that. Blatchford said some things I don't agree with. does that make them hateful? i
suppose it depends on who reads what she said. Officially no, she does point out the problems
and short comings of our society and that can be stressful, hateful and frustrating. Is that her
fault no. I have never been a fan of the National Post. They did not post a hate filled article in
my opinion. Why can we not, put our energies to fixing the problem with the law rather than
debating the message of the messenger?

:The little punks" are minors too...... and have not been convicted of anything.

What, exactly, is the problem with the law??

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

I re-read it and it made sense to me. Perhaps you lack the requisite neurons.

Of course it made sense to you. You are the idiot who wrote it and pushed submit reply.

Yes, I can tell you're all choked up about it. There are lots of facts surrounding the case. Blatchford picked some, and ignored others to suit her point of view. This is what opinion columnists do.

You really are an idiot. From another thread:

I read the article and it sounds like the Justice System failed this girl. As to the bullying that followed the sexual assault: This is a new way of conducting business, but bullying is nothing new. I remember young ladies who were identified as ****s, often unjustly, and bullying has always been a part of our society. Perhaps if we did not protect the privacy of young people who conduct themselves in such a disgusting way and published their names it might work as a deterrent. I don't know that new laws regarding the internet and privacy are going to stop the age old mob mentality of singling out a weak individual and victimizing them.

As to Blatchford cherry picking information to suit her needs. What didn't she use? And please, remember to give us your sources.

Not on the same page here. You take issue with people who automatically that Rehtaeh was raped, and th4en you automatically assume she she just "made a bad decision." Same thing. In one case they want to lynch the alleged perpetrators, in the others the boys were just being boys and she was drunk and horny.

I live in a Country where people are presumed innocent until proved guilty. Your view is of the Mob mentality and nothing beats a good lynching. This harkens back to the same mentality that destroyed the lives of Duke Lacrosse Team in 2006 where the alleged rapist were tried and convicted before they saw the inside of a courtroom and were found innocent after the alleged victim was found to be lying. Or how about the ongoing George Zimmerman case?

Very sorry this girl killed herself. I don't know if she was raped or had consensual sex, I do know that the taking of her own life does not trump the justice system in Canada. I have no issue with a second look, I have huge issue with destroying the lives of boys who quite possibly may be innocent of that which they are accused.

The different page we are on is that I am not jumping to conclusions, how as you are.

 

[Jonny_C]

I live in a Country where people are presumed innocent until proved guilty. Your view is of the Mob mentality and nothing beats a good lynching. This harkens back to the same mentality that destroyed the lives of Duke Lacrosse Team in 2006 where the alleged rapist were tried and convicted before they saw the inside of a courtroom and were found innocent after the alleged victim was found to be lying. Or how about the ongoing George Zimmerman case?

Very sorry this girl killed herself. I don't know if she was raped or had consensual sex, I do know that the taking of her own life does not trump the justice system in Canada. I have no issue with a second look, I have huge issue with destroying the lives of boys who quite possibly may be innocent of that which they are accused.

Well said.

 

[Zipperfish]

You really are an idiot.

I don't think I am. I think the parapgraph you failed to understand was correctly constructed. No one else commented on it being incomprehensible. Doesn't seem like a difficult concept--the idea opinion writers tend to put their own spin on things. I didn't think it was that earth-shattering of a claim, frankly.

I live in a Country where people are presumed innocent until proved guilty. Your view is of the Mob mentality and nothing beats a good lynching.

Overreact much? I don't recall proposing to lynch anybody. I'm supporting the notion that re-opening the police investigation and looking at legal ways we can stop the relatively recent scourge of online stalking are good things. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your righteous outrage. :lol:

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

I don't think I am. I think the parapgraph you failed to understand was correctly constructed. No one else commented on it being incomprehensible. Doesn't seem like a difficult concept--the idea opinion writers tend to put their own spin on things. I didn't think it was that earth-shattering of a claim, frankly.

No one else commented.

Overreact much? I don't recall proposing to lynch anybody. I'm supporting the notion that re-opening the police investigation and looking at legal ways we can stop the relatively recent scourge of online stalking are good things. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your righteous outrage.

You're the one who was overreacting. And it appears avoided the question. What did Blatchford leave out when she Cherry picked her article? Where are your sources? Facts?

Backpedal much?

 

[damngrumpy]

I am not saying the little punks have been convicted of anything yet, I am saying if people are not
happy with the laws in a society it is up to the people to direct the law makers to change or to more
clearly define the existing rules.
We have to distinguish between debatable points and hateful statements.
For example Colpy does not agree with me on something in fact he might vigorously disagree
and makes comments saying so. That does not mean he is being hateful it means he is expressing
the reason why he disagrees.
I think the laws should be tailored to address the crime of bullying where it is warranted. No we are
not going to stomp out bullying or bullies. We can however deal with the level of bullying just like we
already do with murder, manslaughter and even other crimes like robbery. If someone dies by the
pressure of intense bullying those who committed the act are responsible. Does that mean murder
charges? Reckless endangerment, and the list goes on. We have not really addressed bullying as
a societal issue in a nationwide legal forum and we should have that discussion. Unfortunately while
we are doing that some are going fall through the cracks in the system. That is life.
The discussion must begin and until its discussed and some conclusions make there is no right or
wrong position. There is only discussion and the search for solutions to a growing serious problem

 

[Zipperfish]

No one else commented.

Exaclty my point. Do try to keep up.

You're the one who was overreacting.

Really? Where exactly? Read your own hysterical ramblings in comparison. You've got "fascist" thrown in there. You accused me of being a part of some sort of lynch mob for some odd reason.Some azzhole licking in there in one post.

I get the feeling your life is just one big exercise in confirmation bias.

And it appears avoided the question. What did Blatchford leave out when she Cherry picked her article? Where are your sources? Facts?

Backpedal much?

Backpedal from what? My outrageous claim that opinion writers write controversial stuff so that people will buy it? I didn't think I was really going out on a limb there to be honest.

So, just to be clear here, your position is that Blatchford has completely objectively laid out every fact in this case, is that correct?

 

[Jonny_C]

Some azzhole licking in there in one post.

If that's directed toward my "Well said" comment, then its a juvenile swipe, especially after I edited the parts out of the "quote" that were insulting to you.

 

[Zipperfish]

If that's directed toward my "Well said" comment, then its a juvenile swipe, especially after I edited the parts out of the "quote" that were insulting to you.

Hey, Johnny. No, nothing to do with that. Something to do with Kinsella and polyps and colons. Cheers

 

[L Gilbert]

I feel that while the boys deserve an article pointing out that they have had no charges pressed, let alone a trial, they didn't need to publish a mock trial via an op/ed piece. Especially when Rehtaeh is not around to testify as to her own experience and character.

There are things about it that require hard questions and difficult conversations.

What I DO know about the case, is the character of the young men, who published porn of the young woman, and participated in community wide harassment of her from that point on. That makes the innocent act hard to swallow, and is why people are screaming for a trial. Because where there is smoke, there is fire.

The whole thing is sad and more than unfortunate, but I don't see reason for Kinsella's outrage. It seems to me that his column is more offensive than Blatchford's, if her column can be defined as offensive in the first place.

I think the best comment so far in this thread has been this one, by Colpy...

"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."

Bump and bump.

 

[Jonny_C]

Hey, Johnny. No, nothing to do with that. Something to do with Kinsella and polyps and colons. Cheers

Just the way it developed it seemed to fit.

My apologies.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

I get the feeling your life is just one big exercise in confirmation bias.

Oh yes exactly.

Backpedal from what? My outrageous claim that opinion writers write controversial stuff so that people will buy it? I didn't think I was really going out on a limb there to be honest.

So, just to be clear here, your position is that Blatchford has completely objectively laid out every fact in this case, is that correct?

No, but seeing that you moved away from your original stance that she cherry picked the information in her article and ignored the rest of the facts, but won't provide an iota of information to back up that claim I'll leave it at that.

Hey, Johnny. No, nothing to do with that. Something to do with Kinsella and polyps and colons. Cheers

D'oh.