#metoo

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
75
Eagle Creek
Mandi Gray, who is still describing herself as a sexual assault survivor despite her alleged attacker’s conviction being overturned, is taking York University back to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal for allegedly breaching its settlement with her.

"Gray was both a graduate student and teaching assistant at the university at the time of her alleged assault – Jan. 31, 2015 — as was her alleged assailant, Mustafa Ururyar.

The two had met and begun sleeping together, a consensual casual affair, about two weeks before the alleged assault.

That night, at a party with other union members, she texted Ururyar and invited him to the pub, saying, “Come drink and then we can have hot sex.”

This was a text message Gray didn’t keep or tell Toronto Police about when she reported the alleged attack on Feb. 2 that year (Ururyar was charged with sexual assault). As she inimitably put it in cross-examination, “I didn’t think it was relevant to him raping me.”

Ururyar testified at trial in his own defence and insisted the sex that night was consensual."

"At trial before Ontario Court Judge Marvin Zuker, Ururyar was convicted in a judgement so florid and belittling of Ururyar that two Superior Court judges later deemed his language over the top and his reasoning incomprehensible.

One of those judges freed Ururyar on bail, pending his appeal; the other overturned the conviction and ordered a new trial.

That second trial never happened, with the prosecutor deciding it wouldn’t be in the interests of justice, and the matter was resolved in December last year with a common peace bond."

"As for another question – whether she and Gray will always refer to Gray as a sexual assault survivor and repeat the overturned allegations – Birenbaum said, “It is trite law that the fact someone was acquitted of a criminal charge does not mean nothing happened … It is simply not the case that a person can only refer to themselves as a survivor of sexual assault if they go to the police and a conviction has been entered.”

She asked that it be pointed out that “Mr. Ururyar signed a peace bond. A peace bond is generally an acknowledgement that the other party fears or has reason to fear for her safety.”

In other words, Mandi Gray can talk about her “rape” and call herself a survivor until the cows come home.

And what Ontario Court Judge Melvyn Green told Mustafa Ururyar, the day the case was settled – that, “The presumption of innocence is effectively restored to you” – was lovely sounding, but fundamentally meaningless.

https://leaderpost.com/opinion/chri...gain/wcm/2f511700-e2af-404c-8753-ecc44948d1eb
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
3
36
How much fun would it be if someone were to post an article on every real case of abuse that has been brought forward.

Thousands upon thousands of them.

We'll have to settle for white natty's posting every case of so-called miscarriage of justice.

I guess thousands people getting away with abuse for decades is the just society our tiki torchers yearn for.
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
75
Eagle Creek
How much fun would it be if someone were to post an article on every real case of abuse that has been brought forward.

Thousands upon thousands of them.

We'll have to settle for white natty's posting every case of so-called miscarriage of justice.

I guess thousands people getting away with abuse for decades is the just society our tiki torchers yearn for.

Ever hear the one about 'two wrongs don't make a right' ? Thought not.

What those of your ilk fail to realize that wrongful convictions only bolster the claims that the 'thousands upon thousands' of accusations' could very well be baseless.
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
3
36
You are able to make the stupidest argument based on the flimsiest logic.

We all get it.
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
75
Eagle Creek
You are able to make the stupidest argument based on the flimsiest logic.

We all get it.


Feminist Lynchings

It has become an almost daily experience in Canada and the United States for a man to be accused of sexual misconduct by a woman, often anonymous, and for an almost immediate pile-on of haters among friends (soon to be ex-friends), colleagues, acquaintances, and perfect strangers, including officials of the man’s place of employment, in person, by letter, by poster, on social media, adding every accusation the mind can imagine, including the vilest. A man accused of having a sexual relationship with a forbidden partner, a colleague or subordinate, is quickly denounced as a harasser, a violent attacker, and a rapist.

Feminists have done a brilliant job in their war against men: a glance or polite invitation by a man is now defined as “sexual assault” and equated with violent rape. Unsubstantiated accusations are treated as proven guilt. Due process is dismissed as male supremacy. Every accusation results in automatic mob hysteria, from even the most allegedly reputable and responsible sources.

Feminists champion women by attacking men as both a category and as individuals. Destroying the reputation of men and masculinity appears to feminists to be a direct line to their goal of female supremacy. Criteria of truth and justice are deemed by feminists as outmoded tools of male oppression. Feminists continue to cry victimhood while taking control in many spheres of life, notably in universities and schools, where they are able to indoctrinate future generations. Young women are taught that they live in a “rape culture”, that they should fear all men, who without exception are violent oppressors of women. Thus female fear becomes feminist hate.

Following are four cases of feminist lynching, in which men are tried and condemned in the court of public opinion and by university officials without benefit of the presumption of innocence, without evidence and substantiation being presented to support the accusations, and without the right of defending themselves:

Ahmed Fekry Ibrahim

Patrick Brown

Steven Galloway

Marcus Knight

(See full article for details on these miscarriages of justice.)

"Do not imagine that the feminist war is against only bad men. The feminist war is against all men. The object is to degrade and demote men, and replace them with females. Any and all means will be used: claims of victimhood, pleas for justice, dishonest representation, and false allegations and accusations. Some feminists have claimed to favour gender equality, but that is an attempted obfuscation of the real goal, female supremacy.

Wait, you say, if that is true, why have so many men identified with feminism and sided with feminist tactics? Perhaps there are many motives, such as the man in the apocryphal story who fed his dog, his children, and his wife to the crocodile, in hopes that the crocodile would be too full to eat him. Or, to take an historical example, as Martin Niemöller put it,


First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Some men have joined the bandwagon of feminist and social justice ideology, accepting the equation of male=oppressor and female=victim, and honestly believe that anything that a woman says should be believed. These men are deluded, and they will no doubt be very surprised when their time as a blood sacrifice comes.

Many women have thought of themselves as feminists because they wanted to be treated fairly, to have equal opportunities with men, and to be judged on the basis of their talents and achievements. And their efforts, which I endorse, have resulted in greater gender equality in Western society. But women who have thought of themselves as feminists, even such feminist icons as Margaret Atwood, need to consider the presence today of unprincipled partisanship and virulent gender hate in contemporary feminism, and decide whether they are ready to support the rejection of fairness, truth, and justice."


https://fcpp.org/wp-content/uploads/EF42FeministLynchings.pdf
 

OpposingDigit

Electoral Member
Aug 27, 2017
903
0
16
"Democracy dies in the gentle glare of daylight when those who witness its destruction fail to act to preserve it because they don’t know what to believe or cease to believe at all."
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
Feminist Lynchings
Feminists champion women by attacking men as both a category and as individuals. Destroying the reputation of men and masculinity appears to feminists to be a direct line to their goal of female supremacy...

"Do not imagine that the feminist war is against only bad men. The feminist war is against all men. The object is to degrade and demote men, and replace them with females. Any and all means will be used: claims of victimhood, pleas for justice, dishonest representation, and false allegations and accusations. Some feminists have claimed to favour gender equality, but that is an attempted obfuscation of the real goal, female supremacy.

You overestimate feminist morality here. Feminists hate non-feminist women just as much as if not more than they hate men. They see non-feminist women as gender traitors. So no, they are not trying to promote female supremacy but feminist supremacy.

The good new is that most women aren't feminist and will oppose the feminist agenda even more fiercely than their male counterparts will.
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
75
Eagle Creek
You overestimate feminist morality here. Feminists hate non-feminist women just as much as if not more than they hate men. They see non-feminist women as gender traitors. So no, they are not trying to promote female supremacy but feminist supremacy.
I didn't write the article, WU but I do agree with your comments re femi-nazis - they hate anyone that doesn't buy into their hateful misandry.

The good new is that most women aren't feminist and will oppose the feminist agenda even more fiercely than their male counterparts will.
Every single chance I get.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
That applies to telephones only as the 10 buttons are used for 'numbers'.


What would be the lb sign if it mean a number would follow the sign. Smart phones will eventually have it's own language, an unspoken one as interaction is with the 'thumbs' mostly. Today we have this as #1, the 'thumbs up' sign. #2 is the 'fuk you' sign

True. I went straight for the nips when I got out.
I'm up to 11teen possible definitions so far.
 

spilledthebeer

Executive Branch Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,296
4
36
Here is a sign of the moral rot that has infected our legal system-with some comments of my own in brackets): Law Society tribunal lawyer calls sex assault 'minor offence'. By Michele Mandel, Toronto Sun. First posted: Friday, April 28, 2017 07:20 PM EDT | Updated: Saturday, April 29, 2017 09:59 AM EDT Raj Anand is not only a lawyer but the former Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission — so you’d think he’d know better. So why did the vice-chair of the Law Society of Upper Canada tribunal make several disturbing comments that appeared to minimize a sexual assault complaint while deciding whether paralegal Nephat Siziba should be suspended? “The motion arose out of an allegation that while acting as an Uber driver on September 23, the paralegal took the hand of his female passenger (the passenger) and initiated sexual contact with her,” Anand wrote in reasons released last month. Police alleged Siziba, 55, sexually assaulted a 20-year-old woman during a 4 a.m. Uber ride from Thornhill to Toronto. After she complained to Uber, he was suspended for a week while they investigated. “We were informed that the paralegal resumed driving for Uber, but resolved not to pick up intoxicated passengers.” The woman then went to police and the driver was charged with sexual assault. Siziba, who has no criminal record and stated he will vigorously defend himself against the allegations, is free on bail under conditions he not work as an Uber or taxi driver. (WE will never know what really happened between driver and passenger. Maybe driver is a sexual predator seeking out drunken passengers as easier prey? Or maybe she is the villain. From my own experience in the taxi business I can state that the VAST MAJORITY of people in a taxi at 4am are drunks, pimps, hookers and drug dealers! And it is not unusual for a few women to offer to `pay` for the ride with sexual services. Perhaps driver decided passenger was too skanky to be appealing and this offended passenger-and prompted the complaint by the woman scorned? We will NEVER KNOW!) But could he still work as a paralegal? The Law Society urged the tribunal to suspend Siziba’s licence while his charge is pending. Lawyer Amanda Worley said the optics were terrible: “The fact he was charged with a sexual offence against a vulnerable young woman harms the public’s confidence in the integrity of the legal profession and the ability of the Law Society to govern the profession in the public interest.” (A sexual assault charge is not a laughing matter but in this case with NO EVIDENCE other than the word of a passenger who may have been trying to weasel out of full payment of the fare-the seriousness of the offense sinks to insignificance. Your old Granny would tell you that a woman who goes out late at night intoxicated- as this passenger apparently was- is inviting trouble! And Granny is probably RIGHT!) Anand and the two others on his panel ultimately refused to suspend Siziba. Instead, in remarks reminiscent of several controversial judges in recent news, the vice-chair seemed to blame the complainant and downplay the allegations. “I think boiled down to its essence, you have obviously contested evidence about what took place over a matter of a few minutes,” Anand said in a transcript obtained by the Sun. (Apparently there was no blood shed .no physical marks, no indication of any trauma-and with such a total lack of evidence of real injury what can a judge do but dismiss the case for lack of evidence. Our courts are jammed with more serious cases with too many of them dropped due to the length of time it takes to get to trial-and here we are wasting time and money on a matter of NO importance since it is unprovable and unresolvable- with NO evidence and NO chance of reaching a fair verdict for EITHER driver or passenger!) (The ugly truth is that the bigoted LIE-beral version of justice simply assumes all men are probably rapists AND GUILTY unless strong contrary evidence is supplied! LIE-berals do not want to offend feminazis by promoting tales of woman as instigator or trouble maker seeking to weasel out of payment or hooker! In this case what 55 year old man would assume a 20 year old girl would find him attractive? Unless he was offering a very nice wad of cash? “Obviously, sexual assault is serious in principle. But it is a relatively minor offence compared to some of the other criminal conduct that is referenced in some of the other cases, like viewing child pornography or something like that.” (We accept that a woman is not a plaything to be handled whenever a guy wants to -but the total lack of evidence in this case- and evidence that she was drunk and mandates dropping the case- and advising the passenger NOT to be wandering around-drunk and stupid at 4am. There is something STRONG to be said for in car cameras to record events and to provide protection AND EVIDENCE for all involved!) “You have no evidence other than the fact that the charge is made, essentially. Obviously, the complainant said something to the police. We don’t actually know what she said to the police,” he continued. “The question is, really: By virtue of being charged with this offence, is that enough for (Siziba) to be suspended indefinitely?” (Clearly suspending Siziba from his paralegal job would be a cruel and unusual punishment for a crime he cannot be proven guilty of since there is no evidence.) Did he actually say “it is a relatively minor offence?” Tell that to the young woman. After the recent “knees together” and “drunks can consent” judgments, it seems that once again, the law doesn’t take sexual assault as seriously as it should. (Deplorable comments made by a few old fossil judges who are frustrated by the stream of hung over females entering their courts to complain about guys touching their thighs should not be allowed to influence cases where there is NO evidence!) When reached by the Sun, Anand said he wasn’t in a position to address any criticism. “I don’t think I’m able to comment as an adjudicator.” The law society’s lawyer was obviously struggling with Anand’s remarks. “I am not sure I would agree with you that it is a relatively minor offence. It is predatory in nature. The victim was confined to a vehicle,” Worley said during the hearing. (A vehicle that she SUMMONED for her service and for which she would have to pay-and it`s a costly ride from Thornhill-again I ask if this complaint is not simply part of a negotiation ploy by the female to avoid paying full fare? With no proof 9of anything- how serious can it all be? LOE-berals can be as hostile as they plese and it will not conjure up a SINGLE logical fact!) “So I think we have to be careful not to sort of make judgment calls about comparing this offence to this offence. If you are satisfied that it does present a risk, then you need to act,” she insisted. “We cannot diminish the seriousness of allegations of sexual assault.” Yet Anand seemed to do just that: “I am just saying that here we have simply a sort of “he said, she said” at this point.” (A “sort of he said, she said”? Who is there AVAILABLE to this case who can say ANYTHING except he said and she said? And how would the public react if lawyers tried to compare a momentary hand on a thigh to the gory details of a genuine rape?) How would the public feel knowing they did nothing to protect the public? asked Worley. (I ask again how the public can be protected by a witch hunt with no evidence? Certainly NO MAN will be safe if such witch hunts become common! Unless you are prepared to dismiss all males as not being part of the public? What about our right not to be harassed by vindictive women with false stories-using the politically correct legal system as a weapon?) The optics didn’t trouble the tribunal. They found “no reasonable grounds to believe there was significant risk” to the public, or to the administration of justice. They dismissed the law society’s motion to suspend Sizibo’s licence and said the public would be satisfied with his offer to work under supervision in his son’s law office and not provide legal services or meet with clients alone. That may be so. But how do they feel about the tribunal’s vice-chair minimizing the seriousness of an alleged sexual assault? (That the tribunal minimized the seriousness of the alleged assault is NOT evidence of contempt for women-it is an open acknowledgment THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CRIME! Statements to the contrary are a form of sexist dictatorship!) (And how does the public feel about a vindictive woman possibly using the courts to get out of paying an Uber fare? We don’t know and cannot honestly find out what happened so the witch hunt is discriminatory if it goes any further-throw it out since it is beneath the attention of the court which has MUCH BIGGER fish to fry with more serious criminals anyway!)
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
75
Eagle Creek


"Judge William Holden said he hoped Yovino would spend her jail time contemplating her actions. Prosecutor Tatiana Messina said Yovino's crimes were a "disservice" to true sexual assault victims, who often are not believed."


That they are and this should be a lesson to all those #metoo groupies who have piled onto the movement without so much as a whit of thought towards eventual criminal investigations that could very well see their lies exposed and true justice meted out.
 

spilledthebeer

Executive Branch Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,296
4
36
A year in jail for a woman who perjured herself in a rape case? GOOD STUFF!!!!! Too many women regard our courts as a handy way to legally harass men! Some years back- Toronto woman with a drinking problem moved in with a guy who had an apartment near Parkdale. She accuses the guy of rape and he spends 18 months in jail waiting for results of cop investigation. He loses all his stuff, car, tv, clothes, the apartment etc. Turns out the witch had gone drinking in a bar. Then had sex with two guys in a van. Then staggers home to boyfriend who blows up and wants her GONE! AT THAT POINT- not waiting to lose her handy apartment home and enraged at losing her gravy supply guy - she accuses the guy of RAPE! Cops eventually expose her as a liar and the guy is released! Yeah- just a legal shrug and apology: sorry guy, we had to investigate. Too bad you could not afford bail"! She LIES! And he PAYS!
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
75
Eagle Creek
When #MeToo advocates face their own fall from grace

For a long time there has been concern that the Me Too movement went too far in portraying men as monsters. But several recent events have shown that the movement was just as misguided in turning women into flawless paragons of virtue.

After accusing Harvey Weinstein of rape, Asia Argento became one of the main faces of Me Too. But last week the movement was rocked when actor and musician Jimmy Bennett accused Argento of sexually assaulting him when he was 17 and she was 37.

Argento denied all the charges, including having any sexual relationship with Bennett and, in a statement to reporter Yashar Ali, claimed her late boyfriend Anthony Bourdain actually made the payments to the cash-strapped Bennett because he was “afraid of the possible negative publicity” and to “not suffer any future intrusions in our life.”

Fellow Weinstein victims were careful about condemning Argento. Rose McGowan, one of the most outspoken heroes of the movement, tweeted “None of us know the truth of the situation, and I’m sure more will be revealed.

Be gentle.” Mira Sorvino tweeted a statement describing herself as “heartsick” over the accusations and noting that “perhaps she [Argento] will be exonerated.” It was hard not to notice that men who were similarly accused did not get the benefit of the doubt from these women.

Following Argento’s denial, pictures surfaced showing her and Bennett in bed together. She has not made any further comment.

The same week, the 2018 winner of the Miss America pageant, Cara Mund, accused Gretchen Carlson of bullying her.

“Our chair and CEO have systematically silenced me, reduced me, marginalized me and essentially erased me in my role as Miss America in subtle and not-so-subtle ways on a daily basis,” Mund said.

Two other Miss America winners also joined in her complaint. Like Argento, Carlson was a trailblazer in the Me Too movement. Her sexual-harassment accusation against then Fox News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes was the first of many and ultimately forced his resignation. The idea that a Me Too leader would nevertheless be terrible to other women caught people by surprise.

The accusations against Carlson are reminiscent of those against writer Junot Diaz. Like Carlson, Diaz was not accused of any sexual offenses but still was caught up in the Me Too whirlwind for being generally terrible to women. Diaz had told his own story, of being molested as a child, but that didn’t inoculate him from scorn when allegations of his bad behavior broke. But that’s been the problem with the Me Too movement from the start. It set up a stark contrast of good (women) versus evil (men) and leaves no room for middle ground. No one could live up to those caricatures. With every new accusation came a chorus of shock that our favorite actors, writers, broadcasters could behave in such a vile way.

“Not him!” people exclaimed. This was immediately followed by the suggestion that “everyone,” meaning men, was capable of being a harasser. But the idea that there is only one type of person that is capable of sexual harassment or assault is ludicrous. Similarly, the idea that all men, and only men, are capable of bad behavior, even specifically bad sexual behavior, is also absurd. Some men would never behave like JunotDiaz much less Harvey Weinstein, yet men were tarred with a wide brush when the accusations were rolling in while women were spared from scrutiny.

The charges against these women have nothing to do with what happened to them. But what happened to them also can’t be used as an excuse for their bad actions. These allegations expose something that Me Too had previously obscured. There are no perfect people. People aren’t all good like the accusers have been portrayed, or all bad like the accused. The lack of gray area is what makes the movement so unsustainable. No one is purely virtuous or evil and when the Me Too mob moved beyond sexual assault or harassment to general misconduct toward women it was inevitable that some of the heroes of the movement were going to get caught up in the net.

For the accused men of Me Too, the public judgment was swift and recovery nearly impossible. The women are getting a softer landing, so far.

A good result of this moment would be a permanent reduction of the delirium that follows every charge. The main figures of the movement could lead the way on that and show they care about hearing the whole story even when the accused is not a woman they know. They could show the same “gentleness” toward men — and bring a saner approach to what has become a hysterical frenzy.

https://nypost.com/2018/08/25/when-metoo-advocates-face-their-own-fall-from-grace/
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
Well, Mowich. They did break the monopoly in Hollywood in which young women had to trade their bodies for decent parts in movies. Maybe, the fix is just temporary but we've moved in the right direction, for now..
 

spilledthebeer

Executive Branch Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,296
4
36
Well, Mowich. They did break the monopoly in Hollywood in which young women had to trade their bodies for decent parts in movies. Maybe, the fix is just temporary but we've moved in the right direction, for now..


========================================================================================================


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


CuriousCdn is FOOLISH ENOUGH to think that casting couch calls have been ended now that Weinstein has been accused!!!!!!!!!!!!


The reality is that people will just be more CAREFUL about how the offer is made!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Consider this article:


Here is an article illustrating just how ugly and twisted are the Feminazi and LIE-beral values now guiding much of our society! With some comments of my own in brackets):

Feminist scholar accused of sexually harassing, stalking male student

From Associated Press. Published: August 16, 2018. Updated: August 16, 2018 9:51 PM EDT

Filed Under: Toronto SUN/ News/ World


NEW YORK — A former New York University graduate student has sued a prominent professor, alleging she turned his dream of working with a world-class scholar “into more than three years of continuous and unabated sexual harassment, sexual assault and stalking.”

The lawsuit was filed by Nimrod Reitman in state Supreme Court in Manhattan on Wednesday against the university and professor Avital Ronell. It said NYU failed to take action after Reitman told a vice provost about the misconduct while he was still a student.

(The LIE-beral mindset is incapable of accepting a woman as aggressor- in their biased eyes- it is only men who are WRONG! One has only to think of how NDPers in the Bob Rae govt treated the vicious Karla Homolka as a “battered wife” even AFTER the sex torture videos and additional information about how she procured victims for hubby Paul Bernardo- victims including her own sister- who died during the abuse- surfaced!)

(In the early stages, the case against Bernardo was weak and NDP prosecutors did their deal with Homolka- on the condition she give FULL DISCLOSURE of all details- which she could not do without incriminating herself! So she LIED- and was then exposed when the tapes were found!)

(But NDP Feminazis STAYED with their deal with the Homolka devil- ijsisting alternately that they still needed her for her evidence- and that was a lie- the tapes were graphicly clear about guilt! And NDP also insisted that Homlka was a “battered wife” under Bernardo`s control- but the tapes and her admitting willingess to be the key to capturing victims provers she acted of her own free will- yet NDPers defend their HYPOCRITE deal with Homolk to this day!)

Last summer, two years after Reitman graduated, he made a formal complaint, and the university opened an investigation.

The staff of NYU’s Title IX office took Reitman’s reports of sexual misconduct “very seriously,” university spokesman John Beckman said. It concluded Reitman was a victim of sexual harassment and suspended Ronell for a year while determining that any meetings she has with students in the future must be supervised, he said.

(Uh huh......for 3 years the guy complains and only after the lawyers are called in does anything much happen! And the guy moved from Berlin to New York specifically to work with professor Ronell- and should we ask if it was possible for the guy to shift to work with some other professor after he discovered Ronell was a horn dog? Or would Ronell have given a BAD progress report on Reitman to any other professor considering working with Reitman- thus discouraging the transfer- unless the University stepped in- which apparently DID NOT HAPPEN till AFTER he graduated?)

“We have tried to work with Mr. Reitman to help him put this unfortunate chapter behind him, and we are sympathetic to what he has been through,” Beckman said in a statement. “However, given the promptness, seriousness, and thoroughness with which we responded to his charges, we do not believe that his filing a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the University would be warranted or just.”

(AS we have seen with other Universities- at Wilfred Laurier- over the playing of a Jordan Peterson tape in class; and at Ryerson - over its refusal to let a Jewish student do field placement work that was required to graduate, with a Jewish charity- the staff focus is on COVERING UP embarrassing issues- not airing them publicly!)

Beckman said the university was still investigating whether he was retaliated against and “additional sanctions” were possible.

(Oh! So gthe university ins “investigating possible retaliation” In other words IT IS POSSIBLE that the professor/woman scorned, might have used her credentials as senior professor to damage student Reitman`s career- hence the lawsuit!)

Ronell didn’t respond to an email from The Associated Press on Thursday. But earlier this week, before the lawsuit was filed, she told The New York Times that she didn’t harass Reitman.

“Our communications — which Reitman now claims constituted sexual harassment — were between two adults, a gay man and a queer woman, who share an Israeli heritage, as well as a penchant for florid and campy communications arising from our common academic backgrounds and sensibilities,” she said. “These communications were repeatedly invited, responded to and encouraged by him over a period of three years.”

The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, says Reitman suffered humiliation, reputational harm, mental anguish and physical distress.

(So who knows the truth here? The university seems to have decided that there was abuse- since they suspended Ronell FOR A YEAR! So it seems WE SHOULD ask if Reitmans career was damaged- and by how much?)

(But HERE IS THE LEGAL KEY for this law suit- it will be decided on the basis of REAL EVIDENCE- unlike the “he said and she said” garbage at the heart of the Judge Kavanaugh and Blaisey Ford CRAP!!!)

(The ugly truth is that Feminazis are trying to create a culture where all that is needed to convict a man is for a woman to make accusation! LIE-berals are aiding and abetting a pack of radicals working to ERODE our civil rights and legal protections for their own selfish FASCIST reasons!)
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
75
Eagle Creek
Well, Mowich. They did break the monopoly in Hollywood in which young women had to trade their bodies for decent parts in movies. Maybe, the fix is just temporary but we've moved in the right direction, for now..

"....young women had to trade their bodies...". Actually, CC they made a choice to put the advancement of their careers over their own safety. Did Weinstein take advantage of them? He may have, but........had they not made the wrong choice in the first place, he would not have been able to do so. There are women who were not comfortable with the guy and they choose to walk away rather than take a chance that he may have ulterior motives when inviting them to hotel rooms etc.

I think Weinstein is a creep. He may very well be guilty of the accusations made against him. In the absence of validated testimony to date, it is yet another 'he said, she said' controversy. Hopefully, the up coming court case will reveal the truth.
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
3
36
There are literally dozens of accusations against Weinstein

At the best it is he said, they said
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
75
Eagle Creek
There are literally dozens of accusations against Weinstein

At the best it is he said, they said


There are, Hoid and yet not one has been proven in a court of law.............so as I mentioned before, the trial should clear up all the questions about what exactly took place and what didn't.