Neo is far from perfect, and doesn't take criticism very well -- even when it's well-earned.
But a recent episode involving Neo and his criticism of a botched date rape case has led to a bizarre episode in which some of the Canadian blogosphere's most extreme left-wing ideologues are effectively defending a date rapist. It isn't a pretty sight.
The story revolves around a case in which Frank D'Angelo was acquitted of sexually assaulting a woman half his age, whom he'd known since she was a child.
The judge in the case, Justice John Hamilton, concluded that D'Angelo was probably guilty, but said that on a "he said/she said" basis he didn't have enough evidence to convict.
Canadian Cynic wannabe Audrey II concludes that Neo's anger over the verdict means that he "hates Western justice".
Serial troll and Groupthink Temple worshipper liberal supporter had a similar, more blatantly callous take on the matter:
"My own daughter would not have remained in the room while her rapist took a shower.According to the facts heard in court, D'Angelo's victim did, indeed, go with him to his hotel room. According to the facts heard in court, D'Angelo's victim did, indeed, remain in the room and get dressed while he had a shower.
My own daughter would not have accompanied her rapist out of the hotel after the rape.
My own daughter would not have got in her rapist's car after the rape.
My own daughter would not have waited until a day later after talking with her friends to go to the police.
All these provide plenty of reasonable doubt, in a 'he said-she said' situation with no other evidence."
News stories seem to turn up little validate liberal supporer's insistence that she left the hotel with him, or got in his car afterward.
But what liberal supporter is overlooking is the prevalence of date rape in Canadian society. Date rape, also known as assailant sexual assault, and can utilize numerous forms of coercion to force sex.
One of them is the use of body position to imply a threat, as was the case according to the testimony of D'Angelo's victim.
Moreover, date rape victims can be very confused about the affair, and may never realize they've been sexually assaulted. Many of them, likely expecting to face their assailant again in future, convince themselves that they weren't raped.
Many date rapes remain unreported due to this confusion. Many more remain unreported because victims don't want to face the social stigma that primates like liberal supporter cast upon them -- that, by having allegedly put themselselves in the position they were in, they were responsible for their victimization.
Given the facts surrounding and the prevalence of date rape, it would take either a true mysoginist or an extremely callous individual to cast such aspersions on the veracity of a date rape victim's claim based on these circumstances.
Sadly, it seems that neither liberal supporter nor Audrey II were ever taught that "no means no". It doesn't mean "maybe", and it doesn't mean "hold me down and then we'll talk about it".
No does mean no.
It's really early in the morning and I'm still kind of sleepy so I'll apologize in advance if this doesn't make sense...
ReplyDeleteAs far as what Liberal Supporter said, that's just balls. It's really easy to sit and preach from your soapbox until something like that happens to YOUR daughter. The statistics in Canada on sexual assault speak for themselves:
(http://www.womanabuseprevention.com/html/sexual_assault.html)
" Statistics Canada survey found that one-half of all Canadian women have experienced at least one incident of sexual or physical violence. Almost 60% of these women were the targets of more than one such incident"
" According to Statistics Canada, only 6% of all sexual assaults are reported to police."
"When a woman knows the man who sexually assaults her, it is less likely that it will be recognized as a crime, even by her."
Just to post a few quotes...
I personally know someone who has had her rapists acquitted:
In the first case, the courts sided with the attackers because the victim was forced by the attackers to wash herself with bleach to erase any possible forensic evidence. So it truly became he said/she said. The courts sided with the young men who had prior convictions for aggravated assault and drugs.
Am I saying D'Angelo was guilty? No, I haven't heard either testimony. But what I'm saying is that a bunch of guilty parties get off on technicalities.
I don't care if you're left wing or right wing, words don't have different meanings just because you have different political views. No means No, all the time.
The lefty guys cannot stand neo, it's almost amusing.
ReplyDeleteneo cannot stand the criminal justice system in this country and his main daily complaint is how weak it is in terms of sentencing, parole, and it's scapegoating of innocent people (ie gun owners).
I think he has some justifiable points.
neo get baited into arguments by the drones which may I think eventually be his downfall. At the moment he always seems to come out ahead and manages to collect a lot of incriminating things some of his baiters say. As you point out yesterday liberal supporter sticks a knife in himself as he trips down his own stairs.
liberal supporter is a sycophantic troll of the most despicable kind, and this episode is only the most recent example of what a disgusting piece of garbage he really is.
ReplyDeleteThis is a guy who literally apportions honesty, sympathy, or basic human decency out based on which ever side of a narrow political divide one may find himself on.
ls is walking, breathing proof of the folly of moralizing politics. He's the ultimate example of ad hominem reasoning. He's actually concluded that if Neo -- who himself is no angel -- doesn't like the verdict in the D'Angelo case, then the verdict must have been good.
I still like to consider myself a lefty on almost everything except our justice system, it sucks and it needs to be fixed... bad.
ReplyDeleteCommented at neo's and of course deleted in true neo fashion:
ReplyDeleteYes you did ask me a question, and I answered it. Unlike you, who had to be asked 17 times to give an answer you said you had already answered (without saying what said answer was), I will repeat my answer, and if you stick around, you may see it before neo deletes it:
=====================
and patrick... until libby decides to man up & apologise for constantly interrupting other people's conversations with his silly, little trolls... he is png here.I will not apologize for comments made by others, that you choose to attribute to me. Example, the October 2008 one you show on the post, which was after August 2008 when you demanded I use a moniker and I complied.
I will not apologize for comments that you delete and then create photoshopped screenshots to misrepresent what was said.
I will not apologize for disagreeing with you using the same degree of scornful insults that you regularly heap on anyone who disagrees.
Clear? Your hypocrisy is the only reason you delete my words.
I never thought I'd see the day when I say this: Thanks, PR.
And the answer to your question is "No". The longer answer is that as long as we have "rapist shield" laws that prevent priors of alleged rapists being brought into court, an alleged victim's past conduct has to be off limits too.
An earlier deleted comment at neo's:
ReplyDeleteWhat a joke! Poor langmann made a much better argument than I did, yet my comment makes it to the main post, while langmann languishes here in the comments.
Which is further proof that neo is a mere bot, triggered simply by my handle on comments.
I see the neo bot has been improved though, it now leaves my original comment instead of deleting after quoting it. So there is some improvement.
Unfortunately, the neo bot continues to get the context wrong, now claiming I am blaming the victim when, as others point out, it is really a matter of evidence. As langmann pointed out, the whole case looks a little suspicious.
Meanwhile a gallant arrival, PR, who seems to have altogether too much familiarity with date rape, is ready to dismiss all four red flags in the case and find the defendant guilty. He's following the typical sexist line that women can't look after themselves, and how they are "confused". They are only confused if there is alcohol or drugs involved. That does not apply to this case which happened in the afternoon.
The hypocrisy, as usual, is breathtaking. All the "law and order" and "personal responsibility" blathering seen here is shown as a smokescreen, cover for dropping the rule of law and centuries of jurisprudence.
As for her leaving with him, this was mentioned by a guest familiar with the case in an interview on Adler Online the other day. I'm not sure if D'Angelo actually drove her home or not.
ReplyDeleteUnlike the "wash with bleach" horror stories being cited to bolster someone's outrage, in this case both parties agreed on most of the facts of the case, i.e. that they went to the room, that they had sex, he showered while she got dressed, they left. At some point, I believe when he dropped her off, he said to her "This is just between us".
The only points of disagreement was whether she agreed to have sex or not, and whether he pulled her hair causing a bruise or not.
neo loves to trump up the emotional side of any issue, raising it to the level at which vigilantes decide to solve the problem in an extra-judicial way.
I've tried a couple of times to get into a serious discussion with Neo. Can't do it. His immediate response is to try to attribute to me everything he finds offensive about another blog, one of many at which I occasionally post. Sorry, Patrick, but that guy does not seem capable of talking about an idea at all.
ReplyDeleteBalbulican, you probably missed this over at neo's because well, he deleted it. Now he claims I am hanging on his every word, because I told him that by deleting my words, he proves he reads them. Of course the difference is that I visit from time time to time depending on my real life. But I have commented at all hours of the day, and he usually deletes within 15 minutes. The guy stalks his own blog at least 14 hours a day!
ReplyDeletedeleted comment:
===============
C'mon Balbulican, you should know by now that you've been had.
neo is a bot. I thought you knew.
That is why there is no intelligent debate here. neo does not pass the Turing test.
I am part of the research team on this, and I visit to see if they've managed to improved the "neo" programme, but progress is very slow.
Watch "him" cut and paste a few words from here and then splice it into a pre-formatted template. We added my handle to his watch list so he invariably attempts to generate a response. For some reason, they have not fixed the autodelete bug so he deletes my original comments, making it more difficult to assess his response generation.
"Yes you did ask me a question, and I answered it. Unlike you, who had to be asked 17 times to give an answer you said you had already answered (without saying what said answer was), I will repeat my answer, and if you stick around, you may see it before neo deletes it:"
ReplyDeleteThe extent to which you continue to be dishonest about this simply amazes me. Quite frankly, it's what characterizes you as slime.
I provided you with numerous links to that answer, on numerous occasions. On each and every occasion, you refused to acknowledge it.
Nobody is misrepresenting what you said, no matter how desperately you may want people to believe someone is.
You, however, indulge yourself in ignoring answers that are given to you, for whatever perverse purpose you may have had in mind at that particular time.
It's an incredibly dishonest practice -- the kind that you are known for.
"And the answer to your question is 'No'. The longer answer is that as long as we have 'rapist shield' laws that prevent priors of alleged rapists being brought into court, an alleged victim's past conduct has to be off limits too."
And is that the only reason why you oppose the use of a rape victim's past conduct against her? There are numerous better reasons why and somehow I'm not at all shocked that this is the one that you choose to embrace.
What I can't imagine is why the hell you would suggest that the behaviour of this woman after her assault -- one that research into rape victims confirms is actually quite common among women who were raped -- discredits her.
Psychological research into rape victims confirms that women who are sexually assaulted by well-known acquaintances feel a great deal of confusion after their assault. In some cases it takes weeks, months or even years for them to realize that they've been assaulted.
I'm not making these things up, you fucking sleaze, under some sexist guise of suggesting women are weak or can't look after themselves. I'm telling you what the research on the matter says.
The research unequivocally does not support your assertion that women are confused about date rape only when alcohol or drugs are involved.
Anyone familiar with the vast wealth of psychological and criminological research into date rape -- both of which I have studied -- knows that these behaviours are far from "red flags". These behaviours are quite typical of confused behaviour in the aftermath of sexual assault by an acquaintance.
You've only demonstrated your ignorance, ls, even as you continue to demonstrate your dishonesty.
And for what? Was this poor woman really tainted when she exhibited behaviour typical of post-sexual assault confusion, or when Neo blogged about her?
Your past-proven willingness to be dishonest about absolutely anything clouds the credibility of any answer you could muster.
I provided you with numerous links to that answer, on numerous occasions. On each and every occasion, you refused to acknowledge it.-
ReplyDeleteThanks for corroborating my point, that you refused to provide a simple yes or no, over the course of 17 requests, unlike me, who only required two requests, one of them because of neo's rampant deletion.
Nobody is misrepresenting what you said, no matter how desperately you may want people to believe someone is.-
Neo is, and does so repeatedly. If you were a subscriber to neo's blog feed, you would see the comments and the subsequent misrepresentation.
And is that the only reason why you oppose the use of a rape victim's past conduct against her?-
That is one of them. There was quite a debate when rape shield laws were being considered about the fact that we already have what amounts to rapist shield laws. That seemed a good point to start. To answer your question, the answer is "No". It is not the only reason.
There are numerous better reasons why and somehow I'm not at all shocked that this is the one that you choose to embrace.-
Spare me your outrage. You are confusing the old "she asked for it" defense that is no longer admissible, with determining credibility for a current specific case. You are claiming I support the "she asked for it" defence, but I do not support it.
Anyone familiar with the vast wealth of psychological and criminological research into date rape -- both of which I have studied -- knows that these behaviours are far from "red flags". These behaviours are quite typical of confused behaviour in the aftermath of sexual assault by an acquaintance.-
They are also not evidence that a rape occurred. In our legal system, an assertion made some time after the fact, with NO corroborating evidence, is insufficient.
And for what? Was this poor woman really tainted when she exhibited behaviour typical of post-sexual assault confusion, or when Neo blogged about her?-
Are you sure you are not one of neo's sock puppets? Your conflating "tainted" into this would be typical for him. How is she tainted?
To answer the second part of your conflated question, I first heard about it on the radio. Though Adler was full of outrage as well, the guest pointed out some of the facts.
D'Angelo was organizing a Steelback Grand Prix to replace the Molson Indy. She wanted a job as event coordinator. She accompanied him to the room, ostensibly to pick up something. He said that he had the room because his house A/C was broken. No evidence was provided as to whether that was true or not. Once in the room, sex ensued, either by him climbing onto her against her will, or consensually after she started kissing him.
Your claim that one should accept her testimony because other raped women have not reported it, or have not known they were actually raped is condescending and consigns women to the unreliable fragile flower status. Date rape is quite a different thing. In a date, you are evaluating a potential partner and the "confusion" you allude to is caused by the emotions stirred by any dating situation. Infatuation can lead one to believe the rape is a show of affection, until the infatuation wears off. That is the source of the delayed reaction in a date rape situation.
In this case, there was no evidence of any kind of "date" happening. I don't think you can make the case that she should be confused because she had a crush on the guy.
It is equally plausible that she saw it as a casting couch situation, did her best and when she did not get the job, cried rape. Yes, it happens.
In the absence of some corroborating evidence, the judge had no choice but to give this ruling.
Your past-proven willingness to be dishonest about absolutely anything clouds the credibility of any answer you could muster.So in other words, your unproven assertions about my past words makes my current words not credible, even though they are grounded in the facts of this particular case. Just the kind of character assassination that rape shield laws are designed to prevent.
While on the other hand, we are to accept the alleged victim's words uncritically, and not examine her behaviour or motivation, for no other reason than she's a woman.
"Thanks for corroborating my point, that you refused to provide a simple yes or no, over the course of 17 requests, unlike me, who only required two requests, one of them because of neo's rampant deletion."
ReplyDeleteYou have no point worth getting. You received an answer, on numerous occasions, and refused to accept it.
You approached that entire issue dishonestly, and you don't even deny it. And you wonder why you have no credibility?
"Neo is, and does so repeatedly. If you were a subscriber to neo's blog feed, you would see the comments and the subsequent misrepresentation."
From what I've seen to date, you aren't being misrepresented at all. You're being quoted directly, and apparently don't like the way it makes you look.
Buddy. They're your comments. If you don't like being made to look vile, don't make yourself look vile. This is fucking simple.
"Spare me your outrage. You are confusing the old 'she asked for it' defense that is no longer admissible, with determining credibility for a current specific case. You are claiming I support the 'she asked for it' defence, but I do not support it."
Here's a much better reason: the complainant is not on trial. The defendent is.
Funny how you missed that distinction.
"They are also not evidence that a rape occurred. In our legal system, an assertion made some time after the fact, with NO corroborating evidence, is insufficient."
That sex occurred was part of the agreed statement of accounts in this case. That was not in dispute.
What was in dispute was whether or not that sex was consensual. I know this may come as a shock to you, but when the woman says "no" or "stop", that is a refusal of consent.
What you have argued here is every bit as bad as the "she asked for it" defence -- it argues that, because the woman behaved within patterns demonstrated to be the result of post-date rape confusion by psychological research, that she essentially gave her consent after the fact.
The law requires that consent be given before a sex act takes place.
"To answer the second part of your conflated question, I first heard about it on the radio. Though Adler was full of outrage as well, the guest pointed out some of the facts.
D'Angelo was organizing a Steelback Grand Prix to replace the Molson Indy. She wanted a job as event coordinator. She accompanied him to the room, ostensibly to pick up something. He said that he had the room because his house A/C was broken. No evidence was provided as to whether that was true or not. Once in the room, sex ensued, either by him climbing onto her against her will, or consensually after she started kissing him."
So you're suggesting that she screwed D'Angelo so she could get that job. Oh, and it isn't at all sexist to suggest that women who get those jobs do that, is it?
God, what fucking slime.
"Your claim that one should accept her testimony because other raped women have not reported it, or have not known they were actually raped is condescending and consigns women to the unreliable fragile flower status. Date rape is quite a different thing. In a date, you are evaluating a potential partner and the "confusion" you allude to is caused by the emotions stirred by any dating situation. Infatuation can lead one to believe the rape is a show of affection, until the infatuation wears off. That is the source of the delayed reaction in a date rape situation.
In this case, there was no evidence of any kind of "date" happening. I don't think you can make the case that she should be confused because she had a crush on the guy.
It is equally plausible that she saw it as a casting couch situation, did her best and when she did not get the job, cried rape. Yes, it happens.
In the absence of some corroborating evidence, the judge had no choice but to give this ruling."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh my god, you are an ignorant fuck!
Do you know what the other name for "date rape" is?
Acquaintance sexual assault. It isn't just restricted to men who women date, it's attached to rape by any man a woman is acquainted with!
By the way, the confusion and shame experienced by women who have been raped has nothing at all to do with any weakness or fragility someone may argue is inherent in women. Men who are sexually assaulted also experience confusion and shame. In fact for men, it's worse, to the extent that only a tiny percentage of sexual assaults on men are ever reported.
Beyond this, ls, you need to get your argument straight here. First you were trying to insist that the confusion many women experience after a sexual assault is due to alcohol and drugs.
That isn't true.
Now you're trying to argue that it's the result of the emotional uncertainty of dating?
You need to make that primitive mind of yours up.
"So in other words, your unproven assertions about my past words makes my current words not credible, even though they are grounded in the facts of this particular case. Just the kind of character assassination that rape shield laws are designed to prevent.
While on the other hand, we are to accept the alleged victim's words uncritically, and not examine her behaviour or motivation, for no other reason than she's a woman."
Hey, ls, in case you hadn't noticed, the general consensus on your words here is that you're a sexist douchebag.
That consensus has been established by evaluating your previous comments.
Not to mention that you started off your last reply by rationalizing your rejection of the answer you were provided by noting that it wasn't a yes/no answer.
Yet you acknowledge that you received an answer, and agree that you refused to acknowledge it.
Do you need me to get you a shovel so you can dig that hole a little deeper?
Frank D'Angelo is a total pervert. He was friends with the girl's father for many years and had known the girl since she was in grade school. He is probably a closet pedophile and he waited until she was legally of age before he raped her. The poor girl was probably so confused from the rape, especially after knowing him for 10+ years.
ReplyDeleteOh and while we are at it, check out this Google cache file of the Lilith News' apology to Frank D'Angelo. Wow.
ReplyDeletehttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BMtRB5vTEJcJ:lilithnews.blogspot.com/2010/08/apology-to-frank-dangelo.html