- Joined
- Apr 19, 2019
Well at least we'll finally get it on camera that he doesn't in fact have a vagina.
Jonathan Yaniv / Jessica Yaniv / @trustednerd / trustednerd.com / JY Knows It / JY British Columbia - Canada's Best Argument Against Transgender Self-Identification
- Thread starter trannyfucker
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2017
Supreme Court rules key part of law against child-luring via internet is unconstitutional
Under the new ruling, the Crown has to prove the accused actually believed the alleged victim was underage.
www.theglobeandmail.com
One consolation is that yanniv appears to check their ages to see if they're young enough so there's a positive, but then again being an in-the-closet dyslexic might earn him brownie points.
biguglyboy
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2019
The ultimate catch-22. You can prove he doesn't have a vagina, but to do so you have to see him naked.
Maybe if we segment the image into 100 smaller pieces and everyone takes a piece. Large enough that you can make out the partial image of a vagina but small enough that you don't get a sense of the whole.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2019
No need to do all that, I volunteer as tribute.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2019
Hypochondriacs and Munchies would. I mean, point taken, normal women wouldn't...but hypochondriacs and munchies man.
No PL, just a shitty part time job that anyone could have had...but "no! No, you keep the lid on that container ma'am" is hard to say with your customer service tone.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2016
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2019
What the fuck. How is it ok to be targetting minors for grooming, as long as you aren't completely convinced they are a minor?!And nobody asks to look at photo's of other peoples used menstrual products except other 40 year old troon autogynephiles
Agreed 100%
The police are the ones who decide whether or not to charge someone in Canada. There obviously needs to be an identifiable victim to prosecute a crime, but as long as the police have enough reason to believe that a crime and a victim exist they can most certainly charge someone.
There is a case in the supreme court right now regarding an incident of internet luring that has been mentioned several times that could be at issue, here is an article regarding this case:
Supreme Court rules key part of law against child-luring via internet…
archived 22 Nov 2019 23:24:28 UTCarchive.phSupreme Court rules key part of law against child-luring via internet is unconstitutional
Under the new ruling, the Crown has to prove the accused actually believed the alleged victim was underage.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2019
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2019
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
Reddit is fucking trash. It's a dumpster fire that crushes souls and is deathly allergic to anything even resembling fun.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2019
There is an underlying logic to it. The law (as written) interferes with the accused's right to an assumption of innocence:
(I spent a few minutes trying to break it down with links here, then I found an article with quotes from actual lawyers who are way more capable of this than I am).
“The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that any law that requires an accused to be found guilty based on unreliable representations over the internet offends the constitution, particularly the presumption of innocence enshrined in s. 11(d)” of the Charter, said Mark Halfyard of Rusonik O'Connor Robbins Ross Gorham & Angelini LLP in Toronto, who acted for the respondent in the case.
“It is not enough that a person was acting reckless or negligent when they did not actually believe they were communicating with an underage child,” Halfyard told Legal Feeds by email. “In those cases, an accused would be entitled to an acquittal.”
From: Canadian Lawyer Magazine
SCC strikes down 'reasonable belief' requirement in Criminal Code for…
archived 23 Nov 2019 02:16:33 UTC
"...[T]he Criminal Code said that if someone told someone else they were underage, the law presumed the person believed it. The only exception was if there was evidence that the person didn’t believe it [italics mine]. Mr. Morrison said this violated his right to be presumed innocent. Before anyone can be found guilty of a crime, a judge or jury has to believe that the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The right to be presumed innocent is violated whenever a law lets someone be found guilty even though there is a reasonable doubt. The law presumed Mr. Morrison believed “Mia” when she said she was 14, even though there could be other explanations."
"...[T]he judges at the Supreme Court agreed that the first point violated the right to be presumed innocent. Just because someone is told something online doesn’t mean they believe it. People don’t always tell the truth. Yet the law’s presumption meant that someone could be found guilty even if the judge or jury had a reasonable doubt about whether they believed the other person was underage. This violated the presumption of innocence."
From: Supreme Court of Canada-Case Dossiers
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2019
What kind of sick doublethinking motherfucker wants to make it easier to target minors?There is an underlying logic to it. The law (as written) interferes with the right to the accused's assumption of innocence:
(I spent a few minutes trying to break it down with links here, then I found an article with quotes from actual lawyers who are way more capable of this than I am).
“The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that any law that requires an accused to be found guilty based on unreliable representations over the internet offends the constitution, particularly the presumption of innocence enshrined in s. 11(d)” of the Charter, said Mark Halfyard of Rusonik O'Connor Robbins Ross Gorham & Angelini LLP in Toronto, who acted for the respondent in the case.
“It is not enough that a person was acting reckless or negligent when they did not actually believe they were communicating with an underage child,” Halfyard told Legal Feeds by email. “In those cases, an accused would be entitled to an acquittal.”
From: Canadian Lawyer Magazine
SCC strikes down 'reasonable belief' requirement in Criminal Code for…
archived 23 Nov 2019 02:16:33 UTCarchive.ph
"...[T]he Criminal Code said that if someone told someone else they were underage, the law presumed the person believed it. The only exception was if there was evidence that the person didn’t believe it [italics mine]. Mr. Morrison said this violated his right to be presumed innocent. Before anyone can be found guilty of a crime, a judge or jury has to believe that the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The right to be presumed innocent is violated whenever a law lets someone be found guilty even though there is a reasonable doubt. The law presumed Mr. Morrison believed “Mia” when she said she was 14, even though there could be other explanations."
"...[T]he judges at the Supreme Court agreed that the first point violated the right to be presumed innocent. Just because someone is told something online doesn’t mean they believe it. People don’t always tell the truth. Yet the law’s presumption meant that someone could be found guilty even if the judge or jury had a reasonable doubt about whether they believed the other person was underage. This violated the presumption of innocence."
From: Supreme Court of Canada-Case Dossiers
"I'm 14."
"Lol no way I don't believe you."
That makes the grooming okay? Or is it because of the wording of the law?
Asteroid when?
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2019
Please, promise us you'll follow the best practices established by Scotland Yard and the British Army.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2019
The problem is kind of a logical dissonance. If you want to discuss and read about it, it has been gone over in the thread created for Yaniv-Centric legal discussion: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/canadian-law.59854/
We're not supposed to law-sperg in here anymore, (I forgot). I will now stop shitting up the thread.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2019
The case in question, the guy pointed to the terms and conditions that say you have to be 18 to join the site as proof that he thought the kid was really an adult. Now, how many underage kids create social media accounts or even access Porn hub when they know they aren't old enough to do it? It has to be a high number. But, that is enough to get the pedo off the hook. The law should be that if a person tells you that they are underage, you have to accept that as true. Whether you doubt it or not shouldn't matter. Whether they are lying or not shouldn't matter. You've been told they are underage and you should act accordingly. If you don't, you deserve to be punished.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2019
The reasonable person test does still apply. If the target repeatedly mentions childish things (parents permission, homework, etc.) there may be a case that the person ought reasonably have known they were underage.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2019
The problem is there is no actual victim in these cases. The police are going on fishing expeditions
trying to push people into planning an actual crime instead of role-playing fantasy between adults.
The cops just keep pushing and pushing until the person says the wrong thing and wham, they charge in and arrest them.
Back in the early days of the Internet, it was the police and other agencies that quickly became the largest source
of Child porn online because they were so eager to catch people downloading and sharing it that they cornered the market.
That's why there are Entrapment laws, to keep over eager Police departments desperate to get their arrest rates up
from spiraling out of control and becoming the very bad guys are are meant to protect us from.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2018
He doesn't have a tumour. There's fuck all evidence of one in there. I know this is PLing so feel free to give me the arsepounding I deserve, but I have seen enough MRIs of brain scans showing tumours to know: there's fuck all shred of a clue of one in there.
Nuh-uh, it's The Crown who decide to press charges or not, not individuals or The Police. That's why cases in Court are always The Crown vs The defendant. Pedantic, I know but it's not the same as the US where a person who's the victim of a crime who decides to press charges. Charges are presented to the Court on behalf of The Crown
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2019
He's an Ashkenazi Jew.
They have all kinds of fucked up issues, including higher then normal rates of mental illness because of inbreeding
Even Jewish comedians have made careers out of making jokes about it.
Israel even did studies about it because the rates of mental illness was going through the roof there because
of the high numbers of Ashkenazi 's moving there.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2019
A lot of congenital conditions that have developed due to their cousin and uncle-niece inbreeding do occur more commonly in the Ashkenazim- Tay-Sachs, cystic fibrosis, and torsion dystonia for a start.
Brain tumors, however, are not on that list, nor would a predisposition to developing brain tumors be sufficient to diagnose one without medical evidence of such.