On Guard for Thee

Oh really, how much deeper do you think it goes? Only people I hear blathering on about the concept are a few pissed off Albertan's who have been pretty much dismissed long ago. Especially those who have a knowledge of Canadian history. I'm a BC guy and I don't see a lot of this attitude out here.

Certain people can do nothing more than try to kill the messenger.

What a ridiculous bunch of comments! Let's see, let me drop a bomb on your neighborhood and see if you don't put your tail between your legs and run for cover whichever direction you can. And oh, there is a border so I guess I'll just hang around and wait for the next volley.

Influencing the creation and modification of international law is not important to you. That's fine.

Do you think the BQ has been around for 50 years?

Trickle down essentially means you allow the money to flow into the pockets of a few, hoping they will spend some to keep a few people employed. Perhaps you need a primer on it.

Yes of course allegations must be proven. That has been around since we've had common law. In these types of cases, it has been way too easy to discredit complainants by pursuing the anal retentive concerns of the religious right who seem to have their heads up their arses about such things as chastiy etc.

Nor is the response to it, but it carries more weight in the overall scheme of things.

It has been proven to work better than trickle down.

You think influence on the world stage is not important? Having a say in international law may help to make the world safer. And when other countries respect us, it tends to be good for business.

The Liberal record precedes the BQ by quite a ways.

That's exactly my point, the judge is very likely more familiar with what the law says i.e. what consent is vis a vis .721 etc in the code, than a jury would, and may therefore be less likely swayed by other discrepancies such as apparent inappropriate emails etc. which occurred after the fact.

And which part of "he choked me without my consent" and "I plead not guilty" do you determine to be the most credible evidence?

In less you happened to have been sitting in the courtroom throughout the testimony, I think it's pretty hard to focus on a specific case such as this, without considering the broader issues of how the system may be biased against complainants. All things being equal, I suspect having this case being heard by a judge only may help to balance the field.

I'll try to simplify it for you from now on.

I wouldn't actually go so far as to say the US worships at the UN altar. Especially since they seem to ignore international law when it suits their war plans etc.

It seems to take a few cycles to get you tuned in to what was said.

I'm aware of that. I was speaking in general.

We would have some if we had a seat, even if it's not a permanent one. Get it yet?

The burden doesn't ned to be lowered, just the playing field leveled a bit better. Rape Shield was an attempt to do that but it may need to be revisited.

So you do understand that not having a seat does in fact means our influence equals "none"? Just trying to catch you up to what you seemed to misinterpret.

There doesn't have to be bruises for assault to have occurred, even if it happened last night. and has been pointed out women tend to be afraid to come forward due to how the courts have allowed them to be treated, even after the Rape Shield law was put in place.

Perhaps read a little better. I didn't say we "have" a seat, and "none" is the amount of influence we have now. It's all grammatical understanding.

There is a very slim chance of conviction in this case due to the consistencies in the complainants testimony. And just where would you expect to find physical evidence in many of such cases?