Alleged Pedophile Kills self amid allegations.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Go read the comments on the media site(CBC, Globe, Tor STar etc) about this story then go read one where a priest has been charged but not yet convicted. Huge difference.

Again I'm not supporting either one of these types of cases, they both disgust me and would both have me wanting the same conclusion. I just thought of this so I thought I'd post it as it seems to be true in this case.

The Comments on those sites aren't the people here.

Edited October 6, 2009 by TrueMetis

[Guest TrueMetis]

Just out of curiosity, when does "god" mention anything about raping children in the bible? I thought he was too concerned with people doubting his authority to bother with such petty concerns.

Try the Passage that basically means "if there virgins keep them as sex slaves" loving god my ass.

ETA part of said passage

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

Edited October 6, 2009 by TrueMetis

[kimmy]

I approve of the remarks of Wild Bill, and feel disdain for the remarks of Bach and Mr Canada.

While I would shed no tears for the suicides of people such as Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo, Robert Pickton, I see no reason to celebrate the death of someone who has not been convicted of anything.

As to the question of whether the accusers/alleged victims will feel traumatized by his death...

If their accusations were justified, they did nothing wrong and his blood is not on their hands.

If their accusations were false, they deserve to feel guilty.

Whichever the case, I am sure they are being cared for by a battalion of counsellors.

-k

[ReeferMadness]

I don't know why we spend so much on our legal system when we have people who can pronounce guilt and assign a sentence on the basis of a newspaper article. All in favour of firing all the judges and having Mr. Canada decide guilt? He could do it all from his computer. Let's queue that up as Harper's first act when he gets his much-coveted majority.

I never cease to be amazed that it seems that some of the blood-thirstiest bastards when it comes to law and order call themselves "Christians". The term literally means "followers of Christ". I'll be the first to admit that I never paid rapt attention during all those religion classes I had to attend as a kid. Still, I'm pretty sure that Jesus never led a lynch mob. And he didn't seem to be big on judgement either. In fact, he seemed to be all about forgiveness.

Meh. What do I know.

[ToadBrother]

I don't know what kind of people who have sympathy for an alleged pedophile. I find it disgusting that people would rally behind this man after he had alleged inappropriate contact with two innocent boys...I feel sad for the two boys who will be scarred for the rest of their lives because of the alleged actions of one man.

It's also quite repulsive that all the media attention is swirling around the sympathy for this disgraced teacher and not on the two innocent victims of his alleged assault.

I have no patience at all for anyone who would hurt a child. A poor defenseless child that can make for an easy target by the most vile of people.

I don't think I'd be able to let justice take it's coarse if someone were to hurt my children or my family. It's the only time I could see myself breaking the law purposely.

Those poor little boys. God Bless them...that man will no longer have the power to physically and emotionally hurt you any longer, alleged or otherwise.

When you're finished wringing your hands and casting thunderbolts, how about looking up the meaning of the word "alleged". Here's a hint, it doesn't mean "convicted".

[ToadBrother]

I don't know why we spend so much on our legal system when we have people who can pronounce guilt and assign a sentence on the basis of a newspaper article. All in favour of firing all the judges and having Mr. Canada decide guilt? He could do it all from his computer. Let's queue that up as Harper's first act when he gets his much-coveted majority.

I cannot think of a more terrifying prospect.

I never cease to be amazed that it seems that some of the blood-thirstiest bastards when it comes to law and order call themselves "Christians". The term literally means "followers of Christ". I'll be the first to admit that I never paid rapt attention during all those religion classes I had to attend as a kid. Still, I'm pretty sure that Jesus never led a lynch mob. And he didn't seem to be big on judgement either. In fact, he seemed to be all about forgiveness.

Meh. What do I know.

Enough to recognize hypocrisy, at least.

[Mr.Canada]

When you're finished wringing your hands and casting thunderbolts, how about looking up the meaning of the word "alleged". Here's a hint, it doesn't mean "convicted".

Would you let an alleged pedophile play with your children and live next door to you?

All of you are basically saying that you wouldn't mind in the least having a person charged with sexual offenses against children play with your kids, if you have any. Is that correct?

I really want to understand if you guys would stand by your convictions or not.

The point I'm making is valid. When a priest is charged he is deemed guilty right away by the public. When this teacher does it he is misunderstood. You really don't see a double standard here?

Edited October 6, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[ToadBrother]

Would you let an alleged pedophile play with your children and live next door to you?

All of you are basically saying that you wouldn't mind in the least having a person charged with sexual offenses against children play with your kids, if you have any. Is that correct?

I really want to understand if you guys would stand by your convictions or not.

The point I'm making is valid. When a priest is charged he is deemed guilty right away by the public. When this teacher does it he is misunderstood. You really don't see a double standard here?

We live in a society where innocence is assumed unless guilt is proven. If an alleged pedophile is deemed a substantial risk to the public, there will often be rather onerous strings attached to his release pending trial.

As to the priest, he's innocent until proven guilty too. If you want to debate on the CBC forums, by all means do so, but no one here has taken the position you're attacking. How about, while you're posting here, you debate us, and not people on forums elsewhere.

[kimmy]

Would you let an alleged pedophile play with your children and live next door to you?

All of you are basically saying that you wouldn't mind in the least having a person charged with sexual offenses against children play with your kids, if you have any. Is that correct?

How on earth did you get that out of what anybody has posted here?!

-k

[Mr.Canada]

How on earth did you get that out of what anybody has posted here?!

-k

They are saying. lets get behind and support this alleged pedophile who took his own life. Lets not judge him because he's not been found guilty and is innocent until then.

I want to know if they'd allow their kids to play with an alleged pedophile who hasn't been found guilty yet. If they say they wouldn't they prove my point correct that everyone judges no matter what. If they say they would then they are not protecting their children from a high degree of potential harm.

Then I am trying to prove that a priest is deemed guilty right away under the same set of circumstances. Why the double standard? Because one is a left wing and the other is right?

Both are equally disgusting but I want to understand why a teacher charged with sexual offenses is more apt to receive public support while a same charged priest is treated with scorn.

[ToadBrother]

They are saying. lets get behind and support this alleged pedophile who took his own life. Lets not judge him because he's not been found guilty and is innocent until then.

Precisely. That is the nature of our legal system. The state is required to prove a man's guilt.

I want to know if they'd allow their kids to play with an alleged pedophile who hasn't been found guilty yet. If they say they wouldn't they prove my point correct that everyone judges no matter what. If they say they would then they are not protecting their children from a high degree of potential harm.

I don't let my kids play with strangers, period.

Then I am trying to prove that a priest is deemed guilty right away under the same set of circumstances. Why the double standard? Because one is a left wing and the other is right?

But no one here made that claim.

Both are equally disgusting but I want to understand why a teacher charged with sexual offenses is more apt to receive public support while a same charged priest is treated with scorn.

You'd have to ask the people on those forums. Since no one made that claim here, it's a pointless question. I mean, when did you stop beating your wife?

[Wild Bill]

They are saying. lets get behind and support this alleged pedophile who took his own life. Lets not judge him because he's not been found guilty and is innocent until then.

I want to know if they'd allow their kids to play with an alleged pedophile who hasn't been found guilty yet. If they say they wouldn't they prove my point correct that everyone judges no matter what. If they say they would then they are not protecting their children from a high degree of potential harm.

Then I am trying to prove that a priest is deemed guilty right away under the same set of circumstances. Why the double standard? Because one is a left wing and the other is right?

Both are equally disgusting but I want to understand why a teacher charged with sexual offenses is more apt to receive public support while a same charged priest is treated with scorn.

That has got to be the most illogical argument I've heard from you yet!

As TB said, "I don't let my children play with strangers!" Would YOU? That's only common sense!

"How long have you stopped beating your wife?", to use another silly, emotion-based phrase instead of a proper rebuttal.

I will state that if I already knew and trusted a particular person to play with my kids I wouldn't immediately accept some charge that he or she was dangerous as true! I would look very carefully at both the evidence and the source of the accusation before I would cast away a friend to the wolves.

You know, you'd keep more credibility if you just admitted you were a bit too quick on this one, instead of coming up with more and more stretched and convoluted arguments to either obfuscate your original argument or divert us into a sidebar issue instead.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Wild Bill

[Guest American Woman]

We live in a society where innocence is assumed unless guilt is proven.

As I pointed out, the kids' guilt seems to be "assumed" by some, but there's doesn't seem to be any criticism of that. Two kids have another teacher quoted in the media as saying "he was driven to his death," that she's "angry" and that other kids are going to be angry, and no one seems to care about that.

I just wonder what these kids are going to have to live with, as the subway driver lives with the trauma that was inflicted on him.

'Innocence until proven guilty' makes one wonder why the teacher took his life; especially in the manner that he did.

Student Tanjina Yeasmin recalled a lecture that now chills her.

"I still remember, one time he was telling our class a story about a man who was so tired of his life, that he wanted to commit suicide, and that man had also jumped down on the train tracks," Yeasmin said.

"After he had told us the story, he told us how stupid it was to do such a thing, like committing suicide. And now (he's) doing the exact same thing?"

Makes one wonder why an innocent man would do such a thing, and involve others to the extent that he did.

[ToadBrother]

As I pointed out, the kids' guilt seems to be "assumed" by some, but there's doesn't seem to be any criticism of that. Two kids have another teacher quoted in the media as saying "he was driven to his death," that she's "angry" and that other kids are going to be angry, and no one seems to care about that.

I just wonder what these kids are going to have to live with, as the subway driver lives with the trauma that was inflicted on him.

'Innocence until proven guilty' makes one wonder why the teacher took his life; especially in the manner that he did.

Student Tanjina Yeasmin recalled a lecture that now chills her.

"I still remember, one time he was telling our class a story about a man who was so tired of his life, that he wanted to commit suicide, and that man had also jumped down on the train tracks," Yeasmin said.

"After he had told us the story, he told us how stupid it was to do such a thing, like committing suicide. And now (he's) doing the exact same thing?"

Makes one wonder why an innocent man would do such a thing, and involve others to the extent that he did.

We have no windows on men's souls, so I don't think it's profitable to attempt to judge guilt based on these final actions alone. If the preponderance of evidence leads in that direction, than so be it. That his suicide caused consternation and confusion is not a ready indicator of guilt or innocence.

[Guest American Woman]

We have no windows on men's souls, so I don't think it's profitable to attempt to judge guilt based on these final actions alone. If the preponderance of evidence leads in that direction, than so be it. That his suicide caused consternation and confusion is not a ready indicator of guilt or innocence.

Who's judging him guilty? I haven't pronounced him guilty, but I am commenting on his actions. You think his actions should just be dismissed? Killing himself, leaving people to speculate on his actions, was his choice. The kids who made the charges are being accused of "driving him to it," which clearly indicates that the teacher making the comment has judged them guilty of making false charges. What are these kids going to therefore be left to live with/deal with? You have no concern for them?

All you seem to care about with your response to my post is the teacher. Others are involved here, too, and because of his actions. You think he should be spared 'judgment' for those actions? I've always believed that people should accept that there are consequences to their actions, and therefore, by his choice, he opened himself up to speculation -- especially because his actions so deeply affect others.

He should have let the courts do their job and "prove" him guilty if he was. If not, he wouldn't have been found guilty. So in light of that, it's difficult to understand why an innocent man would have done what he did.

[ToadBrother]

Who's judging him guilty? I haven't pronounced him guilty, but I am commenting on his actions. You think his actions should just be dismissed? Killing himself, leaving people to speculate on his actions, was his choice. The kids who made the charges are being accused of "driving him to it," which clearly indicates that the teacher making the comment has judged them guilty of making false charges. What are these kids going to therefore be left to live with/deal with? You have no concern for them?

All you seem to care about with your response to my post is the teacher. Others are involved here, too, and because of his actions. You think he should be spared 'judgment' for those actions? I've always believed that people should accept that there are consequences to their actions, and therefore, by his choice, he opened himself up to speculation -- especially because his actions so deeply affect others.

He should have let the courts do their job and "prove" him guilty if he was. If not, he wouldn't have been found guilty. So in light of that, it's difficult to understand why an innocent man would have done what he did.

But he didn't, and whatever anyone feels about it is rather irrelevant now. It still doesn't answer the question of guilt or innocence. If he was guilty, well, he can do no one any more harm and certainly punished himself far more harshly than the justice system would have. If he was innocent, then the accusers deserve a little emotional dislocation.

[Guest American Woman]

But he didn't, and whatever anyone feels about it is rather irrelevant now.

No, it' s not irrelevant, and that's my point. It's not "irrelevant" because it means 'speculation' is all that people are left with, and that's what I was asking -- in light of his choice, and the repercussions of his choice, do you think people don't have the right to speculate regarding his actions? If not, why not? As I said, one has to accept that there are consequences to one's actions. Just because the man is dead doesn't grant him immunity.

It still doesn't answer the question of guilt or innocence.

And I never said it did, so I don't know why you keep repeating that.

If he was guilty, well, he can do no one any more harm and certainly punished himself far more harshly than the justice system would have.

If he was guilty, he did the two kids who reported more harm by his suicide. That seems to escape you. The fact that the media is quoting another teacher as saying "he was driven to his death" seems to escape you. The fact that there's a traumatized TTC driver seems to escape you. Seems you aren't holding him to any accountability for his actions.

If he was innocent, then the accusers deserve a little emotional dislocation.

If he was innocent, then the right thing to do would be to let the courts deal with it. His actions are causing people to speculate because that's all they're left with; and it's all they're left with because of his actions, his choices.

And still you have no criticism for the claim that "he was driven to his death." What does that imply to you? That he shouldn't have been charged? That kids shouldn't report inappropriate sexual behavior by a teacher? That the kids are 'guilty' of making a false report?

Edited October 6, 2009 by American Woman

[ToadBrother]

And still you have no criticism for the claim that "he was driven to his death." What does that imply to you? That he shouldn't have been charged? That kids shouldn't report inappropriate sexual behavior by a teacher? That the kids are 'guilty' of making a false report?

You would have to ask that teacher. I wasn't attempting to defend a third party making a comment. Since it was Mr. Canada who came on here complaining about pedophiles, and I pointed out that people are innocent until proven guilty, I wasn't about to defending pedophiles, question the accusers, justify the comments of people who knew the guy or anything else. What the teach should or should not have done is now irrelevant. He killed himself, which means for many people; family, friends, alleged victims, closure will be more difficult. But, since my primary reason for even posting on this thread was Mr. Canada's frequent lynch-mob mentality, I don't feel I have anything useful to say on the effects that this suicide may have. And I'll reiterate that his suicide in no way determines guilt.

[Guest American Woman]

But, since my primary reason for even posting on this thread was Mr. Canada's frequent lynch-mob mentality, I don't feel I have anything useful to say on the effects that this suicide may have.

So it isn't about the incident, it's about "Mr. Canada." I see. Glad you cleared that up so I don't waste any more time in an effort to actually discuss the incident with you.

[ToadBrother]

So it isn't about the incident, it's about "Mr. Canada." I see. Glad you cleared that up so I don't waste any more time in an effort to actually discuss the incident with you.

I think I made my points clear. That you wish, for whatever reason, to put words in my mouth, is a reflection on you, not me.

[Mr.Canada]

You would have to ask that teacher. I wasn't attempting to defend a third party making a comment. Since it was Mr. Canada who came on here complaining about pedophiles, and I pointed out that people are innocent until proven guilty, I wasn't about to defending pedophiles, question the accusers, justify the comments of people who knew the guy or anything else. What the teach should or should not have done is now irrelevant. He killed himself, which means for many people; family, friends, alleged victims, closure will be more difficult. But, since my primary reason for even posting on this thread was Mr. Canada's frequent lynch-mob mentality, I don't feel I have anything useful to say on the effects that this suicide may have. And I'll reiterate that his suicide in no way determines guilt.

Let us dispense with the ad hominem and focus on the issues here.

In my pov he robbed those children of gaining any type of closure at all. They'll never get their day in court, they'll never get a chance to confront their alleged abuser and likewise for this man. he'll never get the chance to confront his accusers either.

If the man was truly innocent he may have had better luck taking it to court and having a fair trial. Let justice prevail. The optics of him taking his own life doesn't play well to a man who is innocent. An innocent man would be doing everything in their power to prove their innocence.

All that is besides the point now as the man is dead and we may never know the truth. The police have evidence and leads to more victims are still coming in so we won't know the entire story until the police or the victims tell us. If they choose to that is.

[Guest American Woman]

I think I made my points clear. That you wish, for whatever reason, to put words in my mouth, is a reflection on you, not me.

I have no such wish. But evidently "my primary reason for even posting on this thread was Mr. Canada's frequent lynch-mob mentality" doesn't mean "it's about Mr. Canada," as I interpreted it to be.

If you say so. Still reads that way to me, but I'll stand corrected.

[Oleg Bach]

After more information drifts in my out look on this sad situation has changed slightly. Especially after viewing photos of the alledged now dead perpetrator. This man is your classic example of a modern asexual sexually dysfunctional girly man. He appears to be a product of social engineering combined with perhaps the estrogen like substance that was leached out of his baby bottle as an infant...that stunted his male developement.

Also: After hearing an interview on radio of a young male that was constantly approached by the alledeged pediphile and led to feel "uncomfortable" - It appears that the now dead man was very sexually vacarious because of his own physical and mental stunted state....I doubt very much that this teacher could even function with a mature female...It seemed he was seeking information and stimulus from young hetrosexual males that would allow this little creep into their world of normalacy.

I doubt that the teacher was a pedophile...he was probably just another dickless male that society in the west has created -partly through toxins absorbed as a child.....AND the feminization of males - that in the end proved deadly for this poor mutant. The problem of desexed and confused males in our society is growing. It must be addressed...It is a proven fact that in the last thirty years that male genitals are becoming smaller and the firtility rate for males is way down world wide in fact thanks to posions in the invironment. This might be the top of the ice berg that is a new phenomena that must be addressed.

This is not a pedophile thing - nor a gay thing -------it is about males that are becoming THINGS.

[madmax]

...........God Bless them...

Dewees, 32, who taught Latin and English at Jarvis since 2003, was charged Thursday with Internet luring and invitation to sexual touching at the Christian-based Ontario Pioneer Camp near Huntsville between July 2008 and July 2009.

[madmax]

So because this person was a teacher he gets a free pass and the benefit of the doubt but when it's a priest that hasn't been convicted everyone is treating him like he's guilty. Happens every time a priest is charged with allegations.

Why are you defending priests that touch children?