Quebec Liberal candidate accused of being a white supremecist

[Bryan]

You think a court stepped in to up a sentence by 4 times and reprimand the judge for an ass grab? Seriously you think a higher court took on this case to over rule this judge over and ass grab?

John Reilly was on Rutherford last week tryting to defend his decision in a molestation case that in his own words involved digital penetration. Is that that same one you're talking about?

[cybercoma]

John Reilly was on Rutherford last week tryting to defend his decision in a molestation case that in his own words involved digital penetration. Is that that same one you're talking about?

That's the case. His decision was wrong and that's why it was overturned by the higher court. This is an example of our system working the way it should, not a reason to eliminate judicial discretion through mandatory minimums. Instituting mandatory minimums will do nothing but open up the Canadian market to American corporate prison companies, put more people in jail and ultimate increase the incarceration rates. This will make it seem as though crime is on the rise and give excuse to further open more corporate prisons, rinse, repeat.

Edited April 13, 2011 by cybercoma

[kimmy]

No, it's not the same incident.

The example he gave to host Dave Rutherford was that of a 20-year-old man whom he called “clumsy” who penetrated an inebriated young woman with his fingers while at a party. The crown wanted a three-year sentence which Reilly refused. He defended his decision by saying, “There are sexual assaults and there are sexual assaults.”

He did not however, apologize for using the sexual assault of women to score a political point. Reilly, a Tory appointed judge, is by his own admission opposed to the Conservative's law on mandatory minimum sentences. This opposition caused him to become a Liberal candidate.

And Reilly did not offer a mea culpa over the 90-day sentence he gave last October to a man who molested a 14-year-old mentally challenged girl on a Greyhound bus. The court quadrupled that sentence to 12 months. And in March, 2010, the court overturned a conditional sentence Reilly gave a former guidance counsellor who pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault and one count of gross indecency in a case in which three junior high girls were molested. The court sent the man to jail for three years.

"Dump John Reilly" blog

Separate incidents.

Reilly's comments about the "digital penetration" incident, for which he's being grilled:

Rutherford: But what kind of offences though?

Reilly: Sexual assault.

Rutherford: You shouldn't go to jail for a sex assault?

Reilly: Well, you know, there are sexual assaults and there are sexual assaults.

One factor that led Reilly to run for the Liberals, he said, was his disgust with Conservative government policies on mandatory minimum sentences.

"I see those policies as policies that will incarcerate thousands of people that don't need to be incarcerated, and the cost is billions of dollars," Reilly said, citing several examples, including the case of the man who digitally penetrated the woman.

"He's at a party, there's a lot of sexual innuendo, one of these women is being very aggressive with her boyfriend and they're drinking a lot, the boyfriend passes out, she goes, gets into bed naked, he goes up, he's thinking he's going to be able to, that she'll probably agree to have sex with him, he fondles her privates, and she wakes up and tells him to go away, and he goes away," Reilly told Rutherford.

"They report it, he's charged with sexual offence, he has digitally penetrated her, the Crown prosecutor says this is a digital penetration of a woman's vagina, he should go to jail for three years, that's the starting point for this sexual offence.

"And I'm looking at this 20-year-old, socially inept young man, and his offence is a sexual assault and it's one that they consider a major sexual assault because it involves digital penetration. I don't think in those circumstances that what happened there should put that young man in a penitentiary for three years," he said on the program.

Article

-k

[cybercoma]

His position is being sensationalized by the media that wants to make it appear as though he would let violent sexual offenders out on the street. It's dishonest and fails to address the actual issue of mandatory minimums. Of course, talking about the actual and complex issue at hand doesn't sell papers or bring advertisers to your news channel.

[bloodyminded]

Wow play down the sexual assault much?

I don't think Kimmy's in any way playing down sexual assault. She's saying that sexual assault can take many different forms, and wildly, monumentally disparate levels of severity. In the contemporary era, in which "sexual assault" has taken on (sometimes undeserved) monstrous overtones, I'm glad people like Kimmy are ready and able to make the points she did.

Because when I do it, I feel like I'll be perceived as some sort of creep.

She's not even defending the judge absolutely, but rather on the basis of a "don't know the details" argument, which is by definition a fair-minded approach.