Bonam Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 Wow. Really? Yeah, really. What would you do if a gay guy grabbed your parts? Call the cops and put your normal life on hold for the next few months as the sexual assault charges slowly make their way through the court system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted February 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 I'd do the same thing as Brazeau's accuser I suppose. I guess I'm not a big manly man like you are... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 He forced himself on a girl... How do you know that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 The only thing Harper can do is kick him out of caucus. Brazeau will continue to be a Senator until he's 75, unless he's convicted. In this case, I think I read in one of the articles that he's being charged under summary he can only be removed from his position for indictable offences (I think). In other words, he'll sit as an independent that will vote with the Conservatives until he's 75. From my understanding,the conviction must be for treason.A crime against the country.Or possibly something very,very serious. Not sure if his charge falls under this category. However I would not be surprised if the charges are dropped soon. After all he wasn't charged right away. Regardless,an act of parliament can still remove him,but it's very risky because of all the negative attention that will be drawn to the conservatives and Harper. This could be a big nail in the conservative coffin? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 Another failure of Harper's leadership. Plus, he should be forcing his crooked senator appointees (Brazeau and Duffy) to pay back the fraudulent expenses. Yes Harper is completely to blame that Senator Brazueau may have assaulted and sexually assaulted someone. Wonder will the judge drop Brazeau's charges and charge Harper instead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortlived Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 (edited) He forced himself on a girl. No big deal, eh? Imagine a gay guy grabbing at your parts when you don't want him to. Its happened to me on a beach in Mexico, some older dued grabed for my crotch and seemed incline to get into my pants. It was weird but I wouldn't send the guy to court over it. I just stepped back and looked at the guy then left. Now if he got into my pants I'd punch him but that is another issue completely. I wasn't gay, he was atleast bisexual. I applaud people who go after it... the world is to anal and restrictive making love far more complex than it should be. In native culture a woman going into a guys tent alone indicate she wants to get it on... in muslim culture she could be raped legally. In Canadian culture touching a boob gets you nine months of court appearances (if you don't plead guilty) $10,000 or more in legal bills and a potential 3 month sentance or year of probation? Huh? It is absurd. If you've ever been in a court case the response is NOT justice. It is a waste of time and money that doesn't even attempt to solve the social isssue instead it creates an even greater social divide that is life long and irreperable.. Now habitually doing this, hence sexual harassment is another issue completely but a move at your OWN house, alone with some chick who went over to your house. Kids have sex under those contexts. Now saying no and ending it there fine.. but based on what I don't know.. it seems politically motivated, and abuse of assault (which indicated unwanted use of force - that is intent of violence to cause harm) as well as an intent to sexually violate... and it seems clear brazeau probably could have raped her if he wasn't being monitored he is a freaken BLACK BELT and not likely weaker than the chick he touched. Now GIRL.. is something else do you have something to indicate that it was a MINOR involved in the incident.. that would be a different angle.. but not weird in native culture by any means. Brazeau is a black belt a simple assault charge does not indicate attempted violence. The assault charge just seems lumped in.. and the sexual part just seems like the part of body touched. Who is the "girl" you indicated. There is apublication ban on who she is do you have information on her background? I do beleive this website is technically hosted in the US? Edited February 10, 2013 by shortlived Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 From my understanding,the conviction must be for treason.A crime against the country.Or possibly something very,very serious. The clause states: "The Place of a Senator shall become vacant in any of the following Cases:... If he is attainted of Treason or convicted of Felony or of any infamous Crime." What constitutes an "infamous crime" is unknown to me. Regardless,an act of parliament can still remove him Oh? I've never heard of such a thing and the constitution doesn't seem to allow for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortlived Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 (edited) The clause states: "The Place of a Senator shall become vacant in any of the following Cases:... If he is attainted of Treason or convicted of Felony or of any infamous Crime." What constitutes an "infamous crime" is unknown to me. Oh? I've never heard of such a thing and the constitution doesn't seem to allow for it. It basically amounts to indictable offence. infamous crime = Law, historical (of a person) deprived of all or some citizens' rights as a consequence of conviction for a serious crime. It is technically impossible under the charter. Edited February 10, 2013 by shortlived Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 In native culture a woman going into a guys tent alone indicate she wants to get it on... in muslim culture she could be raped legally. In Canadian culture touching a boob gets you nine months of court appearances (if you don't plead guilty) $10,000 or more in legal bills and a potential 3 month sentance or year of probation? Huh? It is absurd. If you've ever been in a court case the response is NOT justice. It is a waste of time and money that doesn't even attempt to solve the social isssue instead it creates an even greater social divide that is life long and irreperable.. Now habitually doing this, hence sexual harassment is another issue completely but a move at your OWN house, alone with some chick who went over to your house. Kids have sex under those contexts. Yes, in 'Canadian culture' a woman going to a man's house does not mean she wants to have sex with him and touching someone against their will is against the law. You find this wrong, somehow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortlived Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 (edited) Yes, in 'Canadian culture' a woman going to a man's house does not mean she wants to have sex with him and touching someone against their will is against the law. You find this wrong, somehow? Yes. I think there should be a make a move execption. The whole, can I kiss you thing is so gay, but legally required. Takes the spontaneous romance away. First the no sleeping BJ's for married couples, now people being all cool with no moves. WTF? As soon as that, no or don't is out though, it should be game over. But come on, give the guy a chance. Canada needs more people (in northern areas) You know the inuit solved this social issue themselves by basically making a make a move exception socially. Now going around touching peoples boobs you don't know (not in a night club) is a completely different issue... but needing to ask to kiss someone who is over at your place for a invite to your house under a potential date, study date or otherwise... no man there should be a make a move exception. Now penetrating out of no where with any body part is another issue I suppose, but a kiss or touch.. .NO WAY. totally acceptable at a home invite with someone of the opposite sex. Now forcing yourself on someone and not stopping under a protest that is another issue. The assault/sexual assault aspect should only occur upon a clear signal that it is unwanted behaviour.. not that it is unknown if it is wanted in a private non professional or institutional setting. Someones house is definately private. Although even the public aspect should be contextualized to courting behaviour. Fact is it is part of courting behaviour and should not be criminalized it is at common law. Although I don't know the specifics of this situation so I can't specifically apply it to the situation as I don't really have any details on what transpired if anything. NYE for instance I kissed like 3 random girls(young adults) or something like that including one on the lips.. it wasn't too sexual though more just friendly.. none the less I don't think I commited a crime. Now if the girl said no don't kiss me, and I kissed them it would be issued, but without a sign of protest to the action I think it is very acceptable. Same with the no don't touch my boob, no don't put your arm around me. No don't stroke my leg, no don't try to massage me etc... there should be a clear protest before a sexual assault charge occurs under specific circumstances. The protest and unwantedness of the act should be known. I think people want romance and love, and it is not by default unacceptable, on the contrary at default it should be acceptable because people do not require contracts for relationships. Note after one of the girls pinched my nipple/sqeuezed my chest while rubbing me over after a shot of absinthe, I also did the same to her.. she was not pleased but none the less after she indicated not to squeeze her booby I stopped. I did not feel it was a crime though.. since she intitiated the touching. It wasn't very sexual though, but I think she did think it sexual. None the less I did not persist to make contact with her after she had that second thought. I think there are contexts in which the behaviour is not criminal on point of contact. I think that the persistene and clear ignorance of the action as unwanted is where the crime of both assault and sexual assault should come into play. Although random contacts does violate the public space concept... but in certain context I think the availability of contact for courtship or leisure is at common law. Not all environments are the same, but alone at some guys house is definatly in the make a move realm. Now there are professional exceptions, eg. you can't make a move on someone you are employing as it is sexual harassment (I know for Brazeau he seems according to Jade Harper disregard this one) I think there are common law exceptions within the make a move context. People who don't know each other and people who do know each other plays into it. Edited February 10, 2013 by shortlived Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 I think we should all be a little more circumspect. It seems that many posters are assuming he is guilty. Altho the feminists may encourage that - we are Inoocent until PROVEN guilty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 innocent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 Yes Harper is completely to blame that Senator Brazueau may have assaulted and sexually assaulted someone. Wonder will the judge drop Brazeau's charges and charge Harper instead? Just like the NDP should have been held accountable for Sven "I'm a thief" Robinson right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 many of these charges are the result of false allegations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 (edited) I think we should all be a little more circumspect. It seems that many posters are assuming he is guilty. Altho the feminists may encourage that - we are Inoocent until PROVEN guilty Looks like Harper's assuming he's guilty. “Obviously the situation with Sen. Brazeau is terrible,” Harper said at a news conference about criminal justice legislation in Burnaby, B.C. Friday. “It is extremely appalling, disappointing. We all feel very let down.” “When Mr. Brazeau was appointed to the Senate, he was the national chief of one of the country’s largest and most respected aboriginal organizations … The events that we’re speaking of here are very recent in nature. Obviously over a recent period, something has been going very wrong, and that is the reason for the situation that has developed,” Harper said. http://www.canada.com/mobile/iphone/story.html?id=7937841 But yes, innocent until proven guilty. Edited February 11, 2013 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 Looks like Harper's assuming he's guilty. "Obviously the situation with Sen. Brazeau is terrible," Harper said at a news conference about criminal justice legislation in Burnaby, B.C. Friday. "It is extremely appalling, disappointing. We all feel very let down." "When Mr. Brazeau was appointed to the Senate, he was the national chief of one of the country's largest and most respected aboriginal organizations … The events that we're speaking of here are very recent in nature. Obviously over a recent period, something has been going very wrong, and that is the reason for the situation that has developed," Harper said. http://www.canada.co...html?id=7937841 But yes, innocent until proven guilty. It is not just the one thing that is at play here, it is a number of things that finally force action by the PM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 The clause states: "The Place of a Senator shall become vacant in any of the following Cases:... If he is attainted of Treason or convicted of Felony or of any infamous Crime." What constitutes an "infamous crime" is unknown to me. Oh? I've never heard of such a thing and the constitution doesn't seem to allow for it. I guess you're right and I don't have time to fully research this. This is worse news for the conservatives! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 I guess you're right and I don't have time to fully research this. This is worse news for the conservatives! WWWTT If bambino says it.....generally spot on. He knows his parliamentary shtuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 (edited) I think we should all be a little more circumspect. It seems that many posters are assuming he is guilty. Altho the feminists may encourage that - we are Inoocent until PROVEN guilty Except for the gratuitous slam at "feminists", I agree. I'm a bit shocked at today's development: Senate votes to force Brazeau into leave of absence And this: http://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/canada/2013/02/12/senate_votes_to_force_brazeau_into_leave_of_absence/brazeau2.jpg.size.xxlarge.letterbox.jpg Senator Patrick Brazeau is escorted out the Parliament Buildings Tuesday after he was suspended from his duties by the Senate. And I'd like to point out, westguy, that the vast majority of Senators are not "feminists", but old white men. Edited February 12, 2013 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 Guilty till proven innocent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 Guilty till proven innocent. Not really. He is being paid. A cop who is suspended is still paid but relieved of his duties and does not show at the police station. The Senate is under a lot of heat with Mike Duffy and his inability to remember where he sleeps most of the time among others and now the young Brazeau causing eyes to focus on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 (edited) I'm no Brazeau fan, but I think the media are over doing it: A brash, swaggering senator ... ... Brazeau managed an occasional smirk http://www.globalnews.ca/sen+brazeau+charged+with+sexual+assault+and+assault/6442805022/story.html Edited February 12, 2013 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 Except for the gratuitous slam at "feminists", I agree. I'm a bit shocked at today's development: Senate votes to force Brazeau into leave of absence And this: http://www.thestar.c...e.letterbox.jpg Senator Patrick Brazeau is escorted out the Parliament Buildings Tuesday after he was suspended from his duties by the Senate. And I'd like to point out, westguy, that the vast majority of Senators are not "feminists", but old white men. ...And Conservative Party members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 old white men may still be feminists like Joe Biden and his VAWA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 How many scandals will it take before some of this finally starts to rub off on Harper? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.