Cucked Canada Proposes A New Bill to Destroy Men

[HammerdownParticipant 528]

If any of you live in Canada like I do, this should make you very nervous. There is a bill going through the works now called Bill C-51. Basically, it changes all the rules for criminal procedure that favor a defendant, but ONLY when that defendant is charged with a sex crime. Reasonable doubt will no longer exist for sex crimes. One of the big changes is YOU NOW HAVE TO DISCLOSE ALL EVIDENCE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL.

Before, only the prosecutor had to do that. This means you could wait for your accuser to talk herself into a corner, then dump an evidence bombshell exposing her as a liar, and the case was closed. Now you have to do that at the beginning, meaning your accuser can change her story. If anyone is familiar with the Jian Ghomeshi case, that’s how he won. He waited for them to talk themselves into a corner, then dumped a bunch of emails and love letters that destroyed that narrative. The women were so shocked their only defense was “I don’t remember writing that”. With this new bill, he would have lost.

It gets worse, too. The bill also changes the rape shield laws meaning if you’re entering texts or emails as evidence, they are only admissible for the date of the alleged rape. So let’s say you f~~~ a woman every day in September, and every day she writes you emails saying how much she loves it, but doesn’t write you one on the 30th and claims you raped her. All of those other messages are now inadmissible.

Here’s the legal-ese for anybody interested:

http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-51/second-reading

Since this basically violates like 3 sections of the charter, I’m hoping it gets shot down; the Supreme Court does occasionally surprise me with its rationality, but only sometimes. I’m pretty worried, as if this does pass it’ll effectively make it impossible for you to defend yourself against a sexual assault allegation.

[foolsgoldParticipant 5670]

Jeezus. Then they wonder why we are walking away. smh

[Anonymous 3]

This isn’t my problem. If you actually avoided women it wouldn’t be for you either.

[Prophet MicahParticipant 1972]

Like everybody else on here says.

#UNC~~~
#ICETHEMOUT

Monk is the only choice now.

No Wife - No Strife

[CarnageParticipant 22113]

Anonymous wrote:

This isn’t my problem. If you actually avoided women it wouldn’t be for you either.

I was thinking the same thing.

Not my problem at all, but those púas they gonna have a lot of fun butt f~~~ing each other in jail.

To those following me, be careful, I just farted. Men those beans are killers.

[ZarathustraParticipant 2246]

They made fun of the Senator in the U.S. (forget his name) for saying that he wouldn’t entertain having dinner with a woman alone. This kind of issue substantiates his position. I don’t EVER want to be a lone with a woman, the risk is just to great.

[Anonymous 42]

foolsgold wrote:

Then they wonder why we are walking away. smh

Walking? No! Running away in earth rumbling droves!

[Anonymous 5]

I live in the states.

Don’t give a f~~~, still f~~~ing bitches.

[Jan SobieskiParticipant 28791]

Ghomeshi got away and the feminist promised never again.

They made good on their threat. Sex is just too dangerous these days.

Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.

[Anonymous 5]

Jan Sobieski wrote:

Ghomeshi got away and the feminist promised never again.

They made good on their threat. Sex is just too dangerous these days.

Dangerous sex is the best sex.

[narwhalParticipant]

Zarathustra wrote:

They made fun of the Senator in the U.S. (forget his name) for saying that he wouldn’t entertain having dinner with a woman alone. This kind of issue substantiates his position. I don’t EVER want to be a lone with a woman, the risk is just to great.

You’re referring to Vice President Pence.

As far as the law changes, the first only seems like an issue if the defense does not have an opportunity to see the prosecution’s evidence and the time to develop a defense. If all that happens before trial begins, I would think that’d be fine. In fact, the result could be less useless trials if the prosecution knows they have no case before the trial starts.

The other is concern to a point, but I would think a smart defense lawyer could use it to his advantage. The reason you want to submit emails of before and after the incident is to establish character and motive of both the ‘victim’ and defendant. The law disallows such evidence in an attempt to say that the character of the victim doesn’t matter. But….you cannot logically say that AND say that the character of the defendant DOES matter. If I’m a lawyer, I make sure this is established from the get go. From there, that means that you cannot infer that rape happened because the defendant behaved in a rape like manner before or afterwards, because it doesn’t matter. It is only rape of sex occurred and it was not consensual, and that must be proven. If you cannot use the victim’s behavior to paint the picture that the sex was consensual (if occurred at all) then you cannot use the defendant’s behavior to paint a picture that it was rape.

Ok. Then do it.

[Secret Agent MGTOWParticipant 22559]

You are under the idea that courts are places of logic. If they were we would be okay and be able to consistently expect just outcomes.

Women want everything, but want responsibility and accountability for nothing.

[SolidParticipant 7520]

Here in Brazil, there is some crazy s~~~ going on, in some cases, only the word of the “”victim”” counts, they completely ignore forensic evidence, or any other kind of evidence.

Basically, in some cases, if she said that she was raped, that is rape, no matter if there is a video of she begging your your dick or that RAPED you, if she said that she is the victim, that is all that the judge needs.

Where this path lead us ? You will get a far lighter sentence here if you MURDER someone who falsely acused you than if you just let them go on. And for murder, there must be an investigation AND proof, which for forensics are a little bit harder to get.

In what kind of sick and twisted society, will worth killing someone like that just to avoid a FALSE accusation ?

[Anonymous 6]

Forgive my ignorance here but can’t there be a vote of no confidence in parliament? How unlikely would that be?

[SolidParticipant 7520]

Just complementing my comment.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/05/brazil-teenage-girl-raped-30-men-speaks-160531043640440.html

This case, this girl is very known in the region because she have several orgies with any guys who give her drugs. What happened ? There is a vídeo of her f~~~ing that the local media published of her f~~~ing and ENJOYING the thing, censored of course, all her friends told about the case, she was a well known person who really liked orgies. She is a single mother, and her mother is the one who takes care of her child. Her mother told that she usually go out to parties and to get high, and after 4 or 5 days she come back.

There was no evidence of forced penetration in the case, the girl has a well known background for being a slut, but when the wife of one of the guys in the orgy find out the video on his cellphone, she got angry, and published the video on the internet as a revenge. What happened ? Here rape is a taboo, drugdealers don’t accept this kind of thing, and since she live in a community that is under control of drug dealers, they demand that all men in the “rape” where murdered. If you research a little you will find pictures of them dead.

Those who were managed to escape the drug lords, got caught by the police, and well, there were prosecuted without even being able to defend themselves. Everything was ignored, even solid forensic evidence.

How the “raped” girl defended herself so no one would suspect that she is a complete slut, not even her boyfriend ? She cried rape…

Rape is the new “I need a easy way out”. Don’t take me wrong, this is a serious crime WHEN IS REAL, that c~~~ destroied some lives just for the fun of it, because anyway, by the police, by the drugdealers or in prison, they will die.

[ZarathustraParticipant 2246]

Anonymous wrote:

Forgive my ignorance here but can’t there be a vote of no confidence in parliament? How unlikely would that be?

Similar system as the U.S. except we do not have the executive branch of government (The President) The bill would have to pass through the house of commons, similar to your congress, and then pass through the Senate. Since there is no executive branch there is no veto.

[Branched offParticipant 11014]

Sorry you have a fine country, so sad to see it cucked up so badly.

A woman is like fire -fun to play with, can warm you through and cook your food, needs constant feeding, can burn you and consume all you own

[Anonymous 5]

Branched off wrote:

Sorry you have a fine country, so sad to see it cucked up so badly.

No, his country is not fine.

His country is a feminist s~~~hole, that needs some boom, boom from Trump.

Y’all feel me, dog?

[ZarathustraParticipant 2246]

Anonymous wrote:

No, his country is not fine.
His country is a feminist s~~~hole, that needs some boom, boom from Trump.
Y’all feel me, dog?

Nah, its still a good country. You have to remember Canada is a vast country and how much this s~~~ affects you depends on where you live and what you do. Its still a fine country all C-51 changes is that it gives men even less reason to interact with the female species.

[ScarberianMPTGLParticipant 3286]

Anonymous wrote:

Forgive my ignorance here but can’t there be a vote of no confidence in parliament? How unlikely would that be?

I’m pretty sure that only works if Turdeau has a minority.

I, Lelouch Vi Britannia, command you, all of you, to Go Your Own Way!!

[Author]

Posts