Home › Forums › MGTOW Central › Stephen Molyneux–Jian Gomeshi
This topic contains 7 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by Quietlyquietly 3 years, 11 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
Wow. I don’t think Stephen does anything half ass.
I just finished his you tube video on the above topic.
Nearly 2 hours long but the last 15 minutes were the best.
He finished by saying that “men were watching” and how this trial could crash civilization because in a high profile case of railroading, men are watching.
KM, better buy some more storage. I predict a few more men might stop by.
Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.
Can you post the video here?
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
"If pussy was a stock it would be plummeting right now because you've flooded the market with it. You're giving it away too easy." - Dave Chapelle
I’m sorry to say that I think he’s being witch-hunted. I think he’s likely to get sentenced, despite Stephen Molyneux’s amazing examination of the evidence. From my perspective, Ghomeshi is interested in certain sexual preferences that are against the law, but otherwise not guilty. The problem is that he’s a celebrity, feminist, in feminist organisation (CBC), in a feminist country.
He was guilty just for being a man. Unfortunately, I think he’ll lose. Because, vagina. It will be a sad day for the entire world if that happens.
I agree. This guy is out there, sexuality speaking.
But the DA (crown), did a poor job, the witness/ victims lied, and committed crimes and sand bagged their own case.
In the US he must walk. In Canada who knows.
Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.
I have to disagree. First let me deal with the charge of “choking to overcome resistance”. There is no possible way that he can be found guilty of this charge. By the testimony of the witness (Lucy) alone he did not choke her to stop her from resisting. She also clearly indicated that he choked her for maybe 10 seconds, and left no marks. I can hold my breath longer than 10 seconds. The law is clear on this point. The alleged perpetrator would only be guilty if he committed the act of choking in order to overcome her resistance in order for him to do something else that she objected to.
On the matters of sexual assault (four charges). All of the four charges of sexual assault occurred during a sensual act (kissing, cuddling, etc.). We know this for certain because of the testimony of the three witnesses. Consequently all of the charges were indeed sexual in nature. But were they assault or even consensual?
Here we come to credibility. The standard is “Reasonable Doubt”. The judge has to be certain to a point of beyond reasonable doubt in order to convict. Ghomeshi’s lawyer did such a good job of destroying the credibility of all three witnesses, that there was far more than reasonable doubt. As Ghomeshi’s lawyer pointed out, the truth would never have come out in court for the judge to hear, had the three alleged witnesses not been forced to tell the court the truth, when and only when, they were absolutely forced to tell the truth, when faced with their own words on e-mails, texts, and photographs. Even though the three alleged victims lied, there will be no charges against them for perjury, fabrication, or collusion. Pussy Pass in full force.
The judge is never going to find an alleged perpetrator guilty and punishable, with four counts of sexual assault carrying a sentence of 18 months each, unless he is absolutely certain, beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.
One of the best summaries and analyses of the Ghomeshi Trial I have ever seen. Really worth watching.
@robert Hallam, I absolutely agree with you on all points – the choking was not intended to cause a situation where he took advantage of her, all other alleged assaults were sexual, and consensual. The witnesses have colluded, withheld important evidence that would have affected going to trial or not, outright lied, and appear to be no more than creepy, stalking, infatuated but dumped ex-flings.
In any reasonable setting, this wouldn’t have come to trial, and in any reasonable setting, he would be acquitted (and should be). But Canada is strongly strongly feminist. The feminist narrative cannot be tampered with, and thus there is a conflict – release a guy who is toying with the dark side of feminine desires (anti-feminist), or hold the party line, and send him to jail despite his innocence.
I don’t hold out enough hope that Canada has a reasonable viewpoint. I suspect that there will be (pussy) riots on the street if he is acquitted. And the manginas in power are scared by female anger. Trudeau is the epitome of this.
That’s why I think he’s f~~~ed.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678