Canada: Supreme Court to explain reasons for tossing charges against mom who had sex with minor

Article here. Excerpt:

'The Supreme Court of Canada will explain Friday why it threw out sexual assault charges against a woman who had sex with the 14-year-old friend of her son.

In May, justices ruled that Saskatchewan resident Barbara George, who was 35 at the time of the sexual encounter, should not face a new trial for sexual interference and sexual assault. It will present written reasons for that decision.

The crux of the case is around age of consent, and a section of the Criminal Code that requires an adult to take "reasonable steps" to determine the age of a person before engaging in sex with them.

George was acquitted of the charges because the trial judge found the sexual activity was "factually consensual" — that she honestly believed the boy was at least 16, and there was reasonable doubt she had not taken all reasonable steps to determine the age of "C.D.," whose full name is protected by a publication ban.

He was attending a party at her home the night of the encounter.'

up
35 users have voted.
I like this

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Only in Canada

Only in Canada, the country where the government treats masculinity as adisease, hates men and supports the sexual abuse of male children by women.
This is disgusting.

up
10 users have voted.
I like this

Indeed.

Canada is a country that is collapsing into Marxism. Hence, it is a nation that hates accountability. That is why it's scared sh**less to punish anyone for anything--well at least if they're not white or male.

I've read of so many abortions of justice that took place in this country, that I don't understand how anyone could consider the so-called justice system of this country anything more than a giant joke. It makes me ashamed to be Canadian.

up
10 users have voted.
I like this

Reverse the sexes and ...

I don't think we even need to ask whether the same benefit of the doubt would be given to a man who had a sexual encounter with the fourteen year-old friend of his daughter. Whether the predator is male or female ought to make no difference. I know some people shrug these kinds of encounters off, saying that the boy "just got lucky." But all-too-early sexual experience--especially when it is with an adult woman--can screw up a boy's psyche in ways that will haunt him for many years, and there is a good reason why such things fall under the category of statutory rape. She is the adult, he is the unexperienced and naïve child. That doesn't make him "lucky."

up
7 users have voted.
I like this