Canada: New trial ordered for man accused of sexual assault

Article here. Excerpt:

'An Ontario judge inappropriately relied on "rape literature" to assess evidence in the case of a man found guilty last year of sexually assaulting a woman with whom he had a casual relationship, an appeal judge said Thursday in overturning the conviction.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Michael Dambrot said he was ordering a new trial for Mustafa Ururyar "with considerable regret," noting that doing so "because of inadequacies and excesses in the reasons for judgment does no service to the complainant or the appellant."

Dambrot said Justice Marvin Zuker gave no explanation for dismissing Ururyar's evidence, which included testimony that he had consensual sex with Mandi Gray, who waived the standard publication ban on the identity of sexual assault complainants.

Instead, the trial judge appeared to "reason backwards from literature about rape and how rapists behave to the identification of the accused as a rapist," Dambrot said.'

Like0 Dislike0


The judge hinted at it, but the whole basis of accused = guilty rests with an assumption thus far successfully fostered by feminists in the minds of all sorts of people that if given a chance, any given man will rape any given woman he can. Hence the "believe the victim" mantra. In the command itself rests the assumption that the accused is guilty. That is why the word 'victim' is used and not 'accuser'. It's also why feminists insist an accusation is sufficient. No evidence needed.

Only when this tacit assumption is brought into the open does the ludicrousness of it become plain. This is why feminists really don't want to state it aloud because if they do, they know what they look like. They look like that bc it's what they are: bigots. Hateful ones, too.

So it's up to MRAs to speak it. Call it out for what it is.

Like0 Dislike0