Ewanchuk: landmark case - sexual predator?
Fri, 2006-10-27 09:03
#1
writer
Ewanchuk: landmark case - sexual predator?
Fri, 2006-10-27 09:03
#2
writer
[url=http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=96ea9408-c92b-4632-a029-4... many chances for 'predator'[/url]
Victim of 1969 rape by Steve Ewanchuk testifies at dangerous offender hearing
Not mentioned in this piece: Ewanchuk, a teenager who wouldn't give up and an idiot judge's pronouncements lead to [url=http://www.leaf.ca/legal-cases.html#no]No Meaning No[/url].
[url=http://www.fact.on.ca/newpaper/np990226.htm]Judges clash over landmark sex-assault ruling[/url]
No definitely means no: Supreme Court judge castigated for 'graceless slide into personal invective'
Side note: [url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/1999/02/27/judge990227.html]Alberta judge apologizes for part of his letter[/url]
[ 27 October 2006: Message edited by: writer ]
Mon, 2006-10-30 13:20
#3
Hey Writer,
I am on your side on this one. This repeat offender or should I write creep needs to be kept away from society. However, there are many in the babble group who do not think so as you can read in this [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=009191]ba... thread.[/url]
This guy has chosen his destiny. He should die in prison as one of the first victims said in the article,
quote:
"It's ridiculous. He doesn't deserve to be out," she said outside the courtroom. "He's a repeat, dangerous predator."
Ewanchuk's lawyer announced earlier this week that his client has colon and prostate cancer and will likely undergo surgery next month.
"Too bad," said the woman. "I don't really feel sorry for him at all."
"
Mon, 2006-10-30 13:31
#4
quote:
Originally posted by Sans Tache:
[b]Hey Writer,I am on your side on this one. This repeat offender or should I write creep needs to be kept away from society. However, there are many in the babble group who do not think so as you can read in this [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=009191]ba... thread.[/url]
[/b]
That is a misrepresentation of the thread. The argument was not that there should not be a dangerous offender category, but that the process to put someone in that category be a good one.
Mon, 2006-10-30 13:53
#5
writer
Sans Tache, please don't come into the feminism forum to grind an unrelated, reactionary, axe. I created this thread to explore sexism/misogyny then and now, as well as an important decision made by the Supreme Court.
No, I don't support stupid laws like the one discussed in the other thread. I say this as someone who has been assaulted as both a child and adult. I say this as a feminist. I say this as someone who believes we could do a better job as we strive for justice. I say this as a progressive who really, really objects to having my experiences, and those of others, exploited by opportunists who are eager to speak for me.
So no, you are not on my side, if this is how you choose to behave in this forum.
[ 30 October 2006: Message edited by: writer ]
Mon, 2006-10-30 14:39
#6
Maysie
writer, I just read the links. I appreciate you bringing this to the attention of babble. Holy fucking shit what a piece of crap that guy is. Supported by the legal system, including at least one fuckwad judge, he's clearly been attacking women for decades and getting away with it.
Paging otter, please read the third link, especially the "He Said She Said" portion.
Mon, 2006-10-30 14:47
#7
Well Writer, I just hope that the sexual predator that assaulted you is locked up for a very long time because I don’t want him preying on any of the women I know or any other women for that matter. As for the justice system and law writers, I hope they take more responsibility for their actions in the future.
If you have a then and now theme to your post, please add a little commentary. Do you feel that I cannot make a comment in the feminism forum?
I am sorry you don’t like that I care about women and their safety. [img]confused.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2006-10-30 14:50
#8
writer
BCG, don't know if you noticed, but that fuckwad judge was none other than [url=http://www.mta.ca/faculty/arts/canadian_studies/english/about/study_guid... McClung[/url]'s grandson.
Nellie had her own gaps in understanding when it came to equality and human rights.
Mon, 2006-10-30 14:50
#9
writer
Sans Tache, I will not engage in such baiting.
Mon, 2006-10-30 15:10
#10
Maysie
writer: yeah I saw that in one of your links. Nellie McLung was a feminist in her day, not without some problems and gaps of course. When I saw that factoid I was a bit more disappointed than I would have been otherwise, but why should that be? She's not responsible for Judge McLung's idiocy.
Mon, 2006-10-30 22:05
#11
Sans Tache, stay out of this thread from now on, please.
Thu, 2006-11-02 11:39
#12
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]writer: yeah I saw that in one of your links. Nellie McLung was a feminist in her day, not without some problems and gaps of course. When I saw that factoid I was a bit more disappointed than I would have been otherwise, but why should that be? She's not responsible for Judge McLung's idiocy.[/b]
Being the architect of the eugenics movement that led to marginalized women being sterilized and incarcerated counts as more than a gap in my opinion. She had very good views if you were a white Christian woman but heaven help you if you were poor and somehow determined to be not smart enough. As a person with a developmentally disabled child I can tell you this attitude was still prevalent in the Alberta medical community as late as the mid-80's and I am really tired of hearing about this woman. She never retreated from her abuse of handicapped people especially women and she didn't care at all about their howls.
Wed, 2007-01-17 09:45
#13
writer
[url=http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2007/01/17/pf-3394014.html]Canc... rapist still a danger: Crown[/url]
Wed, 2007-01-17 13:21
#14
quote:
Millsap said Ewanchuk's 37-year career of sex crimes doesn't show a pattern of repetitive behaviour, noting the nature of the assaults changed from decade to decade.
A 37 -year career of sex crimes is not repetitive?
He certainly has the lawyer he deserves.
Wed, 2007-01-17 14:11
#15
Every legally trained person I know was absolutlely slack-jawed at McClung's original ruling when it came out, and applauded Claire L'Heureux-Dube's castigation of him. That he then had the gall to respond was nothing more or less than amusing.
Ewanchuk needs to stay where he is.
Wed, 2007-01-17 23:55
#16
Maybe there's something I'm not getting, but it seems clear there's a proven pattern of behavior by this person.
I'm sure there are some borderline or ambiguous cases out there - This certainly isn't one of them.
Thu, 2007-02-22 11:05
#17
writer
quote:
[b]Edmonton sex predator gets 11 years in jail[/b]An Alberta man at the centre of the high-profile "no means no" case seven years ago will be going to prison for a maximum of 11 years for sexually assaulting an eight-year-old girl.
... Though the Crown had pushed for a 25-year term, Sanderman said a sentence that harsh was never an option, because its against legal sentencing principles.
... Sanderman settled on a total sentence of 16Ѕ years, but gave Ewanchuk 5Ѕ years for time served at the remand centre while in custody.
... Ewanchuk was convicted in November 2005 in the latest case involving the eight-year-old, but sentencing was delayed while the Crown argued he should be declared a dangerous offender and jailed indefinitely.
Sanderman didn't go that far. Ewanchuk's long-term offender status means he will be under strict supervision for 10 years after parole.
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2007/02/22/ewanchuk-sentence.htm...
Thu, 2007-02-22 21:15
#18
Polly B
I am still having trouble believing the short sentence. Eleven years??! For sexually assaulting an eight year old? What the fuck is that.
Fri, 2007-02-23 00:56
#19
quote:
Originally posted by Polly Brandybuck:
[b]I am still having trouble believing the short sentence. Eleven years??! For sexually assaulting an eight year old? What the fuck is that.[/b]
Umm, by "eight" you mean "seventeen", right?
Fri, 2007-02-23 03:44
#20
Why Gir, would 17 make it any better?
Fri, 2007-02-23 06:22
#21
Catchfire
Good point Stargazer, but the article writer cites says that the girl was eight. I don't know what Gir is talking about.
Fri, 2007-02-23 06:38
#22
writer
Gir, please apologize. Or stay out of the feminism forum until you catch half a clue.
Fri, 2007-02-23 06:53
#23
Ewanchuk has assaulted several girls over his lifetime, some of whom were indeed young. His prior convictions weren't admissible in the trial that made him famous - the one with the crack about "bonnets and crinolines".
I like to think that McClung might have viewed the case differently had he known the whole story (not that the partial story was insufficient to convict E.).
Well, I like to think that, anyway.
[ 23 February 2007: Message edited by: pookie ]