Brent Hawkes facing assault charges from 1970s

56 posts / 0 new
Last post
monty1

swallow wrote:

Thanks for linking to that really charming web site, Monty. I needed more Ezra Levant rants in my life. And a place to buy T shirts that say "Don't blame me, I voted Conservative." 

I linked to it because it's good for you and good for all of us to read what the dark side is saying. And I had another reason too. Hawkes is being accused of pedophilia but we are insturcted to know that a pedophile can't be a homosexual and so the charge has to be falsely levelled at him by the rabid right at Sun news, among others.

So here's the conclusion I have come to, presuming that Hawkes is proven guilty. When one becomes a pedophile that overrules and negates everything else. Allow me to elaborate. A life choice which we all accept can't be equated with a psycological disorder. Therefore the two can't be used in the same sentence. It would be like saying that a straight is a pedophile.

I can accept that. 

And maybe instead of attacking people for assuming he is a gay pedophile, some of the more astute people on this forum could have said just that. But they didn't because they would rather go off on a kneejerk rant of condemning anything or anybody that's new to their nasty little world.

Here's advance notice: I can out 'socialism' anybody on this board and I will continue to keep doing it. That includes upstaging our resident (lawyer?)

Having said that, I should also say that nearly all the people on this board have their heads in the right place. Some are just slow on the uptake. 

monty1

monty1 wrote:

swallow wrote:

Thanks for linking to that really charming web site, Monty. I needed more Ezra Levant rants in my life. And a place to buy T shirts that say "Don't blame me, I voted Conservative." 

I linked to it because it's good for you and good for all of us to read what the dark side is saying. And I had another reason too. Hawkes is being accused of pedophilia but we are insturcted to know that a pedophile can't be a homosexual and so the charge has to be falsely levelled at him by the rabid right at Sun news, among others.

So here's the conclusion I have come to, presuming that Hawkes is proven guilty. When one becomes a pedophile that overrules and negates everything else. Allow me to elaborate. A life choice which we all accept can't be equated with a psycological disorder. Therefore the two can't be used in the same sentence. It would be like saying that a straight is a pedophile.

I can accept that. 

And maybe instead of attacking people for assuming he is a gay pedophile, some of the more astute people on this forum could have said just that. But they didn't because they would rather go off on a kneejerk rant of condemning anything or anybody that's new to their nasty little world.

Here's advance notice: I can out 'socialism' anybody on this board and I will continue to keep doing it. That includes upstaging our resident (lawyer?)

Having said that, I should also say that nearly all the people on this board have their heads in the right place. Some are just slow on the uptake. 

Or on the other hand, we could just accept that some gays may be pedophiles, just as some straights are. It's all of yours personal choice!

kropotkin1951

I read that despicable piece before you posted it. The problem with it and it seems with your views is that pedophilia is wrongly equated with homosexuality. The are two very different things. At this point the age of the complainant at the time of the alleged incident is not known. If he was in fact a true minor and not an 17 to 20 year old then Hawkes is being charged for being a child abuser and possibly a pedophile.  Otherwise Hawkes is being charged for a sexual act that is no longer a crime and never should have been a crime. If Hawkes is really a pedophile then other victims will likely come forward because most pedophiles never stop at just one victim.

The piece below explains the problem of language quite well and gay pedophile is a misnomer that is in fact a homophobic slur.  I am hoping that Monty and others will read and reflect and learn something.

Quote:

A second problem is that the terminology used in this area is often confusing and can even be misleading. We can begin to address that problem by defining some basic terms.

Pedophilia and child molestation are used in different ways, even by professionals. Pedophilia usually refers to an adult psychological disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners; this preference may or may not be acted upon. The term hebephilia is sometimes used to describe adult sexual attractions to adolescents or children who have reached puberty.

Whereas pedophilia and hebephilia refer to psychological propensities, child molestation and child sexual abuse are used to describe actual sexual contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent. In this context, the latter individual is referred to as a child, even though he or she may be a teenager.

Although the terms are not always applied consistently, it is useful to distinguish between pedophiles/hebephiles and child molesters/abusers. Pedophilia and hebephilia are diagnostic labels that refer to psychological attractions. Not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually molest children; an adult can be attracted to children or adolescents without ever actually engaging in sexual contact with them.

Child molestation and child sexual abuse refer to actions, and don't imply a particular psychological makeup or motive on the part of the perpetrator. Not all incidents of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by pedophiles or hebephiles; in some cases, the perpetrator has other motives for his or her actions and does not manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to children.

Thus, not all child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles (or hebephiles) and not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually commit abuse. Consequently, it is important to use terminology carefully.

Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

As an expert panel of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences noted in a 1993 report: "The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual child molesters relies on the premise that male molesters of male victims are homosexual in orientation. Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however" (National Research Council, 1993, p. 143, citation omitted).

To avoid this confusion, it is preferable to refer to men's sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of male-male molestation. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men's abuse of girls as male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don't implicitly convey unwarranted assumptions about the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

Typologies of Offenders

The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.

http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Northern PoV wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Do you ever contemplate, provisionally, waiting for the details?

Quote:
I disagree.  I say the accused gets the presumption of innocence and the benefit of due process. Especially on any charge based on an ancient event (13 years is a long time, let alone 40)

Yikes!  Re-reading my post I can see where I was unclear.

I think there's something fishy about this accusation, not Hawkes.

Thanks

I wandered over here from the Ghomeshi clusterf**k cause it appears to be double standards time

A qualified defence for Hawkes is fine but discussing empirical evidence in the Ghomesi case is out of bounds. 

 

What empirical evidence do you have from the JG case? Besides the common strain that JG assaulted all 3 witnesses. There's been no denial. As much as the media has spun this story, I'm finding it hard to believe JG can be acquitted without even taking the stand.

 

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/02/09/victim-behaviour-examined

 

 

Unionist

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/sexual-assault-trial-pastor-to.... Brent Hawkes performed sex act on teenager in 1970s, witness testifies[/url]

 

Pages