Feminism and Justice The Rabble.ca Way!

From our friends at www.rabble.ca/babble Feminists at Work:

Get ready for thrills, chills and excitement as Babble’s Chief Race Baiter… er anti-racism forum moderator, Big City Gal, Michelle the Dhimmi, and Remind the Unmedicated, mix it up over the Duke Rape Case.

The Girls are Not Happy At All that the boy’s are innocent, nor that Nifong is deserving of disbarrment and by God they’re gonna prove that the Justice System is corrupt!

Poor 500_Apples is getting it from all 3 here (his comments in Red):

Topic: Duke lacrosse prosecutor faces disbarment

bigcitygal moderator (anti-racism forum) Babbler # 8938
posted 12 June 2007 01:44 PM

quote: 500_Apples: You can try and put on a deeper context if you wish, or you can look at the individuals involved, 3 innocent boys who have faced media and public harassment, one women who seems to not really know what happened…

500, I’m usually very patient with you when you yammer on about stuff that you have no idea about. Not this time cupcake.

Fuck off.

What do you know about rape and violence against women? Never mind the history of racist sexual assault in the South? Sweet fuck all from all accounts.

We will disagree about what “really” happened, but those young men were not innocent by any account. (Rape can happen, by the way, without vaginal penetration and without a penis doing the penetrating. Think about it.)

quote 500: and a zealot district attorney, a zealot media, and 88 zealot professors.

Yeah, it was all a conspiracy against those poor sweet white guys who are victims, victims I tell you.

What the fuck ever.

Ya know some women really do earn the term Bitch………

  • Good grief… what a bunch of… well.. too tired to go on.

  • MUD

    I hate it that there is a part of society that will stoop so low as to take off their clothes and dance for money. I hate it that people have to pay good money to watch and I really hate it when a prosecutor stoops to prosecute people without enough evidence. That said, I’m duked out!


  • Lost idiot dancer, lost idiot boys, lost idiot prosecutor, really freaked out lost femminist lesbian idots ranting about it.

  • I hate it that there is a part of society that will stoop so low as to take off their clothes and dance for money

    Me too. Especially since I have to do it for free.

  • Pongo

    This makes me think of a case that involved Queen’s University, my alma mater, back in 1991. What follows is excerpts from the text of an article that appeared in the Toronto Star: December 14, 1991, Saturday, SATURDAY SECOND EDITION.

    A man was chased from a courthouse by a mob of women yesterday after he was acquitted of sexual assault charges.

    The women houted “Guilty” and pounded on 23-year-old Robert VanOostrom’s car after he was cleared of charges he sexually assaulted three women in one of Canada’s first campus date-rape trials.

    VanOostrom, a former Queen’s University chemical engineering student, was charged last fall with four counts of sexual assault – two involving one woman – between 1987 and 1989. He testified they had consensual sex.

    “There is a reasonable doubt on the matter of consent,” Justice Alan Campbell said.

    VanOostrom, who graduated from Queen’s last spring and took a job outside Kingston to escape the glare of notoriety, sat stone-faced as the judge announced his verdict in Ontario Court, general division.

    The slightly built, fair-haired man rose, shook hands with his lawyer and exploded in tears.

    The verdict comes amid an on-campus controversy over a student magazine called Surface, published last week, that urged women to use guns against attackers. “You can’t rape a .38,” read one caption.

    Off the Queen’s campus, the courthouse steps were spray-painted Wednesday with feminist slogans: Women Will Judge; The System on Trial.

    During the trial, the VanOostrom family’s quiet residential Kingston neighborhood also was vandalized with graffiti: “Stop Rape, Stop Rob.”

    VanOostrom, the eldest of three brothers, was arrested in October, 1990, and spent three weeks in jail before being released on $100,000 bail.

    The prosecution painted him as “a heat-seeking missile on a mission.”

    Crown attorney Norman Douglas said one woman was “a virgin who didn’t believe in pre-marital sex.”

    Another woman, it was alleged, had no birth control, was menstruating and was left shaking and lying on garbage bag spread on the bed.

    The third woman, Douglas said, only knew VanOostrom casually and had just made up with her boyfriend.

    “This evidence discloses a man who won’t take no for an answer,” Douglas said.

    But the defence contended the three accusers recast their relationships with VanOostrom to suit a new awareness of date-rape.

    Greenspan criticized protesters who dogged VanOostrom and directed their anger at him after the verdict.

    “It should not have been politicized,” Greenspan said. “The evidence didn’t support a conviction.”

    In addition, the prosecutor in this case, Norman Douglas, allegedly criticized the judge, Alan Campbell, who rendered the not guilty verdict. For this, “… four Kingston lawyers wrote to the provincial attorney-general’s office requesting disciplinary action against Douglas. They claim that in the month since the trial Douglas has publicly and improperly criticized the judge and, as a result, “brought the administration of justice into disrepute.” One of the group suggested Douglas was a “sore loser.” (Toronto Star: January 6, 1992, Monday, FINAL EDITION). The verdict was appealed by the prosecutor, but was upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal. This leaves one wondering just who the victim was in this case.

  • Yes Pongo mixing the justice system with political agendas results in a toxic spill and no one “wins” in the end. Look at what happened to the Saskatchewan “Nazi” whose home was raided by the RCMP this week. Yup his views are evil. But hate speech laws are to my mind an attempt to solve a political or social issue by perverting the justice system.

  • BC:

    Good one as usual. As for Babble, I am never surprised by the “pearls of wisdom” that emanate from that cesspool. Am I surprised? I personally expect to find “rice in the rice crispies!” Or nuts in the nut bowls as the case may be.

  • WC I find it alternately fascinating and appalling that this group, which is forever trying to convince the rest of us of their moral superiority, can have such a disturbed sense of “justice”.

  • If you see the way their conversation continues to progress, they are now saying that “statistically, women do not make false accusations”. Bullshit, they most certainly do. Take a look at any intense divorce/custody battle, and you’ll see that women are most certainly capable of lying about anything – just as men are.

    But what really irks me about these holier-than-thou’s over at Babble is that they say that women never lie about this sort of thing, so the men MUST be guilty. So why are so many of them against capital punishment for the sole reason of burden of proof and a few cases of mistaken conviction? What if it was a woman who put those people on death row? Does the burden of proof then change, and it’s okay to fry the guy?

    It’s a double standard they can’t/won’t/don’t see, and it’s pathetic.


  • WC & RG:
    At Babble, ” justice” just like “truth” and “progressive” is only for the politically correct pre-sanctioned and ok’ed by the “party faithful.”
    Babble is a fine example of how the left has lost its moral compass.

  • hello –

    In all fairness, though, many of those who are posting are speaking up in defence of the accused “boys” and condemning this Nifong rogue…

    this rabble.ca is a fever-swamp, let their be no doubt, but it seems to me that “big city girl” and “NR” or whomever or pretty defensive…


  • I agree Roundhead, many have which is unusual for rabble.

  • yes indeed –

    let THERE be no doubt it’s unusual (I was writing like the rabbleheads for a sec there).


  • Pongo

    Just read an AP report that Nifong was disbarred for “intentional prosecutorial misconduct” and may be held in criminal contempt for lying to the court. It seems “the disciplinary committee ruled Saturday that Nifong lied when he told Smith and another judge on several occasions last summer that he knew of no information helpful to the defense that he hadn’t turned over.” In addition, the families of the falsely accused are likely to file suit against Nifong.

    I wonder what the rabble/babble crowd will make of this.

  • Well judging by the weekends activities they have gone collectively nuts. One Babbler – Writer went banana’s and resurrected every possible thread related to rape she could find in some kind of protest. One or 2 guys have been “suspended” for daring to speak up against the lunacy of Writer, BCG, Remind et al.

  • Pongo

    Rabble/babble’s moderators finished in the top of their class at the Judy Rebick School of Charm, Illogic and Pedantic Psychobabble.

  • Pongo

    Here is the full text of an article from the Globe and Mail dated June 21, 1990:

    A convicted rapist was sentenced yesterday to one day of probation by a District Court judge who said he did not believe the man committed thecrime.

    Judge Pierre Mercier said his conscience would not allow him to sendthe man to jail and that he is more certain than ever that Bernard Albert, 34, of Gatineau, Que., did not rape his former girl friend in May, 1988.

    An eight-man, four-woman jury found Mr. Albert guilty of one count of sexual assault in March. Judge Mercier postponed sentencing until yesterday, saying he had grave concerns about the jury’s verdict.

    Judge Mercier said he thought Mr. Albert was innocent after the Crown’s case was complete. Following a pre-sentence report and a psychiatric report that depicted Mr. Albert as a non-violent man who finds sexual
    satisfaction in consensual relationships, Judge Mercier said he is even more convinced.

    Judge Mercier, who was asked by assistant Crown attorney Louise Dupont to impose a five-year term, gave Mr. Albert a suspended sentence and one day of probation.

    He said he expected the Crown would appeal the sentence and Ms Dupont confirmed that she would.

    By sending Mr. Albert to jail, said Judge Mercier: “I would . . . be perpetuating an injustice which I cannot in good conscience do.”

    A representative of the home for unwed mothers where the victim was
    staying when the sexual assault occurred was surprised.

    Nancy MacNider said: “As in so many cases of rape, it was the victim who ended up on trial, not the accused.”

    Judie McSkimmings, of Ottawa’s Rape Crisis Centre, confirmed that the centre has already written the Canadian Judicial Council about Judge Mercier’s earlier comments, when he said he disagreed with the jury’s verdict.

    The judge also said he found the woman’s testimony unbelievable.

    During his trial, the woman testified she was walking home from a meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous on May 26, 1988, when she saw her former boy friend’s car coming. She said she had stopped seeing him because he
    had begun beating her when she refused to have sex.

    The man and a friend chased her through a field, caught her, and one held her as the other man raped her. She said she escaped, but they caught her and pushed her into the back seat of the car.

    She found a knife, she said, and stabbed the man’s friend in the leg.

    No traces of blood were found in the car. The other man was never
    arrested or identified.

    Judge Mercier said he did not believe the woman partly because of her refusal to identify the man, her unwillingness to talk to police and her refusal to be medically examined.

    I remember this case. There was a terrible hue and cry from the ranks of the women’s libbers, i.e., those who make up the rabble/babble crowd these days, many of whom took to the streets of Ottawa in protest. They carried placards with messages asserting that “Men lie, women don’t.” They claimed the accuser’s unwillingness to identify the man she allegedly stabbed in the leg and to undergo a medical examination was due to the trauma she endured in the assault.

    The fact that no knife was found, nor any traces of blood in the car, nor any other evidence to corroborate this woman’s accusations did not stop a jury from convicting the accused. The judge in this case made the right decision in handing down a suspended sentence and probation. It is not sufficient to convict someone of sexual assault soley on the basis of an accusation.

  • Good news about Nifong, no matter!

    let the rabble.ca-heads babble on as much as they want… Next time, I bet, a district attorney wants to destroy little people on the basis of a very dubious rape accusation, he or she will probably think, “Nifong…”

    A modest proposal: How about turning “Nifong” into a verb (like “Fisk”)? – ie. “He wanted to launch a political prosecution against people whom he assumed could not defend themselves, but he didn’t, as he was worried about being Nifonged…”

    On second thought, maybe not…


  • That is an absolutely horrifying story Pongo. In browsing the recent Babble reactions factual guilt or innocence has nothing to do with Justice. There are bizarre assertions being made by Michelle et al that men simply “do not get it” (shocker – even “progressive men” ;)) and that even pointing out that the duke boys were innocent constitutes male dominance. It is bizarro land over there now

  • Nifonged sounds like a good one Roundhead.