Former Nova Scotia police chief found guilty of sexual exploitation
Former Bridgewater police chief John Collyer has been found guilty of sexual exploitation involving a 17-year-old girl.
Collyer was found guilty on October 24 by Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice Mona Lynch. She also convicted Collyer of sexual assault, issuing a conditional stay as there is a rule against multiple convictions for a single criminal act.
Former beleaguered, Nova Scotia Premier, Gerald Regan passed away this week at the age of 71. Regan could have spent his final years in prison after multiple historic allegations of sexual abuse were prosecuted in the mid 1990s, which many thought should have resulted in convictions.
His highly publicized trial resulted in acquittal but many of the charges against him were stayed and never reached court. As a result, his acquittals have little effect on the public perception that he was guilty and got away with it because his lawyer was the legendary, also now deceased, Eddie Greenspan.
One of the problems with allegations of a sexual nature is that any acquittal is deemed a failure of the “justice system” and the accused can never shake the suspicion that they are guilty. Certainly, the volume of accusations against Mr. Regan were substantial.
Unfortunately, for both the accused and the complainants, the investigation was tainted by abuse of process by one of the prosecutors so the complainants’ evidence in many of the allegations were deemed unsound.
Having charges thrown out of court without trial did nothing to help Regan clear his name and the improper conduct prevented many complainants from having their day in court. This speaks to the importance of proper investigations, not only to ensure the constitutional rights of an accused but to spare complainants from further distress.
That said, it hardly seems fair to put a dead man back on trial in the court of public opinion after he survived the court process without any finding of guilt. Whatever Mr. Regan did or did not do, the proper time for airing the continued public opinion should not be during the emotionally raw moments while his innocent family members are grieving the loss of a loved one.
Perhaps Gerald Regan was someone only his wife and children could love. Perhaps. But they should be allowed to grieve without seeing him retried post-mortem with no possibility of defending himself.
Four people are in custody after they were charged by the police after allegedly kidnapping a teenager in downtown Toronto, sexually assaulting her, and then forcing her to work as a sex slave, according to CP24.
The teenage victim was 17 at the time of her kidnapping. They kidnapped the girl by offering her free drugs and alcohol, after which they transported her to Hamilton where she was sexually assaulted.
After this incident, she was introduced to a woman who publicly advertised her prostitution on numerous, dodgy websites. The girl was forced to have sex with various people and was unable to retain any of the money she made.
The entire ordeal lasted a little longer than four days, during which she was deprived of sleep, assaulted, and force-fed drugs. Fortunately, the teenager was able to escape, and she contacted the police soon after.
The four suspects, 35-year-old Charlton Sealy, 36-year-old Shabaka Reid, and 27-year-old Deanna Passera, and 37-year-old Troy Thornhillare facing numerous charges: sexual assault, trafficking in persons under 18 and making child pornography.
#MeToo had rules. At least we thought so. Culturally, societally, politically, we all tried to learn them, to internalize them, to understand just what types of incidents could get a person ejected from their life, tossed out of their social group, ostracized from friends, unemployable, unpersoned. The rules seemed almost clear—until suddenly those who seem to be in charge of them don’t even follow their own logic anymore.
Katie Hill had an affair with a junior staffer, another woman, who feels that she was victimized. By the rules of #MeToo, that would dictate that Hill loses it all, right? Only somehow, it’s being spun the other way, by the same publications that brought us diatribes against Al Franken. Hill, it turns out, can also claim victim status at the hands of her ex, who was the one who released the information about the affair. In her resignation speech, Hill echoed Franken’s sentiments, that it seems absurd that she should be resigning when a guy like Trump is in the White House.
To recap: the wronged party is not the spouse, not the junior staffer, but the powerful person at the center of it. While it is true that Hill was the victim of revenge porn, and that is not acceptable, the same principle did not apply to Anthony Weiner or Joe Barton. It does not immunize her from her own wrongdoing.
“The squad” of freshmen congresswomen supported her during her recent tribulation. Nancy Pelosi, and other senior members of Congress, apparently wished that “Hill had been more careful in transmitting her private photos.”
Hill was given far more leeway in terms of the vocal and press lashing that other members of Congress who have found themselves exposed for sexual misconduct have faced. It turns out that she is being supported, not harassed and harangued. A staffer for Rep Sylvia Garcia (D-TX 29th), said, “A lot of the show of support was done intimately and privately with Hill, out of respect for her. … People didn’t want to be adding to the noise. We didn’t want to make press out of the pain and suffering she’s been through. She had private images published without her consent that have caused incredible pain.” Weiner did too, but no one had any sympathy for him at all.
The thing is, and yeah, we hate to be those people, but we can so easily imagine the reverse scenario. Here it is: a dashing young first-term congressman has an affair with a staffer years younger. He takes drugs, advertises his sexual availability on dating apps, and drags his wife into a threesome with the junior staffer. When the marriage breaks up—perhaps as a result of this kind of rampant infidelity, after all, they weren’t openly poly or ethically non-monogamous—the wife releases the dirt on the congressman to the world. She wants people to know just what kind of guy this is, how he is a liar and a cheater, a womanizer, and abuser, unfit to be in Congress. What then? Why she’s a hero, of course, and he’s a villainous letch.
Haven’t we heard this story before? Why is it so different now? Is Hill really a victim of her own sexual dalliances? Are we to believe that a woman who is strong enough to run and win a congressional campaign is so easy to bully? Perhaps we’re looking at it all wrong, readers, perhaps we don’t truly understand the nature of abuse or something, but what we do understand, what is perfectly clear, is that we’re supposed to believe all women, even when she is the abuser. We’re supposed to imagine that there is some substantive difference in how the rules are to be applied to men and women in the same deleterious circumstances.
Now, we’re the first to admit that the rules are stupid. That this game of pointing fingers and shaming people is nonsensical and barbaric is not something we doubt. But if there are going to be rules that we are all expected to play by, ought they not be, well, adhered to?
If #MeToo is meant to be the new standard that we all must bow down to, and it’s a given that men and women are equal, then we must apply the rules fairly, and everyone who has a complicated sexual relationship that leads to grievances must be punished. Or, maybe, just maybe, we could do away with this nonsense and start to see the human beings for what they are: flawed, complicated, and capable of cruelty and kindness.
#MeToo may have been an effective corrective in some situations, but it should never have risen to the level of an era. As it stands now, we are living through a “cultural context where common vengeance writes the law,” and the hypocrisy is destroying us. If the rules don’t apply the same way for everyone, perhaps the rules are the problem.
Sometimes you get a whole lot more than you wanted.
According to two Nova Scotian parents from Coldbrook, their child received a candy that looked like cannabis-based edibles.
In response, Police are investigating the area, including running tests on the product and searching for other kids who may have received edibles while trick-or-treating.
According to the Mounties, the parents found a Halloween-themed package containing several jujube-style candies.
“We’re having the item analyzed to make sure what is actually in it,” said Cpl. Jennifer Clarke, an RCMP spokeswoman, based in Halifax.
According to the parent, the central location of where the candy came from will be hard to determine, as the kids visited homes in Cambridge, Kentville and Coldbrook.
While the idea of edibles in Halloween candy is exceptionally worrying, after further investigation, Police have said that no other child received edible cannabis while trick-or-treating.
The presence of consumable marijuana products in Halloween candy comes at a precarious time as edible items made with THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in Marijuana, became legal for adults nationwide only this October.
While the product has become legal, due to the regulatory process, no merchandise is expected to hit the Canadian legal market until December at the earliest.