HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The last of Pat Hickey?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-14-2011, 01:04 PM
  #226
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
Here is another real world example without the sexual abuse angle. This is real world because I have knowledge that this actually has happened and is probably happening :

1) A con man defrauds person A out of most of his life savings in an investment scam.
2) Person A is embarassed, is reluctant to admit he was ripped off, and so doesn't call the police
3) The con man continues to defraud more and more individuals over a period of months and years.
4) Other people realize they too have been swindled. Person B calls the police and an investigation begins.
5) A number of people come forward after publicity of the con man's scheme.
6) Person A learns that others have been victims of the scheme and thinking the police may make an arrest or recover money he too calls the police and reports being swindled years earlier.
7) Person A repeatedly asks for update on the case and publicly criticizes the police for not recovering his losses.


So, no sexual assault. Just money involved here.

This person is ripped off, won't report it to authorities and help prevent others from becoming victims, but wants to be first in line if there is a recovery.

Hypocrit or no?
Crap analogy. You're now insinuating that the only reason Fleury came forward was to try to get some money out of it. Try again.

CGG is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 01:07 PM
  #227
Agnostic
11 Stanley Cups
 
Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
Crap analogy. You're now insinuating that the only reason Fleury came forward was to try to get some money out of it. Try again.
I didn't call it an analogy or insinuate anything, I just asked if the person was a hypocrit?

Agnostic is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 01:07 PM
  #228
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commandant View Post
Why should he have kept his mouth shut.

Fleury today is trying to use his celebrity to shine light on the issue that the law is far to lenient on these monsters.

What is wrong with shining such a light?

If Fleury can sway public opinion, the government will pass laws making these sentences harsher, the pardons harder to get.

No one should question his motives here. Its preposterous.

Fleury kept silent for far too long due to the emotional torment that his abuser put him through. Now that he's ready, there is no more keeping silent.

He should do all he can to ensure James, and future people like him never see the light of day.

IMO, Child molestation is the worst crime someone can possibly commit, even worse than murder. James is a monster, not a human being.

I believe that child molesters and pedophiles should be castrated and forever have to have a sign stating who they are in front of their house.

How about you?

SouthernHab is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 01:08 PM
  #229
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
Got it. It does seem a shame that a bill that attempts to address so many serious issues is criticized almost entirely for how heavy handed it deals with pot possession and distribution. Your initial post did seem politically charged and I always find this to be the case on crime-and-consequence issues.

I do have some experience with these issues and personally know ex-officers in the sex crimes and exploitation unit here in T.O. (including the leads on the Holly Jones case) and they will tell you that people don't wake up one morning as a pedo. It's a gradual escalating boldness that develops to support the urges of the condition. It's good that the government is committed to punishing these people at the earlier stages (when they show a child pornography or expose themselves, etc. ) as a way of helping these individuals and protecting our children.
I know some lawyers in Montreal not going to say who or which firm obviously, but they think that pot should be made legal. Apparently most judges throw out pot related cases because it's a waste of the courts time. They have real criminals to prosecute not people who got caught with an ounce of pot or had 5-6 plants. Now they won't get discretion so normal pot smoking folk could get jail time for smoking something that should arguably be legal.

Now that they won't be able to use discretion there are going to be a ton of people in jail for really stupid reasons. They should just legalize it and be done with it. I don't get how in a society that allows alcohol to be legal and has so many problems with alcohol... they can't just suck it up and make pot legal. Pot isn't going away, whether or not they change the laws. There's a reason for it's popularity, it's cheap, easy to grow, isn't extremely bad for you like other drugs (cocaine, heroin, alcohol, etc) and isn't as addictive either. I'm not here to say pot isn't bad for you, of course it is. I just find it hypocritical of the government and even most people in society who want it to remain illegal... or make laws where pot heads got to jail over possession etc.

You know when most judges/lawyers on either side of the spectrum think it's stupid, a waste of the courts time and tax payers dollars.... that it's something that should be changed. They should be relaxing those laws while sending pedos away for 20+.

The thing about smoking or selling pot is that people who do it can and will change. People who touch little kids are just sick, they won't change because they have a mental disorder of some kind. They aren't normal and as such shouldn't be treated like the rest of the members of society. They should be put in prison or locked away in wards.

That having been said I'm not saying drug addicts are "normal" either but what is normal? Face it, if people aren't smoking pot, doing hard drugs or whatever, most of the other people even many self-righteous drink alcohol whether it's to get drunk, tipsy or just to have a glass of wine. What difference does it make if your family/friend drinks a glass of scotch at the end of the day or smokes a pinner? I know plenty of functioning pot heads and alcoholics, if you're a pedophile I wouldn't call that functioning.

Plenty of alcoholics, drinkers, pot smokers, whatever they are... pay taxes, have jobs, support their families whatever. I'm not saying plenty of pedos don't do the same but these people are harming kids. Addicts are harming themselves. I just don't see why you would throw somebody in jail for harming themselves. These people need help, they need to be sent to a treatment center not prison/jail.

neofury* is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 01:09 PM
  #230
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
I didn't call it an analogy or insinuate anything, I just asked if the person was a hypocrit?
Give it up Agnostic. You made a great point and just like with my posts, it is being taken completely out of context and a strawman is quickly inserted.

SouthernHab is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 01:13 PM
  #231
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
I believe that child molesters and pedophiles should be castrated and forever have to have a sign stating who they are in front of their house.

How about you?
If they can prove without ANY doubt that it happened, yeah I do.

These people are sick individuals and shouldn't be allowed back into normal society 3-4 years later. They aren't going to change, they're touching little kids because they're ****ed in the brain.

neofury* is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 01:19 PM
  #232
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
Crap analogy. You're now insinuating that the only reason Fleury came forward was to try to get some money out of it. Try again.
He didn't insinuate that in the slightest. He wasn't very clear but he was clear enough.

He said in this situation it's an issue with fraud/money, not sexual assault. And the analogy was actually dead on fyi. Not to say that Fleury is trying to recoup any losses but rather that he now comes out and says something. Well **** had you spoken up maybe 30 other kids wouldn't have been victimized in the first place. He is being hypocritical, the mere fact that people try to dispute that is laughable.

Just because you agree with Fleury (I agree with him too) doesn't make it not hypocritical. People need to stop thinking with their heart and use logic. He's being a total hypocrite and to the people who can't see that... you're lost in life. It's painfully obvious and even after this analogy some folks still don't understand

It doesn't take a 144 IQ to understand the simple concept that Fleury is being a hypocrite.

He whines about how the guy got 3.5 years and that the justice system didn't do enough. You're speaking out NOW after the fact because another player already did. You're part of the problem for not reporting it in the first place. The guy could've been locked up the first time and had a record/history, he would've been watched more closely and been put in less of a position to do it again even after coming out. Instead Fleury did nothing.

I'm not trying to say it's easy to be the victim of something like this or that coming out about it is easy. Far from it. But people need to stop thinking with their heart and start thinking with their brains for a second.

The guy is a hypocrite, the guy didn't come out and tell anyone and now other kids have likely been victimized as a result of him not speaking up. Do I blame him? No I blame the pedophile. I don't blame Fleury because it's traumatic but to say he isn't a hypocrite? LOL

neofury* is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 01:22 PM
  #233
Schooner Guy
Registered User
 
Schooner Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
Crap analogy. You're now insinuating that the only reason Fleury came forward was to try to get some money out of it. Try again.
Crap analogy alright. The emotional baggage involved in being sexually abused as a child versus being defrauded of some cash isn't comparable in any manner whatsoever.

Hickey's article and his HF apologists fail to account for the fact that Fleury shouldn't be judged or labelled a hypocrite for something he did/didn't do during a period in his life when he wasn't thinking rationally (for obvious reasons).

Schooner Guy is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 01:29 PM
  #234
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schooner Guy View Post
Crap analogy alright. The emotional baggage involved in being sexually abused as a child versus being defrauded of some cash isn't comparable in any manner whatsoever.

Hickey's article and his HF apologists fail to account for the fact that Fleury shouldn't be judged or labelled a hypocrite for something he did/didn't do during a period in his life when he wasn't thinking rationally (for obvious reasons).
How about my analogy with the neighbor. Here, I will refresh your memory.


Your neighbor Bob was molested as a kid and runs a day care center. Your other neighbor's (Fred--and he is your best friend) daughter was molested by Bob. Fred does not file charges because he sympathizes with Bob's situation. And after being asked by Bob to become a business partner, Fred becomes co-owner of the daycare. Fred then asks you to enroll your daughter in the day care and you do.

Years later the truth comes out about both Bob and Fred and the number of girls that Bob molested.

What do you say when the reporter covering the story has it published in the newspaper? That the reporter should be fired? Or is there an issue with Bob and Fred?


I HONESTLY want you to comment on this with you being the neighbor of Bob and Fred.

SouthernHab is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 02:38 PM
  #235
Agnostic
11 Stanley Cups
 
Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schooner Guy View Post
Crap analogy alright. The emotional baggage involved in being sexually abused as a child versus being defrauded of some cash isn't comparable in any manner whatsoever.

Hickey's article and his HF apologists fail to account for the fact that Fleury shouldn't be judged or labelled a hypocrite for something he did/didn't do during a period in his life when he wasn't thinking rationally (for obvious reasons).
Schooner, you're a reasonable guy. One of the couples in the fraud story were 71 years old, and lost their home, cottage, and retirement savings. No means left on which to live, and no book to write. Get inside their mind like you seem to be in Fleury's .

Seems Fleury only began thinking rationally after the ink was dry on his tell-all book and many people such as yourself are not ok with Hickey shedding light on that.


Last edited by Agnostic: 12-14-2011 at 02:51 PM.
Agnostic is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 03:11 PM
  #236
No Team Needed
Registered User
 
No Team Needed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 3,464
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
Seems Fleury only began thinking rationally after the ink was dry on his tell-all book and many people such as yourself are not ok with Hickey shedding light on that.
You mean after he received treatment for being sexually assaulted and having a drug problem?

Of course he wrote a book after his head had cleared up. Why would he write a book about his problems when he's still addicted to alcohol and drugs and trying to hide his terrible experiences?

You're bashing a victim, just like Hickey.

No Team Needed is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 04:26 PM
  #237
tomcat13
Registered User
 
tomcat13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Mt Clemens, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 190
vCash: 500
Hickey makes me sick. He admitted he himself knew of pedophile sick effing catholic priests, and admitted priests "made advances" at him, yet he said nothing? What about all the kids that fell victim to these priests as a result of his silence? And then he calls out Theo? What a sick *******...Hickey is repulsive. What a disgusting human. He should resign. Way to blame the victims Hickey.

tomcat13 is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 05:24 PM
  #238
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
I was done with this thread but you made this post and I have subsequently been called "repugnant" so I will clarify my point about Fleury speaking up now.
Well, I didn't call you repugnant and I don't feel that you are, so let's get that out of the way man. I'm just trying to get you to understand that there are other factors here that you aren't being mindful enough of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
About keeping silent now being the best for Fleury.

Fleury had an opportunity to speak out when Kennedy did. However, for whatever reason.....and I am not Fleury so I wont speculate........, he did not. He stayed silent and even co-owned a team that allowed the predator, James, to continue molesting young players.
For whatever reason...

Dude, that is the whole point of this debate. You pay no mind to this. The reason is obvious... he was abused and victimized. It's common for victims of abuse to let it go on for years. You aren't giving enough heed to this and neither did Hickey.

THAT's why his article being attacked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Fleury speaking out then would have served a purpose. It would have stopped James from abusing young hockey players.
Right... we all get this point. Just like the swimmer could've helped out his friend in the ocean it could've helped. But... the guy was scared. He was too scared to do anything about it.

Hickey seems to think it's okay to beat him up over this but he doesn't understand the impact of the abuse that Fleury suffered. It's this insensitivty that's at question here. Just like you don't call a shark victim a coward for swimming away for his life, you don't go after the victim of an abuser for not coming forward sooner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Fast forward to now. James is sentenced to prison and the courts allow him to remain free before his prison term begins. Fleury decides to speak out now.
And good on him for doing so!

I'm sure even now it's difficult for him to even think about let alone talk about publicly. Instead of showing compassion and encouraging him to speak out on this, Hickey offerst up scorn?

What the hell is wrong with that guy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
For what purpose did Fleury speak out now? To save kids? The real opportunity to save kids from a predator by speaking out was YEARS ago, not now. Or was it self serving for Fleury to speak out now?
Do you think he enjoyed watching James walk around free all those years? Do you think he was happy about not having the courage to speak out knowing what he did?

As for him coming out now... It's taken him years to come to be able to do this and judging by his alcholism, he may never fully come to terms with it.

To call this self serving is... shortsighted to say the least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Fleury blamed the Canadian politicians for enabling James to abuse kids by not sending him to jail now instead of two months later. Ironic that Fleury was enabling James to abuse kids for years by not speaking out.

Hickey is right to point out that Fleury is a hypocrite.
You don't see the difference between the two?

Really?

You don't see the difference between a kid who's too scared to talk about the abuse that he suffered at the hands of a monster vs. a the laws that allowed this guy to stay free for two months when we have the full power of the law on our side?

Are you freaking serious here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
And thus, since Fleury did not speak out then when he could have made a difference in saving kids, he should have kept his mouth shut now since it served no purpose other than to bring publicity to his book.
I'm just... shocked that you actually wrote this.

My God. You actually think that this is for publicity's sake? Holy crap man. Maybe I gave you too much credit. I'm responding to your post as I go here and I've got to tell you, you are treading on the... I don't even want to say it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
As far as your analogy, it is irrelevant.
You dismissing it as irrelevant doesn't make it so. Hickey is blaming the victim. He's blaming a... ra.pe victim! The shark victim analogy is a pretty good one actually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Here is a better analogy.

Your neighbor Bob was molested as a kid and runs a day care center. Your other neighbor's (Fred--and he is your best friend) daughter was molested by Bob. Fred does not file charges because he sympathizes with Bob's situation. And after being asked by Bob to become a business partner, Fred becomes co-owner of the daycare. Fred then asks you to enroll your daughter in the day care and you do.
So let me get this straight here...

Fred's daughter is molested by Bob but doesn't press charges because he sympathizes with the abuse that Bob's went through? The rest of your analogy (the part where his inaction leads to other abuse) is MISSING THE POINT.

This clearly demonstrates that you don't have any understanding of what is going on here. You are completely missing the point. Fleury didn't sympathize with James. He didn't care for James. He didn't keep silent for James out of some kind of friendship or compassion... He hated James with every fibre of his being. There's no doubt that he wanted to see him locked up.

He kept silent because James WAS HIS ABUSER.

Let me repeat this for you because it goes to the crux of the whole issue. James was Fleury's abuser. Hickey glosses over this and so do you. You don't want to talk about WHY Fleury was silent because it makes it easier to just label him a hypocrite.

Again, victims of abuse stay silent because their abusers pray on their vulnerabilities. Fleury was SCARED. He was Embarrased, he was ashamed, he was physically and emotionally rap.ed.... and Hickey overlooks all of his suffering and just labels him a hypocrite?

I'm sorry but Hickey should know better than this. Hell, the editors at the Gazette should know better than this. If anyone should be ashamed of anything, it's them.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 12-14-2011 at 05:32 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is online now  
Old
12-14-2011, 05:28 PM
  #239
Aeneas
Registered User
 
Aeneas's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 440
vCash: 500
It is a disgusting crime what they do, and even worse when they have the knowledge that what they are doing is wrong, and trust me they do, because there are many people who have this and go seek help and get treated.

Aeneas is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 06:37 PM
  #240
tomcat13
Registered User
 
tomcat13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Mt Clemens, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
I believe that child molesters and pedophiles should be castrated and forever have to have a sign stating who they are in front of their house.

How about you?
They should be castrated, and have their penis mutilated, then have "molester" burned into their forehead with a branding iron, then they should be killed.

tomcat13 is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 06:39 PM
  #241
Schooner Guy
Registered User
 
Schooner Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
How about my analogy with the neighbor. Here, I will refresh your memory.


Your neighbor Bob was molested as a kid and runs a day care center. Your other neighbor's (Fred--and he is your best friend) daughter was molested by Bob. Fred does not file charges because he sympathizes with Bob's situation. And after being asked by Bob to become a business partner, Fred becomes co-owner of the daycare. Fred then asks you to enroll your daughter in the day care and you do.

Years later the truth comes out about both Bob and Fred and the number of girls that Bob molested.

What do you say when the reporter covering the story has it published in the newspaper? That the reporter should be fired? Or is there an issue with Bob and Fred?


I HONESTLY want you to comment on this with you being the neighbor of Bob and Fred.
As a father, I would probably kill both of them as soon as I found out. However, I would be in an extremely irrational and emotional state. The rational thing to do would be for me to call the police and let the justice system throw the book at them but I would have let my emotions get the better of me.

Fleury was in an irrational and emotional state....he was higher than a kite on heavy drugs and considered suicide almost every day. He didn't want anyone to know about his issues because he feared what they would think of him or what it might do to his career. He should not be judged or called a hypocrite for decisions he made/didn't make during this period of extreme darkness that I hope my kids never have to go through.

Also, in your analogy, neither Bob nor Fred were victims of abuse themselves. And Fleury never showed compassion for James. Fleury was simply a lost soul and one scared victim.


Last edited by Schooner Guy: 12-14-2011 at 06:51 PM.
Schooner Guy is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 06:43 PM
  #242
Schooner Guy
Registered User
 
Schooner Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
Schooner, you're a reasonable guy. One of the couples in the fraud story were 71 years old, and lost their home, cottage, and retirement savings. No means left on which to live, and no book to write. Get inside their mind like you seem to be in Fleury's .

Seems Fleury only began thinking rationally after the ink was dry on his tell-all book and many people such as yourself are not ok with Hickey shedding light on that.
You have no idea when he started thinking rationally. He was a complete train wreck long after he employed his former abuser.

Schooner Guy is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 06:47 PM
  #243
macavoy
Registered User
 
macavoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Houston, Tx
Country: United States
Posts: 7,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
The Burns story originated in Toronto, was published , and made it's way around social networking sites before the Gazette picked it up.

The Hickey story is a good story.

You can boycott based on your conscience but others may disagree.
The fact that the Gazette picked up and published a story based on "social networking sites" speaks volumes about its editing standards. It doesn't matter if the story originated out of Toronto, traditional journalist have standards to uphold.

macavoy is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 06:56 PM
  #244
macavoy
Registered User
 
macavoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Houston, Tx
Country: United States
Posts: 7,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
I was done with this thread but you made this post and I have subsequently been called "repugnant" so I will clarify my point about Fleury speaking up now.

About keeping silent now being the best for Fleury.

Fleury had an opportunity to speak out when Kennedy did. However, for whatever reason.....and I am not Fleury so I wont speculate........, he did not. He stayed silent and even co-owned a team that allowed the predator, James, to continue molesting young players.

Fleury speaking out then would have served a purpose. It would have stopped James from abusing young hockey players.

Fast forward to now. James is sentenced to prison and the courts allow him to remain free before his prison term begins. Fleury decides to speak out now.

For what purpose did Fleury speak out now? To save kids? The real opportunity to save kids from a predator by speaking out was YEARS ago, not now. Or was it self serving for Fleury to speak out now?

Fleury blamed the Canadian politicians for enabling James to abuse kids by not sending him to jail now instead of two months later. Ironic that Fleury was enabling James to abuse kids for years by not speaking out.

Hickey is right to point out that Fleury is a hypocrite.

And thus, since Fleury did not speak out then when he could have made a difference in saving kids, he should have kept his mouth shut now since it served no purpose other than to bring publicity to his book.
Your showing that you have no idea about sexual abuse victims. You don't understand how torturous it is for them to come forward. To have to relive that humilation in public, only so that the rapist is free in 3 years.

Victims have to live with that torture for the rest of their lives. Do you know anyone who's been sexually assualted irl? They are shells of their former selves.

You can't expect a person who was assualted during their adolescent years to develop into a rational functioning human being.

Do you have any kids? I highly doubt it because you are showing no intelligence in regards to child development. When you become a parent, you gain an understanding of how things affect people.

Would you expect your daughter to act & behave rationally after if she was *****? If you do, then I feel sorry for your offspring.

**** victims go on to have life long sexual problems. I bet even now that Fleury is clean and sober, having sex triggers negative memories at times. You don't forget that kind of abuse. There are also triggers that bring back those horrible memories.

macavoy is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 09:08 PM
  #245
WeeBey
Registered User
 
WeeBey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,336
vCash: 500
What a boneheaded article. I don't think you should be free from criticism because the media labels you a hero or whatever, but what was he trying to accomplish with this article? Even if he doesn't think Fleury is a good spokesperson, at least he's a spokesperson, which is better than nothing.

I'm concerned about the way Fleury is reacting to this though. He's really acting like a baby, calling for Hickey's job, and telling everyone on twitter that Hickey somehow supports pedophilia, which is pretty obviously NOT true to anyone who reads the article...

WeeBey is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 09:42 PM
  #246
yathehabsrule
Registered User
 
yathehabsrule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 273
vCash: 500
After a brutal call out of Theo Fleury, two bad attempts to defend himself on radio and an attempt to cover his ass with his last article, Pat Hickey still doesn't get it.

This is one of the best write ups on the issue so far.

yathehabsrule is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 10:10 PM
  #247
guapo23
Registered User
 
guapo23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country:
Posts: 2,477
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury View Post
So what if the person grows 5 plants then? Slap on the wrist?
Not sure what the punishment should be.
But the question Canadians need to ask before sending someone to jail :

Does sending the person to jail for this offence serve society's best interests ?

For minor crimes, there does not seem to be many advantages in sending people to jail.

1 - It is a proven fact that jail does not rehabilitate a criminal.
It is more likely to cause them to commit more crimes.
That is why Quebec has a more progressive attitude.
For minor crimes it sends people to halfway houses & rehabilitation centers instead of jail. It gives them long parole times instead of long jail times, to make sure they can re-integrate into society.

2 - Sending someone to jail is very expensive to tax payers.
So before sentencing a person to jail, we should analyze whether the crime they committed is serious enough to warrant the tax dollars spent.

3 - Sentencing someone to jail tends to break up families.
The divorce rate is very high.
This unfairly punishes the children.


Given these factors, I am firmly against mandatory minimum sentencing.
I prefer that judges use their common sense and discretion in determining whether society's best interests are served by jail sentences.

guapo23 is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 10:26 PM
  #248
guapo23
Registered User
 
guapo23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country:
Posts: 2,477
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
Got it. It does seem a shame that a bill that attempts to address so many serious issues is criticized almost entirely for how heavy handed it deals with pot possession and distribution. Your initial post did seem politically charged and I always find this to be the case on crime-and-consequence issues.

I do have some experience with these issues and personally know ex-officers in the sex crimes and exploitation unit here in T.O. (including the leads on the Holly Jones case) and they will tell you that people don't wake up one morning as a pedo. It's a gradual escalating boldness that develops to support the urges of the condition. It's good that the government is committed to punishing these people at the earlier stages (when they show a child pornography or expose themselves, etc. ) as a way of helping these individuals and protecting our children.
I admit that my original post is politically charged. The Harper Government seems determined to copy policies that failed miserably in the USA. Despite all the evidence that these policies do not work and the fact that the crime rate in Canada has been steadily declining for 15 years. Do we really want to copy America and prosecute as many of our citizens as possible ?

Canada's rehabilatation policies were clearly working.
So why overhaul our justice system in this way?
Why rush the legislation through Parliament without allowing debate ?
These are NOT the actions of a just leader.
If he truly cared about being tough on crime, he would allow debate to create the best, most cost effective policies.

Likewise, if he truly cared about being tough on crime,
he would prosecute himself and his party for all the crimes they have commited :

- contempt of Parliament
- election fraud
- millions embezzled from G20 Security Budget to reward cronies (gazebos in Muskoka etc..)

Likewise in the middle of a big economic crisis is it responsible government to waste billions of dollars in tax revenue for court costs, prison upgrades etc... ??
Already Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and some of the Maritime provinces have told Ottawa they will refuse to pay the extra costs.

This could well lead to the increased privatization of prisons. Which created such an awful mess in the USA. For Profit Prisons leads to private lobbying for tougher sentences to increase prison business. It leads to cutting costs everywhere which leads to incredibly inhumane conditions for the prisoners.


Last edited by guapo23: 12-14-2011 at 10:38 PM.
guapo23 is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 10:30 PM
  #249
Agnostic
11 Stanley Cups
 
Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by yathehabsrule View Post
After a brutal call out of Theo Fleury, two bad attempts to defend himself on radio and an attempt to cover his ass with his last article, Pat Hickey still doesn't get it.

This is one of the best write ups on the issue so far.
A ridiculous drive by smear of a respected writer by a talentless amateur hack.

Agnostic is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 10:37 PM
  #250
guapo23
Registered User
 
guapo23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country:
Posts: 2,477
vCash: 500
I play hockey with a police officer who worked for 18 years in the sexual crime division. I have been asking his opinion about Bill C10 and it has led to some interesting debates in the locker room.

While he agrees to me that it is way too lenient on pedophiles,
he is not very concerned about the other elements that freak me out.

His opinion is that over the course of his career, the laws have shifted left and right, from increased freedom to increased police power.

Increased police power makes his job easier so it does not bother him that in Bill C10 cops won't need warrants to read your emails or to view your internet activity.

I personally take a strong stance on anything that erodes the freedoms our ancestors fought so hard to gain. I believe we always have to be vigilant as governments will always try to strip away our rights and freedoms. Fall asleep for a few years and you wake up to a nightmare....

guapo23 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:35 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.