Thursday, March 15, 2012

Curious Consanguity Case in Canada

In what could be a case of Genetic Sexual Attraction, additional important information could have been provided about this by the authorities and the news media without revealing the identities of those involved, But perhaps the authorities are intentionally vague so as to make it less clear when they interfere where they shouldn't? Sue Montgomery reported in the Montreal Gazette that "Man gets three years in incest case."

A Quebec Court judge sentenced a man who had three children with his adult daughter to three years in prison Wednesday, saying the man betrayed the trust society places in fathers.
Which is...? He was not her custodial father. He did not raise her. She had a father, and it wasn't him. What were the exact charges? We aren't told. The headline calls it an "incest case" but the actual charges are not listed. If he raped her or abused her in any way, he should have been charged with those specific crimes.

Against her adoptive parents' advice, the woman tracked down her biological father at age 23 - and for the next 13 years, the two had a bizarre relationship the woman likened to being in a cult.
And by that she means...? We aren't told.

Quebec Court Judge Louis Legault said the man, who, like the woman, can't be identified to protect the identity of the children, showed no remorse or empathy for his adult daughter.
Well if we're talking about consensual sex, it isn't a bad thing in the first place.
Legault said the woman suffers from anxiety, insomnia, nightmares, has little self esteem and has difficulty trusting anyone.

"The accused can't understand the trauma he has caused the children as well as the victim," the judge said during sentencing.
There is no explanation given as to what, exactly, the man did that would cause those things. There are, for example, grown women who have sex with their genetic fathers with none of these problems as a result. So, it seems to me like perhaps there was something else going on we're not told about, or she already had some problems?
The woman had three children - all are adults now - and one miscarriage while living with her father between 1984 and 1997.

Notice no mention is made of any disability in the children.
After a doctor asked her in 1996 whether her father had ever abused her, the woman said she began to "connect the dots." She got a restraining order against him the following year, and he left the home.

By abuse, are we to believe she didn't consent to the sex (again, that's what we call rape)? Or that he was beating her and keeping her against her will? Or did people start scaring her and giving her the options of either 1. claiming to be an overpowered victim or 2. being thrown in prison herself? I don;t know about Canada, but in the US, restraining orders can be obtained by just about anyone against just about anyone with no real proof of anything being amiss.
But he got custody of the children in 1999, and the woman was only allowed supervised visits.

"The department of youth protection told me it wasn't good to tell the children their father was also their grandfather," she said outside the courtroom Wednesday, adding that the children already know.
So were those authorities extremely incompetent, or was this simply a matter of two people breaking an unjust law by having a relationship that included sex, and the authorities seeing the father as a better parent after that relationship ended?

Note that no mention is made of him abusing the children. That's more reason to see that this was a mutual GSA situation between adults that should never have been a criminal matter, and that he was a good, or at least adequate, father.
The woman finally went to the police in 2003, and her father pleaded guilty in 2009.
So four years after losing custody, and almost two decades after starting a life together with him, she want to the police, possibly upset about the custody issue. Is there a chance the woman was also upset that he was being a father to these children, someone he hadn't been to her? Or, maybe she was so traumatized it took her that long to state the truth?
The woman, 50, was the product of a one-night stand in the 1960s and was adopted by a well-off educated couple in Quebec. She said she had a normal upbringing and a good education but wanted to find out where she came from.
That sounds to me like she would be capable of making adult decisions, unless she had some significant disorder.
At her biological father's request, the two met at the home of former television psychic Jo-Jo Savard.
So they met in an neutral location.
The woman said she took pity on her father and took him in.
This hardly sounds like some predator.
He slowly began isolating her from others and manipulated her mentally.
That happens in many relationships, and some people feel that way, and those two things don't always overlap, as some people aren't aware that is happening to them, or some people accuse someone else of doing that to them when they haven't been. Some people freely become engrossed so much in the relationship that they lose contact with many other people in their life (especially after having kids). We don't have enough information to know if this really happened in this case or not, but it is certainly possible. I am against coercion and dishonest manipulation. But being domineering in personal relationships usually is not a crime, no matter how unpleasant.

So what do we have here?

1. A troubled, bitter, or frightened woman and an unjust prosecution by overzealous authorities of a man who had an lasting, loving, consensual relationship with an adult?

2. A criminally abusive man who got a sentence that is way too light?

3. A man who was controlling, but not criminally abusive, who dominated a woman who didn't quite know how the handle the situation? (It would also be an unjust prosecution if this was the case.)

We're not provided enough information, but since we know that Canadian authorities prosecute some adults for consensual sex, it could be any of these. The genetic relation of man and woman should not have been any factor in the prosecution; if he assaulted her or held her hostage, he should have been prosecuted for those things, and should have been locked up for much longer. But if this was a matter of consensual sex, then this should never have been a criminal matter at all. Whatever happened here, something is not right because a three-year sentence is way too little time for abuse and way too long for consensual sex.
— — —

No comments:

Post a Comment

To prevent spam, comments will have to be approved, so your comment may not appear for several hours. Feedback is welcome, including disagreement. I only delete/reject/mark as spam: spam, vulgar or hateful attacks, repeated spouting of bigotry from the same person that does not add to the discussion, and the like. I will not reject comments based on disagreement, but if you don't think consenting adults should be free to love each other, then I do not consent to have you repeatedly spout hate on my blog without adding anything to the discourse.

If you want to write to me privately, then either contact me on Facebook, email me at fullmarriageequality at protonmail dot com, or tell me in your comment that you do NOT want it published. Otherwise, anything you write here is fair game to be used in a subsequent entry. If you want to be anonymous, that is fine.

IT IS OK TO TALK ABOUT SEX IN YOUR COMMENTS, BUT PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY AS I WANT THIS BLOG TO BE AS "SAFE FOR WORK" AS POSSIBLE. If your comment includes graphic descriptions of activity involving minors, it's not going to get published.