The 49-year-old New Minas man, who can’t be identified because a publication ban protecting the identity of the victim, was sentenced July 30 in Kentville Supreme Court to 30 months in custody.
Two and a half years in custody? Is he some sort of danger to anyone? Let’s see…
In handing down his oral decision, Justice Gerald Moir said his recommendation is for the man to be entered into a program for sexual offenders as soon as possible. Moir imposed a 10-year prohibition on non-restricted firearms against the man and a lifetime prohibition on restricted firearms. The court ordered DNA testing and imposed a 10-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order against the man.
Wow, he must be dangerous! Sounds like he is prone to rape someone at gunpoint, doesn’t it?
Moir agreed with defence Peter Van Feggelen that a so-called “playground order” preventing the man from being around children under age 16 is not appropriate in the circumstances of this case.
“There is nothing in the facts that suggests that he is inclined to molest children,” Moir said. “So, I decline the Crown’s motion for that order.”
Okay, so he doesn’t seem to be a danger to kids, then.
The man is the biological father of the other party. Moir said it was established beyond a reasonable doubt at trial the man knew the woman, an adult, was his daughter. However, they never had a parental relationship other than the biological one.
Sounds like it could be Genetic Sexual Attraction.
The daughter often initiated sex, but because she has cognitive difficulties, she was not charged.
What do they mean by cognitive difficulties, exactly? Do you mean to tell me that if another man has sex with her, he can be charged with rape because she is unable to consent? Can she not sign contracts? Or is this simply a matter of bigotry against consanguinamory?
It gets better…
There was no violence, coercion or breech of trust. Both parties were consenting adults. The man also has cognitive difficulties, but the daughter’s situation is much more severe.
Ah, so if his cognitive difficulties had been worse and hers not so much, they would have charged her with a crime? I doubt it. This appears to me to be a matter of an grown woman being free to consent to sex with any adult strangers, no matter how much older, and being free to consent to sex with five men together, but not free to consent to have sex with this one man because they are genetically relatives. It is ridiculous.
The man was charged with having sexual intercourse with his daughter while knowing it was his daughter in Lawrencetown and Kingston between Nov. 1, 2009 and Sept. 29, 2010.
Why is that a crime? I’m still waiting for a good reason.
The case was transferred to Supreme Court in February 2011 and the man pled not guilty to the charge March 8, 2011.
He changed his plea to guilty July 11, 2011 but the court struck the plea. The man stood trial and was found guilty Nov. 16, 2011.
What a waste of public resources this has been.
The court ordered a sexual offenders risk assessment to be carried out prior to sentencing. The assessment by Dr. Brad Kelln concluded the man presents as a complex individual with multiple problems.In other words, he won’t admit that his love for a consenting adult woman is wrong. Good for him! This was a terrible used of public resources. Why try to stop consenting adults from loving each other? Someday, the people who support this kind of prejudice will look back and shake their heads at this sort of thing.
“His risk falls in at least the moderate range if not the high range and he does not present as an open, cooperative and insightful individual,” the conclusion states. “In all likelihood, there is some degree of cognitive impairment, but the greater issue appears to be acceptance of responsibility and ability to cooperate with treatment.”
Oh my god. Where are we getting to? People are being raped and murdered out there and they waste the time and money reserved for security in THIS? I am beyond words. At least, in Spain, where I live, this is not considered a crime, as far as I know. It's frowned upon, and close relatives (closer than cousins) can't marry, but they can't put you in jail for loving someone. I believe what Canada did is walking backwards.
ReplyDeleteAgreed Ms. D! Glad you can see why the bigotry just needs to stop. There are horrible things going on out there, and wasting time with love matters does not make better any of them.
ReplyDeleteWhat if a child was produced from this type of relationship? Would it still be 2 consenting adults minding their business?
ReplyDeleteThere are children produced every day from relationships like this. The child would have two parents who love each other and her.
Deleteahhhhhhhhh, so misguided. Wish that was simply the case here!
ReplyDelete