I realize that dumping a candidate this late during an election is something any leader would want to avoid, and I commend Ignatieff for having cut Andre Forbes over his racist comments, although a more rigid background check would have prevented his candidacy in the first place. His words weren't a mistake. They reflect his attitude and beliefs, an attitude and beliefs the Liberal party claims it condemns.
John Reilly, Liberal candidate for Wildrose also said some things that the Liberal party claims it condemns, but this time, Ignatieff forgives him and leaves him in place. The man regrets it, Ignatieff tells us, and even tries to appeal to our sense of pity by saying that the former judge will have to live with the comments the rest of his life.
Oh? And the consequences? He still gets to run in the election. I guess living with it won't be so bad after all.
Like Forbes' words, Reilly's reflect an attitude and beliefs. In fact, even after apologizing, he said he made a political error but still believes not all sex offenders should be incarcerated. He claims he used a clumsy example first time around. OK, so what sexual offense crimes deserve a walk?
It doesn't matter if Reilly had a "long and distinguished career." It doesn't matter if he made many good choices. This one stance is not one a progressive party should give a pass on. Sexual assault cannot be deemed anything else simply because the guy was young, or stupid, or helplessly turned on because the unconscious woman was naked. That just gives would be rapists permission to abuse situations.
Monday Afternoon Links
9 hours ago
3 comments:
As a female who has been raped twice (acquaintance and date) I have to say that I agree with Mr. Reilly's comments which I read in its entirety. The experiences were humiliating and truly horrible but I would have preferred a punishment other than prison for the perpetrators. I think mandatory sensitivity training, psychological counseling and some kind of community service would have been appropriate. My life was never in any danger and the men were young and immature. Sentencing them to prison would only turn them into hardened criminals, not rehabilitated and eventually let loose on the public. That is asking for them to escalate to much more violent rape which is no help to public safety. Having said that, there are plenty of times that prison would be appropriate, and sometimes with very lengthy sentences. My point is that there are nuances to every crime, even rape, and justice should not be a one-size-fits-all solution.
I've been hemming and hawwing about whether to comment about this, but Alison's comment decided me. I discussed this with my wife beforehand to make sure that when I said the following she was in complete agreement and that she was fine with me saying so. My wife is like Alison, a sexual assault survivor twice over, and I am a childhood pedophile survivor myself. I have exceptionally strong feelings regarding consent issue and have a very dim view of how these issues have been dealt with in society generally speaking both in the political/legal realm and the wider general society itself as well.
So both my wife and I are very sensitive regarding anything to do with sexual assault issues and any commentary that gives any appearance of lessening it's seriousness and/or legitimizing it in any way. We both read the link you provided to the full comments in their original context, and we both agree, the judge was making a sensible argument if not phrased as well as he might have put it. In turn this means that as far as we are concerned Ignatief was right in not dumping this candidate, and arguably what he did do wrong was immediately disavow what this man said (since it raises a very important issue about the dangers/problems of mandatory sentencing) and have him issue a full and complete apology for it, but in today's political messaging climate ESPECIALLY against the Harper CPC it was the only rational realistic course.
Sorry, but this time out I think you are in the wrong on this issue (although I can understand how you got there). I was hesitating to comment to this because I knew my and my wife's view on this would not be the most popular, and quite honestly given some of the crap I've taken by my fellow travelers on the social justice path in the blogosphere claiming I am not actually someone that really believes in true social justice/equality because of my political views on how to stop Harper and also my problems with the Layton NDP I didn't want to give them something they could use to "prove" it with.
However, after reading Alison's comment and recognizing that I could so no less given what she herself has dealt with to shape her views and still look myself in the mirror without flinching a little here we are (I hate hesitating like this for such reasons, it leaves me feeling ashamed of myself as it should, especially since I am usually good at being open and blunt even when I know I am providing a comment which may/will be less than popular especially among those I usually am of similar mind with). I am sorry to find out we are in such disagreement over such an important issue because normally you and I have held some fairly similar views on the world of politics, especially where the current PM and his party are concerned.
thanks Allison, Scotian. I should have given this more thought, and both of you give very valid points. I think part of my reason for posting on this so quickly and not giving serious thought to some of those very issues you both mention is that I hate it when people give a party a pass simply because they currently support them. This will teach me to sleep on it when in doubt.
I will add to this post later today.
900ft j
Post a Comment