(Boylove News Articles) - Graham James, No. 1 Canada Pedo, 100% AOC-Compliant!: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "==Intro== This article was originally posted to BoyChat on June 1, 2015.[http://www.boychat.org/messages/1444606.htm] The views expressed are solely those of the authors...") |
No edit summary |
||
(12 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Intro== | ==Intro== | ||
This article was originally posted to [[BoyChat]] on June | This article was originally posted to [[BoyChat]] on June 21, 2015.[http://www.boychat.org/messages/1444606.htm] The views expressed are solely those of the authors and not necessarily those of BoyWiki or Free Spirits. | ||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
Huh? | Huh? | ||
Here’s a synopsis from Bill Graveland of the Canadian Press | Here’s a synopsis from Bill Graveland of the Canadian Press <ref> http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/disgraced-coach-graham-james-gets-2-years-for-latest-sex-conviction-1.2430106</ref>. | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
The victim consented, then, for the sake of his career plans. Naively, you might say that this was an adult decision, even if regrettable, given the young man’s age. In Canadian law, however, consent is not a defense against a sexual assault charge, even one involving an adult complainant, if “the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority” (Criminal Code section 273.1). | The victim consented, then, for the sake of his career plans. Naively, you might say that this was an adult decision, even if regrettable, given the young man’s age. In Canadian law, however, consent is not a defense against a sexual assault charge, even one involving an adult complainant, if “the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority” (Criminal Code section 273.1). | ||
In legal reality, then, James, was convicted not as a child abuser, but as an authority abuser. Newspapers paid no attention to the difference. These days, an 18 year old victim of a ‘serial pedophile’ (as James is often called by previous complainant Sheldon Kennedy) is a child, whether he’s a child or not. These matters are defined emotionally, not rationally. But don’t imagine here that I’m justifying anything James did with his young hockey player – we’ll get to the nitty gritty about that sort of thing in a few minutes. I’m simply stunned that the crime was universally portrayed in the press as child abuse, even though no child was involved. I know that Graham’s previous accusers had mostly been 14 or 15 years old when Graham began working on them for sexual favors. There was definitely a pattern in his modus operandi. This time, however, he had gone quite high up into his proclaimed range of attractions encompassing males 15 – 25 | In legal reality, then, James, was convicted not as a child abuser, but as an authority abuser. Newspapers paid no attention to the difference. These days, an 18 year old victim of a ‘serial pedophile’ (as James is often called by previous complainant Sheldon Kennedy) is a child, whether he’s a child or not. These matters are defined emotionally, not rationally. But don’t imagine here that I’m justifying anything James did with his young hockey player – we’ll get to the nitty gritty about that sort of thing in a few minutes. I’m simply stunned that the crime was universally portrayed in the press as child abuse, even though no child was involved. I know that Graham’s previous accusers had mostly been 14 or 15 years old when Graham began working on them for sexual favors. There was definitely a pattern in his modus operandi. This time, however, he had gone quite high up into his proclaimed range of attractions encompassing males 15 – 25 <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_James_%28ice_hockey%29</ref>. That was even though, 25 years ago when the offense occurred, the age of consent in Canada was – wait for it – 14. | ||
When I got this far in investigating the story, I began to notice that the section of the Criminal Code James was convicted under was seldom mentioned in his news stories, whether by number or by name. Some googling revealed that he had always been convicted under the long since rescinded section 246.1, a general sexual assault provision that still applied during the time James was fondling teens, and section 271, the current sexual assault provision. | When I got this far in investigating the story, I began to notice that the section of the Criminal Code James was convicted under was seldom mentioned in his news stories, whether by number or by name. Some googling revealed that he had always been convicted under the long since rescinded section 246.1, a general sexual assault provision that still applied during the time James was fondling teens, and section 271, the current sexual assault provision. | ||
Much googling disclosed the wording of the long-lost section 246.1 | Much googling disclosed the wording of the long-lost section 246.1 <ref> http://caselaw.canada.globe24h.com/0/0/newfoundland-and-labrador/supreme-court-of-newfoundland-and-labrador-court-of-appeal/1987/10/27/r-v-halleran-1987-3943-nl-ca.shtml</ref>: | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
<ref> http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html#sec271_smooth</ref> “Everyone who commits a sexual assault is guilty of | |||
• (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and, if the complainant is under the age of 16 years, to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or | • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and, if the complainant is under the age of 16 years, to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or | ||
• (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 18 months and, if the complainant is under the age of 16 years, to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 90 days. | • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 18 months and, if the complainant is under the age of 16 years, to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 90 days. | ||
Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
The provision about the complainant under 16 came into force in May 2008, decades after James’s offenses | The provision about the complainant under 16 came into force in May 2008, decades after James’s offenses <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform_in_Canada</ref>. The raising of the age of consent to 16 does not apply retroactively. | ||
The hidden reality of Graham James, as a ‘convicted pedophile,’ is that he has never transgressed the legal age of consent. | The hidden reality of Graham James, as a ‘convicted pedophile,’ is that he has never transgressed the legal age of consent. | ||
Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
Now, it has to be said, James’ method of obtaining consent was to be authoritative, manipulative and incredibly annoying. | Now, it has to be said, James’ method of obtaining consent was to be authoritative, manipulative and incredibly annoying. | ||
Here’s a passage from the judgment against him in the 2012 case involving another complainant, Theo Fleury | Here’s a passage from the judgment against him in the 2012 case involving another complainant, Theo Fleury <ref> http://canlii.ca/t/fqnc8</ref>. | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
Line 153: | Line 153: | ||
"By the time a pedophile gets caught he has over 120 victims, not surprised by the news of Graham James," Theo Fleury tweeted as news spread of this year’s charges. He didn’t link whatever bogus piece of pseudo-research his assertion was based on. | "By the time a pedophile gets caught he has over 120 victims, not surprised by the news of Graham James," Theo Fleury tweeted as news spread of this year’s charges. He didn’t link whatever bogus piece of pseudo-research his assertion was based on. | ||
Kennedy told reporters | Kennedy told reporters <ref> http://www.thestarphoenix.com/sports/Demons+replaced+dreams+James+victim+tells+court/11153155/story.html</ref> that | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
Line 166: | Line 166: | ||
Well, yes, if he could keep it up for boys who were obviously loathing his presence, he had a bit of sadism about him, no question. | Well, yes, if he could keep it up for boys who were obviously loathing his presence, he had a bit of sadism about him, no question. | ||
"There is no fixing (pedophiles). There's managing," said Kennedy in another quasi-expert response to the current case. On the CTV news network | "There is no fixing (pedophiles). There's managing," said Kennedy in another quasi-expert response to the current case. On the CTV news network <ref>Second video java link at Link 1, above. “CTV News Channel: Questioning the defence. Former NHL player Sheldon Kennedy weighs on the defence of Graham James drawing links between homosexuality and pedophilia.”</ref> , he criticized James’ current lawyer for his duplicity in defending a ‘serial pedophile’ as a ‘homosexual.’ | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
Line 190: | Line 190: | ||
Meanwhile, at a time when even adults can’t regulate their own consent, youths cut off by the change in legal age are trying to. | Meanwhile, at a time when even adults can’t regulate their own consent, youths cut off by the change in legal age are trying to. | ||
In another recent Canadian case involving pedo monsterdom, a then 25-year-old, very boyish looking Christian radio host, Jason McIntyre from the town of Gravenhurst, was arrested after making sexual contact with three self-proclaimed gay boys he’d met via the internet. His liaison with a 12-year-old who had a properly vigilant mom doomed him, but the two previous involvements with 14-year-olds were only discovered via police search of his past communications. In the sort of non-standard blip into real reality that you only get in small-town newspapers | In another recent Canadian case involving pedo monsterdom, a then 25-year-old, very boyish looking Christian radio host, Jason McIntyre from the town of Gravenhurst, was arrested after making sexual contact with three self-proclaimed gay boys he’d met via the internet. His liaison with a 12-year-old who had a properly vigilant mom doomed him, but the two previous involvements with 14-year-olds were only discovered via police search of his past communications. In the sort of non-standard blip into real reality that you only get in small-town newspapers <ref>http://www.muskokaregion.com/news-story/5677622-pedophile-pleads-guilty-in-huntsville-court-to-four-sexual-charges-involving-children/</ref>, Roland Cilliers of the Huntsville Forester reported | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
Line 218: | Line 218: | ||
We goats on the hillside need to stop looking away, then, and start doing whatever it takes to find a newer and better solution to this problem. | We goats on the hillside need to stop looking away, then, and start doing whatever it takes to find a newer and better solution to this problem. | ||
---- | |||
;A couple of additional notes on this case.<ref>[http://www.boychat.org/messages/1444871.htm Addendum - Posted by Bernie Najarian on 2015-June-24 18:24:12, Wednesday]</ref> | |||
1. ''Stepping out of the charmed circle'' | |||
One issue that has emerged is the idea that it seems unfair to suggest that a teenaged boy could simply say 'no' to a masher like James. In my evaluation of this situation, I considered the case of journalist Francis Wheen, who dissuaded the then boysexually rampant Charles Napier. Napier, who was one of Wheen's teachers at the time, later became the treasurer of the Paedophile Information Exchange, something that caused much geysering of bile in later Britrag reports on his pedomonsterdom and legal process. | |||
<blockquote> | |||
He says Napier, then in is 20s, charmed the youngsters with his sports car, dashing good looks and claims that he was a professional actor. | |||
Mr Wheen said: “He recruited a few of us, saying ‘spend more time in the gym’ and appointed himself gym master. There was a room off the gym and that became his haunt. | |||
“Four or five of us started regularly going down there, vaulting over horses and things like that, in our gym shorts in all our innocence. | |||
“At the end of it he would take us into his room off the gym and give us beer and cigarettes – bottles of Mackeson’s and Senior Service untipped. | |||
“We thought this was terrifically exciting. Here we were, 11 years old, being given beer and fags – we were thinking he’s on our side not like any of the other masters. | |||
“And of course this was for an ulterior purpose which very soon became clear when he stuck his hand down my gym shorts and I had to sort of fight him off.” | |||
Mr Wheen said: “He said ‘Don’t be such a baby’ and said I wasn’t grown-up enough for that sort of thing. He would point to a couple of other boys, saying ‘They let me do it. You just won’t let me because you’re so babyish.’ | |||
“I think he was hoping I’d say ‘no I’m as grown up as them’ and let him get on with it but I didn’t. It meant I was excluded from his ‘charmed circle’ after that – but by then I knew where he kept his beer and cigarettes so I used to break into his room, steal them and go sit in the woods. | |||
“I could enjoy them without being sexually abused.” | |||
</blockquote> | |||
A curiously worldly-wise defense, "I'm not grown-up enough for that sort of thing." Perhaps Wheen had some help from the intrinsic arrogance of the very intelligent. Others might be easier to manipulate. | |||
In any case, he stepped out of the charmed circle and became a rebel at that moment. All it took was a 'no.' | |||
Link: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paedophile-scandal-charles-napier-could-1430365 | |||
2. ''Canadian Criminal Code section 153'' | |||
Some people wonder if James might have broken the age of consent laws as a person in a position of trust or authority, under the Canadian criminal code's section 153. It applies to teens between the age of consent (initially 14, now 16) and their 18th birthday. It says | |||
<blockquote> | |||
153. (1) Every person commits an offence who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency or who is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person, and who | |||
(a) for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of the young person; or | |||
(b) for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person. | |||
</blockquote> | |||
It transpires that the reason Sect. 153 has not come up in the James cases is because it emanates from a bill called C-15 that was passed and came into force in 1988. James' offenses with boys under 18 were all prior to 1988. He thus remains consistently compliant with the Age of Consent. That doesn't help him legally as a person judged to have committed sexual assault, which has no age limit, but it relieves him completely of the taint of 'pedophilic crimes.' That is, it relieves him of that label in any rational minds. There apparently are none today, but that's an unrelated issue. | |||
Link: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/researchpublications/prb993-e.htm | |||
==Links== | ==Links== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
{{Boxes end}} | {{Boxes end}} | ||
Line 237: | Line 283: | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
*[http://www.boychat.org/messages/1444606.htm Graham James, no. 1 Canada pedo,100% AOC-compliant! ( | *[http://www.boychat.org/messages/1444606.htm Graham James, no. 1 Canada pedo,100% AOC-compliant! (Original post at BoyChat)] | ||
{{Navbox Bernie Najarian}} | {{Navbox Bernie Najarian}} | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
[[Category:News | [[Category:Boylove News Articles/miscellaneous]] | ||
[[Category:News articles by Bernie Najarian]] | |||
[[Category:News]] |
Latest revision as of 16:30, 2 January 2022
Intro
This article was originally posted to BoyChat on June 21, 2015.[1] The views expressed are solely those of the authors and not necessarily those of BoyWiki or Free Spirits.
by Bernie Najarian June 21, 2015
Once upon a time, back in the land of my ancestors, I was out on a hilltop, looking on, as a distant relative selected a goat from his herd for all of us to have for dinner. It was our welcoming feast. The goats seemed to recognize that this man’s excursion into the herd was a fateful one, but they didn’t run. They just looked away. A beige-and-white goat was haltered and led off to slaughter within sight of the hilltop the herd was grazing on. The goats kept on looking elsewhere. I think about those goats these days every time I read a newspaper. Every edition features a purported pedophile being led off to his doom. Sometimes, it’s a grievous offender that I would gladly doom myself; sometimes, it’s just an unfortunate schmo with apparently legal merch that got caught in a surprise judicial twist – such as an Azov film. It’s damned hard to look at the stories where some doctor, or mathematician, or Nobel prize winner, is being plastered with the ‘sick monster’ discourse and sacrificed to the glut of journalistic and child-protectionist self-laud. If the guy did something wrong, I often think, maybe an open minor-attracted community could have led him away from his error before it happened. If there was nothing wrong with what he did, then maybe his motives deserved a more even-minded audience. Same goes for the occasional teen-loving woman caught in the pedo-grinding mill. Mostly, then, I look away. I marvel at the dozens or hundreds of Twitter feeds and blogs where manically obsessed axe-grinders relentlessly list every child pornography bust they can find anywhere in the world. Is there someone out there documenting every drunk driver who gets charged worldwide, or even all the ones who kill someone? If so, I haven’t run into them. The obsession with sexcrimes is almost sexual itself – but if you don’t happen to have the voyeurism for child porn and child abuse busts, how can you stand to read about them all? I was barely paying attention, then, on a scan of internet news links, when the latest stories about Graham James, Canada’s king of sports pedophilia, popped up. I’d bypassed many stories in the past about the froggish mini-Sandusky who brought teen-groping to the Canadian sports news desk. This time, in the May/June 2015 news feed, there was a wake-up call. Something caught my eye. The groomed and suffering victim, the story said, was 18 when the abuse began. Child abuse at 18+? Huh? Here’s a synopsis from Bill Graveland of the Canadian Press [1].
In legal reality, then, James, was convicted not as a child abuser, but as an authority abuser. Newspapers paid no attention to the difference. These days, an 18 year old victim of a ‘serial pedophile’ (as James is often called by previous complainant Sheldon Kennedy) is a child, whether he’s a child or not. These matters are defined emotionally, not rationally. But don’t imagine here that I’m justifying anything James did with his young hockey player – we’ll get to the nitty gritty about that sort of thing in a few minutes. I’m simply stunned that the crime was universally portrayed in the press as child abuse, even though no child was involved. I know that Graham’s previous accusers had mostly been 14 or 15 years old when Graham began working on them for sexual favors. There was definitely a pattern in his modus operandi. This time, however, he had gone quite high up into his proclaimed range of attractions encompassing males 15 – 25 [2]. That was even though, 25 years ago when the offense occurred, the age of consent in Canada was – wait for it – 14. When I got this far in investigating the story, I began to notice that the section of the Criminal Code James was convicted under was seldom mentioned in his news stories, whether by number or by name. Some googling revealed that he had always been convicted under the long since rescinded section 246.1, a general sexual assault provision that still applied during the time James was fondling teens, and section 271, the current sexual assault provision. Much googling disclosed the wording of the long-lost section 246.1 [3]:
Today’s section 271 says
The hidden reality of Graham James, as a ‘convicted pedophile,’ is that he has never transgressed the legal age of consent. Furthermore, in his own way (see below), he has invariably obtained consent. But consent, in his case, is not a defence. If there was a Guinness Book of World Records entry for ‘most pedophile contact sex crime convictions amassed by a person who never had sex with a legally defined child,’ James would be the record-holder. Now, it has to be said, James’ method of obtaining consent was to be authoritative, manipulative and incredibly annoying. Here’s a passage from the judgment against him in the 2012 case involving another complainant, Theo Fleury [6].
|
External links