- Reaction score
- 4,339
- Points
- 1,260
Good point - wonder what the lawyers would say about it?PuckChaser said:... there are unfortunately plenty of male plantiffs who could come forward and lend credibility ...
Good point - wonder what the lawyers would say about it?PuckChaser said:... there are unfortunately plenty of male plantiffs who could come forward and lend credibility ...
milnews.ca said:Good point - wonder what the lawyers would say about it?
FJAG said:I looked at the law firms web site and they are of average make-up; 52 lawyers with 17 women and 35 men that specialize in the areas of litigation, labour, pensions and benefits and class actions. In a way it's a boutique firm in that it doesn't have other key areas of law such as corporate & commercial, criminal, real estate or family law. They don't strike me as being what one would call "feminist" oriented.
I think concentrating solely on CAF women in this gender-based case is probably a strategic one based on the fact that it simplifies the issues and addresses the largest fraction of potential claimants. The statement of claim is here: https://kmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2016-12-07-Statement-of-Claim-issued-Dec-7-2016.pdf
Warning! Warning! Warning! Reading these claims is guaranteed to raise your blood pressure to dangerously high levels ullhair:
Note that the firm has a separate and distinct class action lawsuit based on sexual orientation discrimination for the period 1950s to 1990s respecting CF members in the Maritimes. The statement of claim is here: https://kmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Statement_of_Claim_2016_12_06_Dec_re_Military_Class_Action.pdf No. Don't ask. I don't know why this claim is restricted to the Maritimes.
:subbies:
Lightguns said:Who cares, I wish them nothing but luck and I hope everyone who signed on finds what they are looking for in terms of redress. And for two young ladies I hope they find peace again.
captloadie said:In one case, the member was found not guilty, although the judge did say in his decision that it wasn't he didn't believe the victims, just that the was reasonable doubt. To me, this doesn't appear to be providing either the deterrent, or showing the public we are serious about getting rid of those who assault their brothers and sisters in arms.
PuckChaser said:I sincerely hope you're not suggesting we abandon due process for anyone accused of sexual misconduct... Guilty until proven innocent will do more damage to our credibility than a few folks who may or may not be guilty, but there isn't enough proof.
The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not the other way around. Despite our misgivings about someone walking free, we live in a society governed by the rule of law, not trials by courts of public opinion.
Any learned counsel online, please correct me if I'm wrong, but even in civil litigation (x sues y), the standard for "winning" is lower than "reasonable doubt", meaning that there are cases where there wasn't enough to criminally convict someone but enough to say they were still liable.PuckChaser said:... Guilty until proven innocent will do more damage to our credibility than a few folks who may or may not be guilty, but there isn't enough proof ...
milnews.ca said:Any learned counsel online, please correct me if I'm wrong, but even in civil litigation (x sues y), the standard for "winning" is lower than "reasonable doubt", meaning that there are cases where there wasn't enough to criminally convict someone but enough to say they were still liable.
Even with due process, my understanding is that other processes may have a lower bar to get over to meet the "gotcha" standard.
On the bit in yellow, we have more than one class-action lawsuit in play that'll show what happens when the pendulum swings too far one way or another.
To do another version of what's been said elsewhere on forums, one has a right to a fair trial and due process, but one doesn't have a right to a job in the CAF.
Good2Golf said:Like how O.J. was found criminally not guilty of murder, but civilly liable for Nicole and Ron's death?
OJ's greatest crime.... was bringing lawyer Robert Kardashian to prominence; we're all suffering the knock-on effects of that. :'(Good2Golf said:Like how O.J. was found criminally not guilty of murder, but civilly liable for Nicole and Ron's death?
Journeyman said:OJ's greatest crime.... was bringing lawyer Robert Kardashian to prominence; we're all suffering the knock-on effects of that. :'(
Journeyman said:OJ's greatest crime.... was bringing lawyer Robert Kardashian to prominence; we're all suffering the knock-on effects of that. :'(
FJAG said:The burden of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is only the standard in criminal cases.