On January 18th, one year ago, the Supreme Court of Canada made a decision: They found that Nicole Ryan (now using her maiden name of Nicole Doucet) had been acquitted of her admitted crime due to an error in law. The crime? Trying to hire someone to kill her estranged husband. The Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged that justice had not been served but put a stay on prosecution for a retrial because they felt Nicole had been through an emotional ordeal.
On January 18th, Canada judicially stopped caring about attempted murder when the criminal has a vagina. Because of her feelings. Because Nicole had been through a lot of stress and had lost weight. Because Nicole, a woman, was looking a little peaked.
While Men’s Human Rights Activists (MHRAs) know that women being absolved of responsibility for their crimes against men happens all the time, this case is unique. The Crown prosecutor, along with every legal professional versed in the case, presumably aside from the defence attorney, was shocked with the acquittal. The husband, Michael Ryan, was not called to testify because the prosecutor felt the case was a “slam dunk” and he didn’t need to subject Michael to the trial proceedings. And yet she was acquitted.
Nicole confessed to her undercover RCMP assassin that Michael had never physically abused her. Nicole’s accounts of the threats and fear she harboured were inconsistent. Nicole’s husband lived 180 km away from her at the time and had custody of their child because psychological assessments deemed Nicole less stable as a parent.
Nicole, prior to these events, also tried to kill her sister by running her over with a car. Twice.
But Canadian Justice David Farrar decided that Nicole, despite lacking any corroborating evidence, was telling the truth and acted in the only way any “rational” person would: by contracting the death of another human being.
Congratulations, Canada. Murder is now a rational choice. If you have a vagina.
To be fair, the Supreme Court recognized that the judge, David Farrar made a mistake. He failed to apply the laws properly and Nicole’s defence of “duress” was not an admissible defence for the crime of which she was accused: It was similar to claiming that the Devil made her do it.
At the time, Canadian law did not, at the level of Supreme Court, accept the existence of Satan. This might have caused Nicole problems if she’d been a man.
What Canada decided to do about this situation was, again, unique. January 18th marks the day when the law put the health of a person accused of attempted murder above the concern for the crime of attempted murder.
Caution: Don’t try this at home unless you have a vagina.
Appeals are a specific thing. In law you can only appeal a case if there was an error in the application of law, you can’t appeal just because you didn’t like the decision. This is a point of confusion for many people. The prosecutor in Nicole Ryan/Doucet’s case was well versed in law and in the appeal pointed out that her defence was illegitimate. This ended up being held against the prosecutor, even though he was right.
The Supreme Court of Canada recognized that the prosecutor was correct and that Nicole should be retried for trying to murder her ex-husband but they stayed a retrial for the following reason:
The abuse she suffered and the protracted nature of these proceeding(s) have taken an enormous toll on her.The “abuse” Nicole suffered was actually the bone of contention.
Nicole was not only free from duress, she was free from abuse. Her “abuser” lived almost 200 km away. Indeed, Nicole admitted during a videotaped interview with the RCMP that her ex husband had never physically abused her, and that he had not kidnapped their child. Rather, he had been granted custody after an investigation by child advocates in family court decided she was not the better parent.
It takes a lot in Canada for a mother to be deemed unfit.
Nicole’s “abuse” seems to have been that she didn’t think she was going to get her fair share of property holdings. Her father was keen to help her secure a financially sound future and participated in the acquisition of a hitman.
Comedic break: They first tried to coerce a local fisherman to kill Michael Ryan by shoving $25,000 at him. The fisherman took the money but didn’t kill anyone. Because, what are they going to do? Report him to the police?
By the time Nicole figured out that fishermen don’t make good killers (other than killers of fish) just by virtue of their masculinity, she was getting a little pressed for time. Perhaps that’s when she started losing weight and looking a little stressed out. It must have been difficult for her to continue her job as a schoolteacher, training our youth to be moral citizens, while actively seeking the murder of her ex husband.
During this time Michael Ryan was under no stress by the obvious fact that he had no idea that a hit-man was being hired to kill him. Only men have this privilege. Women, on the other hand, are constantly informed by feminists that they could be raped at any moment so we carry the burden of worrying about our personal survival where men are kept in a blissful state of ignorance.
Only the Canadian Supreme Court has been bold enough to recognize that ignorance of one’s own impending demise makes the threat less relevant.
As of today, the stay of proceedings has reached it’s expiry date. Lawyers fumed and fretted, protested and objected, stated their cases and were validated, and made no difference in holding Ms. Doucet liable for her crimes. But while Nicole Ryan/Doucet may never be forced to stand trial for a crime she acknowledges committing , we will not forget.
He was a six-foot-three former soldier and 230 pounds. She was five-foot-three and 115 pounds.And yet it doesn’t take 230 pounds or more than five-foot-three in height to hire an assassin.
So we are here to celebrate a national event in a ‘first world cuntry’. Canada has paved the way. We no longer have to wonder who is superior, who is in control or which gender gets to decide who lives or dies. The only demand upon women who find their spouses problematic is that they should try to not get caught.
Trials, you see, are expensive and time consuming. Indeed, Elizabeth Sheehy, a University of Ottawa law professor and prominent legal activist with the Elizabeth Fry Societies asked in the National Post last month: “Is it an appropriate expenditure of taxpayer dollars to prosecute battered women [who murder] at full tilt, in light of the compassionate response of Canadian judges and jurors who hear all the evidence?”
Interestingly, Doucet admitted to RCMP she had never been physically abused by her ex husband, despite the attempt to use a narrative of abuse in her defence.
But it costs the public a lot of money to prosecute women for crimes for which they will ultimately be absolved.
However, another Canadian, also a professor of law, at Dalhousie University, had a bit of a problem in just letting this day become a point of acceptance. Professor Archibald Kaiser has been tackling the issue from a point of view that feminists protecting Ms. Doucet didn’t expect: the enforcement of law.
Yes, some people still care about upholding the law regardless of which genitals a murderer happens to be born with. Not many people, but they still exist.
Of course they have formidable adversaries. In the case of Her Majesty the Queen vs Nicole Patricia Ryan we had the following “intervenors”: The Attorney General of Ontario, The Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, and the Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario.
We’ll pause here to say hello to Elizabeth Sheehy, a feminist legal activist who claims to be merely reporting the weather, rather than creating it.
Isn’t interference considered a foul in sports?
But there you have it. Canadian law is not a matter of upholding a civilized society anymore. It’s just a sport, and the referees are feminists.
There is, however, a bit of a problem standing in the way of Canadian National Disposable Male Day. The problem is Professor Archibald Kaiser, and Men’s Human Rights Activists, like us.
We can’t speak for Professor Kaiser, or know with certainty if he is in this for the long haul. What we know is that MHRAs are marking January 18th as a day to remember. Don’t cry for Michael Ryan. In the historical record: January 18th is the day Canada decided that trying women for attempted murder is “unfair”. Feminists rejoiced. On the other hand, human rights activists decided to do something about it.
This is not a loss, it’s an opportunity.
And of course, to feminist legal activists, feminist lobbyists, and feminist law professors who have, until now, worked with the court’s enthusiastic consent to legalize the murder of men. We are coming for all of you.
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment