SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: FJB who wrote (1446534)3/14/2024 2:27:35 AM
From: Maple MAGA 3 Recommendations

Recommended By
FJB
longz
Mick Mørmøny

  Read Replies (1) of 1576893
 
TOP STORY

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in a recent sexual assault case that it was “problematic” for a lower court judge to refer to the alleged victim as a “woman,” implying that the more appropriate term should have been “person with a vagina.”
  1. FIRST READING: Supreme Court decision opts for 'person with a vagina' over 'woman'
In a decision published Friday, Justice Sheilah Martin wrote that a trial judge’s use of the word “a woman” may “have been unfortunate and engendered confusion.”

Martin does not specify why the word “woman” is confusing, but the next passage in her decision refers to the complainant as a “person with a vagina.” Notably, not one person in the entire case is identified as transgender, and the complainant is referred to throughout as a “she.”

The case was R. v. Kruk, which involved a 2017 charge of sexual assault against then 34-year-old Maple Ridge, B.C., man Charles Kruk.

“Mr. Kruk found the complainant intoxicated, lost, and distressed one night in downtown Vancouver,” reads the background to the case. “He decided to take her to his house, and connected with the complainant’s parents by phone.”

It’s then that the accounts diverge. The complainant testified that she woke up to find that her pants were off, and Kruk was vaginally penetrating her. Kruk testified that the complainant’s pants were off because she’d removed them herself after spilling water on them earlier in the night – and that what she assumed was a rape was actually just Kruk startling her awake.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News