is wrong, person should be properly known as a 'person with a vagina'; what a bunch of shit in Canada now, it's insane for does she mean Trudeau? ok, then TRANNIES are persons with NO vagina!
It's like an insanity spreading across the world. Another one, the guy in France gets 2 years in jail for bumper stickers warning about the muslim invasion
So imagine , the future where our government leaders, judiciary system, academia, military and those who are in many other positions and influence making the decisions and policies for us are all screws in the head, we are totally fucked and if the good men and women are just watching and accepting this kind of “ whatever “ then… we are all falling .. it’s the ned of human existence!
simplify it even more... person with XX or XY=these cannot be changed. Yes I know genetically there persons in history with 3 sex chromosomes, but that percentage is very, very small. Just do a test for the sex chromosomes.
So, was the victim an actual biological woman or a transgender man-to-artificial-woman with an open surgical wound? If the latter, then neither "woman" nor "person with a vagina" is accurate.
A simple search of Rodney Rude would be prudent. His song 'You can't say CUNT in Canada' is a true story. But ' gateway to her guts' may be the best description of all time...
The cow vagina is an 8-inch-long passageway located between the cervix and opening to the bladder and is the location of semen deposit during copulation with a bull.
The trial case provided the explicit context of the rape of women by men.
The legal principle that was contested had to do with the use of "Judicial Notice" whereby a court may accept an assertion, or an assumption, as a judicial fact without the necessity of evidence having been submitted to establish a finding of fact during the trial.
It would be impermissible for a judge to draw a conclusion based on "speculative reasoning" rather than on evidence or on invocation of Judicial Notice.
-- QUOTE
Quote: "Where a judge relies on a generalized expectation as itself a factual conclusion, what the judge is really doing is taking judicial notice, which is subject to a stringent test — a standard that will rarely, if ever, be met by a generalized expectation about people due to the variability of human experience and behaviour. And where a factual conclusion is based neither on the evidence, nor on judicial notice, then it is speculation, which is an error of law."
"[The] trial judge relied on [...] a reasonable generalized expectation about general human perception [of] a sexual act of this nature [...], and ordinary people would not generally require special knowledge to assess this sort of evidence. [The] trial judge did not treat this as an indisputable fact but instead used it as a benchmark to assess the complainant’s evidence in light of the totality of the evidence."
The appeals court and the Supreme Court took on the case to clarify the trial judge's use of "generalized expectation". This was analyzed in terms of its "common sense".
Emphasis: common sense generalized expectation.
--VAGINA
The court's opinions used the word vagina (or variation) many times.
The compound term "penile‑vaginal" appeared 6 times, each in the phrase "penile-vaginal penetration" (5) or "penile-vaginal intercourse" (1); the term "vaginal" was used 18 times, "vaginal intercourse" (11) or "vaginal penetration" (7).
Regarding intercourse and penetration, the term "penile-vaginal' or "vaginal" was used with "the feeling of" 13 times in regard to the direct evidence given by the victim of the assault.
At issue was the common-sense notion that a victim might or might not be mistaken about the feeling of penile-vaginal or penile penetration.
In addition, the term "vagina" appeared alone 7 times, once in the phrase "a person with a vagina".
--THE JUSTICE SAID
From Justice Sheilah Martin:
[108]
The Court of Appeal also considered that the trial judge’s conclusion about the complainant’s perception of penile‑vaginal penetration was not the proper subject of judicial notice, as it engaged questions of “neurology (the operation of the body’s sensory system), physiology (the impact of alcohol on perception, memory and the body’s sensory system) and psychiatry (the impact of alcohol and/or trauma on perception and memory)” (para. 67). With respect, the court’s analysis on this point illustrates the potentially absurd consequences of the rule against ungrounded common-sense assumptions. It belies belief that questions of neurology, physiology, or psychiatry would be engaged by testimony that an intoxicated witness was certain they were physically assaulted in some other way, such as a punch to the face or a kick to the shins, such that expert evidence would be required to support that testimony — yet this is exactly the type of evidence the court implied was necessary for the trial judge to reach the conclusion he did in the context of penile-vaginal penetration. Even putting aside the impracticalities associated with finding experts willing and able to testify on such issues, such testimony is simply not necessary to establish what the trial judge determined to be what happened, having heard the complainant’s testimony and considering it in light of all the other evidence.
[109]
Where a person with a vagina testifies credibly and with certainty that they felt penile‑vaginal penetration, a trial judge must be entitled to conclude that they are unlikely to be mistaken. While the choice of the trial judge to use the words “a woman” may have been unfortunate and engendered confusion, in context, it is clear the judge was reasoning that it was extremely unlikely that the complainant would be mistaken about the feeling of penile‑vaginal penetration because people generally, even if intoxicated, are not mistaken about that sensation. In other words, the judge’s conclusion was grounded in his assessment of the complainant’s testimony. The Court of Appeal erred in finding otherwise.
clown show
Is Sheilah Martin related to Levine?!
https://palexander.substack.com/p/normalized-transgender-how-did-greatest
https://palexander.substack.com/p/this-is-the-us-military-today-these
What they need is a PERSON WITH A BRAIN. Oops, nowhere to be found
The vagina of a female dog, also known as the bitch, is located towards the tail end of the body.
A person with a vagina?
Way to marginalize all women.
Liberal white women will destroy Western Civilization.
It's like an insanity spreading across the world. Another one, the guy in France gets 2 years in jail for bumper stickers warning about the muslim invasion
So imagine , the future where our government leaders, judiciary system, academia, military and those who are in many other positions and influence making the decisions and policies for us are all screws in the head, we are totally fucked and if the good men and women are just watching and accepting this kind of “ whatever “ then… we are all falling .. it’s the ned of human existence!
It’s going to be real Hell on earth!
Surely a time pitch-forks at dawn grows closer? We've surpassed, "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche."
Bullschitt or otherwise, the point remains well made.
I'm embarrassed for the Canadians! So sad they have idiot thugs in charge, as we do also in DC & throughout the blue states. 😥
simplify it even more... person with XX or XY=these cannot be changed. Yes I know genetically there persons in history with 3 sex chromosomes, but that percentage is very, very small. Just do a test for the sex chromosomes.
So, was the victim an actual biological woman or a transgender man-to-artificial-woman with an open surgical wound? If the latter, then neither "woman" nor "person with a vagina" is accurate.
INSANE!
A simple search of Rodney Rude would be prudent. His song 'You can't say CUNT in Canada' is a true story. But ' gateway to her guts' may be the best description of all time...
Can we vote for "Front bum" instead of vagina next election Jagmeet?? I'd rather call you and the turd a front bum. My mum doesn't like the word CUNT
boom, neither does my mom...she frowns.
But, she knows one when she sees one...just like mine
“For the days will come when people will go mad…”
OMG 😳
The cow vagina is an 8-inch-long passageway located between the cervix and opening to the bladder and is the location of semen deposit during copulation with a bull.
a person with a vagina?
The trial case provided the explicit context of the rape of women by men.
The legal principle that was contested had to do with the use of "Judicial Notice" whereby a court may accept an assertion, or an assumption, as a judicial fact without the necessity of evidence having been submitted to establish a finding of fact during the trial.
It would be impermissible for a judge to draw a conclusion based on "speculative reasoning" rather than on evidence or on invocation of Judicial Notice.
-- QUOTE
Quote: "Where a judge relies on a generalized expectation as itself a factual conclusion, what the judge is really doing is taking judicial notice, which is subject to a stringent test — a standard that will rarely, if ever, be met by a generalized expectation about people due to the variability of human experience and behaviour. And where a factual conclusion is based neither on the evidence, nor on judicial notice, then it is speculation, which is an error of law."
"[The] trial judge relied on [...] a reasonable generalized expectation about general human perception [of] a sexual act of this nature [...], and ordinary people would not generally require special knowledge to assess this sort of evidence. [The] trial judge did not treat this as an indisputable fact but instead used it as a benchmark to assess the complainant’s evidence in light of the totality of the evidence."
The appeals court and the Supreme Court took on the case to clarify the trial judge's use of "generalized expectation". This was analyzed in terms of its "common sense".
Emphasis: common sense generalized expectation.
--VAGINA
The court's opinions used the word vagina (or variation) many times.
The compound term "penile‑vaginal" appeared 6 times, each in the phrase "penile-vaginal penetration" (5) or "penile-vaginal intercourse" (1); the term "vaginal" was used 18 times, "vaginal intercourse" (11) or "vaginal penetration" (7).
Regarding intercourse and penetration, the term "penile-vaginal' or "vaginal" was used with "the feeling of" 13 times in regard to the direct evidence given by the victim of the assault.
At issue was the common-sense notion that a victim might or might not be mistaken about the feeling of penile-vaginal or penile penetration.
In addition, the term "vagina" appeared alone 7 times, once in the phrase "a person with a vagina".
--THE JUSTICE SAID
From Justice Sheilah Martin:
[108]
The Court of Appeal also considered that the trial judge’s conclusion about the complainant’s perception of penile‑vaginal penetration was not the proper subject of judicial notice, as it engaged questions of “neurology (the operation of the body’s sensory system), physiology (the impact of alcohol on perception, memory and the body’s sensory system) and psychiatry (the impact of alcohol and/or trauma on perception and memory)” (para. 67). With respect, the court’s analysis on this point illustrates the potentially absurd consequences of the rule against ungrounded common-sense assumptions. It belies belief that questions of neurology, physiology, or psychiatry would be engaged by testimony that an intoxicated witness was certain they were physically assaulted in some other way, such as a punch to the face or a kick to the shins, such that expert evidence would be required to support that testimony — yet this is exactly the type of evidence the court implied was necessary for the trial judge to reach the conclusion he did in the context of penile-vaginal penetration. Even putting aside the impracticalities associated with finding experts willing and able to testify on such issues, such testimony is simply not necessary to establish what the trial judge determined to be what happened, having heard the complainant’s testimony and considering it in light of all the other evidence.
[109]
Where a person with a vagina testifies credibly and with certainty that they felt penile‑vaginal penetration, a trial judge must be entitled to conclude that they are unlikely to be mistaken. While the choice of the trial judge to use the words “a woman” may have been unfortunate and engendered confusion, in context, it is clear the judge was reasoning that it was extremely unlikely that the complainant would be mistaken about the feeling of penile‑vaginal penetration because people generally, even if intoxicated, are not mistaken about that sensation. In other words, the judge’s conclusion was grounded in his assessment of the complainant’s testimony. The Court of Appeal erred in finding otherwise.