04.26.2013 07:03 AM

Christie Blatchford blames Rehtaeh Parsons (updated twice)

Christie Blatchford is a columnist for Postmedia. Postmedia promotes Blatchford all over the place, putting her face on billboards (when they shouldn’t), and letting her write whatever the Hell she wants (when they shouldn’t).

On the rare occasions when I am tricked into reading one of Blatchford’s cop-loving, native-hating screeds, I am reminded of Ezra Pound. Yes, Blatchford reminds me of Ezra Pound.

Pound, as you will recall, was an acclaimed poet and writer. Some of his works, like The Garden, I committed to memory in my youth. But even in a work as great as that one, there were subtle and disturbing hints about what his politics would become – particularly, for me, the line about “the filthy, sturdy, unkillable infants of the very poor.”

Pound would go on to become a fascist, and an unabashed fan of Hitler and Mussolini and Mosley. He wrote pieces calling Jews “the disease incarnate.” By war’s end, he was placed in a cage by the Allies, and had a mental breakdown. He died in disgrace, and deservedly so.

I am not saying, of course, that Christie Blatchford is a fascist. She is, however, a great stylist, who uses her undeniable writing skills to defend the Right, and attack the weak – such as when she likened natives she dislikes to “terrorists,” for example. I don’t despise her for her views, even though they are often despicable. I despise her willingness – like Pound – to cheapen the gift that God gave her by writing hateful garbage.

Her column today on Rehtaeh Parsons, today, is hateful garbage. I won’t link to it, because it really, truly is that foul. But, essentially, Blatchford writes an entire column – without one named source, without any sources at all, in fact – to seemingly promote the notion that Rehtaeh Parsons wanted to get raped, and that the police were right not to do anything about it. You can find it yourself, if you have the stomach for it. It made me want to throw up, personally. Is she at all aware that an inebriated 15-year-old can’t consent, under Canadian law? And that’s not all: why are the police in Nova Scotia showing evidence to Blatchford, when they’ve announced they’re reopening a criminal probe? That merits a judicial inquiry all on its own.

Anyway. I, we, get Christie Blatchford. She plays a part, like columnists often do. She plays a role. She’s the pro-police, leftie-and-native-hater at Postmedia. If you want to read someone who will always defend the indefensible, but with a clever turn of phrase, Blatchford’s your gal.

There are plenty of writers who will defend the indefensible, unfortunately. But what makes Christie Blatchford a special case – what makes me despise her writing – is that she uses her talents so recklessly.

Hey, Christie Blatchford: Rehtaeh Parsons was the victim. She was gang-raped, and hounded, and harassed, and driven off this Earth by hate. Her death diminished us all, every single one of us.

And you? You don’t give a shit about that.

UPDATE: Rehtaeh’s Dad doesn’t like what she’s written either. Here.

UPDATED AGAIN: And Rehtaeh’s mom hits Blatchford hard, here. (See below.) Blatchford is indeed twisted, and she indeed degrades what happened to Rehtaeh, as her Mom says. No one would disagree.


  1. que sera sera says:

    OMG, thank you Warren. I normally avoid Blatchford like a bad case of herpes but when I read her headline I wondered what particularly foul piece of crap she was peddling as pate.

    Once again the “unofficial” spokesperson for the military and the police falls flat on her unsubstantiated & facile face.

    Reminds me when almost all of the NP synchronized their rationalization & defense of Tom Flanagan’s public advocacy for men’s right to view, without penalty, photos of child rape.

    These two horrific examples of children’s rights being held subordinate to male privilege are inextricably & permanently linked in my mind with conservative “values”.

  2. John says:

    Gee, thanks Warren. Now I feel that I HAVE to go a read her crap. And that,sir, will sully the rest of what was promising to be a good Friday. Sigh.

  3. Greg says:

    Some would call Blatchford’s column “slut shaming”. I’m amazed anyone still reads her.

    • Reality.Bites says:

      She’s in the Post. No one does read her.

      • rob says:

        Christie Blatchford is an excellent journalist….one of the most admired in our country.
        Warren Kinsella is a manipulator who has the mentality of a lynch mob organizer.

        • que sera sera says:

          Oh please – your hyperbole would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic.

          If Blatchford is urgently compelled to add to the national discussion on the sex lives of consenting and non-minor teenagers, why is she only naming PARSONS as one of the alleged multiple parties of a mutually agreed upon legally consensual gang bang?

          If Blatchford is urgently compelled to add to the national discussion on the difficulty of investigating & obtaining convictions when the crime of rape is alleged, why is she only naming PARSONS in a rape crime allegation?

          How is it that only one of the parties of the night in question is being denied both privacy and the presumption of innocence?

          And what exactly is Blatchford publicly and nationally alleging about PARSONS?

  4. Justin says:

    How can you…a supposedly accredited legal expert….make any sort of comment about an article that you can’t be bothered to read?

  5. Kaplan says:

    I read the Blatch piece in the Post this morning, and wondered if you’d seen it. I’d hoped you had, because you’d likely have already put your reaction into words that I’d struggle to find, given my anger.

  6. W the K - No, not Warren says:

    Agreed. Listening to 1010 this morning I got the sense from the commenters, constantly defending Blatchford’s journalistic bona fides, that everything is just fine now, thank you very much, because she wrote a column about it. And they kept calling it an “investigative piece”. I’ve read it. It’s a column full of her opinions. It cites one spokesperson and “Postmedia sources”. Very disturbing.

  7. David Rhind says:

    Cripes now Jerry Agar is weighing in .I wish you would phone in and straighten him out warren..

  8. Ted H says:

    You are right Warren, they shouldn’t show her face. I’m not usually one to comment on people’s appearance given the reliable dissapointment of my first view of the mirror each morning when I shave, but her face would give little children nightmares. No wonder she is so bitter and hateful, even if she thinks she isn’t.

    • Katydid says:

      Perhaps we could avoid the ad hominem (feminem? Excuse butchering of Latin) attacks. Slagging someone for their physical appearance isn’t exactly reasoned debate.

  9. smelter rat says:

    Blatchford stands up for evidence, for reasonable doubt, and for the presumption of innocence – Andrew Coyne on twitter.

  10. JH says:

    Agreed WK – terrible stuff. I equate her and that Mallick woman over at the Star as being about the same. Even Wente is not this bad.

  11. Pipes says:

    I read it and can hardly think of an appropriate response other than she trivialized Rehtaeh’s horror and I don’t know how Blatchford sleeps at night. Seems like Blatchford has appointed herself as a remediator or conciliator and frankly I don’t give a shit about what she thinks.

    And ya, why the hell are the police speaking with here and showing her evidence? Seems to me that makes them even worse than before, if that is possible.

    “The mills of the gods grind slowly but exceedingly fine”.

  12. Mike says:

    Another instance of “blaming the victim” — an all too common habit on the right. Here’s one take on Blatchford:


  13. ottawacon says:

    It is remarkable that such a verbose column could simply fail to address two irrefutable elements of the case:

    i) consent is moot, given her age

    ii) the distribution of the images is child pornography

  14. GPAlta says:

    The column is remarkable in that it works so hard to prove that there was no crime at all, but it also absolves the authorities of their inaction prior to the suicide by saying –

    -On April 12, Halifax RCMP announced that “in light of new and credible information,” they were re-opening the investigation. Spokesman Corporal Scott MacRae said at the time the information didn’t come “from an online source” and that the person is willing to “work with police. But the original police and prosecutors didn’t have that.-

    So what is the point of the column in the end? If there is now credible information that Blatchford excuses the authorities for not finding when it would have been useful, why does she still think that there was no crime?

  15. deb s says:

    I read it. It was sad. she seems to write very well but as you mentioned it based on a faulty foundation and she skirts her sources completely along with cherry picking her examples. How wonderful for rethaeh’s family to first have society judge Retheah thru the internet, then thru the media. I still cannot fathom how folks who see two sides to this story still victimize the victim. The only thing you can reasonably say about the boys, is perhaps using their age as a defense and their alcohol consumption,but even that is pretty tenuous, as they bragged for weeks afterwards.

  16. Jim says:

    I think it’s quite clear that there was a crime here, and that Rehtaeh is a victim in a really sad case of bullying. What I don’t agree with is your low-blow at Blatchford’s looks. Criticize her writing/opinions all you want, but you sound come across as a bully yourself when you start your comment with a shot at the way she looks.

  17. Laine Parnell says:

    She is pandering to so called alpha-males, as usual. ‘Hey guys, look at me, look how tough I can be on my own gender. hey guys, can I sit with you. huh? huh? can I?’

    The lack of usual journalistic verification is just her dribbling haste to cozy up. However, what ON EARTH does her physical appearance have to do whether or not her employer should post her picture. Guys? Knock it off.

  18. Bob Yuhasz says:

    While many will read Blatchford’s garbage and silently sink into despair Warren stands up on a very public way to call garbage, garbage and leads a lot of us to stand up as well! Thanks Warren!

  19. Small Point... says:

    A small point, but a 15 year-old can consent to sex in Canada, depending on the age of the partner(s). There’s a “peer group” exception in the Code.

    See: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/clp/faq.html

    • smelter rat says:

      No one can consent when significantly impaired.

      • eztyger says:

        Incorrect. The Criminal Code of Canada does not recognize intoxication as legal grounds for negating consent. It is left to the courts to infer if there was a lack of consent due to intoxication.


        The capacity to consent requires more than simply the “baseline physical functions”.[1]
        Drunkeness is not the same as incapacity.[2] Poor decision making, memory loss, or loss of inhibition or self-control due to alcohol does not negate consent.[3] An intoxicated complainant may still have the ability to consent.[4]
        Where alcohol may have vitiated consent, it may be best established by way of expert evidence.But it is not necessary as a matter of law.[5]
        Consent may be vitiated by abusing a position of trust, power or authority. [6]
        However, any threats or abuse that occurs after the event cannot go towards vitiation of consent.[7]

        As for capacity to consent, courts can infer a lack of capacity where there is direct evidence that:[4]
        1.the complainant was extremely intoxicated;

        • Due Process For All, Please says:

          Agree on your interpretation of consent among peer group. And whatever happened to ‘due process’ in this country? With ‘Anonymous’ posting names of the males (one who seems to have been nowhere near the events of that night), the howls of the crowd may further complicate a dreadful situation.

          There is a young dead girl, here. There are several young boys who may–or MAY NOT— have varying degrees of CRIMINAL culpabilty (their moral culpability is quite another matter). Is the ‘social media judiciary’ (from either side of this case) going to decide the merits of these people, of this case? My god, what are we becoming, here? Let’s get to evidence and a trial. You know, the Canadian Way.

          A trial will decide questions of rape and child pornography. And I also think that there may be a rather large back tory here here about what is happening in our teens world THAT WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE AND TALK ABOUT: around peer pressure, parental pressure, disgraceful moral (yep, gonna use THAT word here, again) behaviours amongst young males, doubts about actions post sex that may be part of cases like this. And, of course, this young girl cannot tell us what has happened. But as a once young woman myself, who navigated the muddy waters of teen sexuality/popularity/female roles in this society/transition to adulthood here’s your choices: consent wholeheartdly (and who TEACHES us what that is??), consent semi-reluctantly’ (for VERY complicated reasons having to do with self esteem, need for attention/affection, supposed popularity, ‘love’ etc), outright reject advances—OR, consent, THEN feel like crap after consenting.

          And especially when one’s rep becomes the butt of (yet more) spurious gossip after the fact and where it is that also is tied to the instant posting of a picture–which may be the biggest crime here of all. That picture—and the cruel commentary from peers— may have been the factor in sending this young girl over the edge.

          If there is indeed good reason to re-open this case, do it. But, for god’s sake, let’s let that process proceed instread of pretending we have all the answers. Because clearly, we don’t.

          • Due Process For All, Please says:

            if you are interested in teaching (or just talking to) your kids about sex, you might want to check out Marnie Goldenberg @marniegold on Twitter)who also runs a blog called sexplainer.com Topcs inlude:
            Age-appropriate information
            Body smart
            Decision making
            Internet and Technology
            Safe sex
            Sex as pleasure
            Sexually intelligent

            And you have to like a woman who says she’s ‘Growing righteous boys’.

  20. Michael Behiels says:

    Don’t you understand?

    Nova Scotia’s RCMP are using Blatchford to advance their claim that there was no evidence to lay charges against the brutal young men who allegedly raped Rehtaeh Parsons.

    Anonymous’ intervention made the RCMP and the Attorney General of Nova Scotia look like Neanderthals. They are now fighting back to protect themselves against a lawsuit by giving Blatchford a snippet of their so-called evidence proving the Rehtaeh Parsons set out to be gang raped!

    This matter is much bigger than the despicable journalist. It involves the integrity of the entire justice system of Nova Scotia. This is the real story, not the pathetic ramblings of a bewitched New Right columnist.

    • Warren says:

      The leak of evidence in an OPEN case by police was a big, big mistake. It’s obstruction of justice.

      • Michael Behiels says:

        I concur.

        This is now the story that the local, regional, national, and international media now have to cover big time.

        The Nova Scitia justice system stinks and heads need to roll. Why the Harper government does not step in on the alleged rape case is also a big question.

        Harper, a master of politically bullying, was eager to get a photo with the parents on cyber bullying.

        There was no discuss of what was happening in the rape investigation after the RCMP claimed they had found new evidence.

  21. wsam says:

    By no stretch of the immaginaton is Blatchford a good stylist. She is a terrible writer who never met an adverb she couldn’t abuse.

    • George says:

      She also has no business being on talk radio. I suffer through her “contributions” to the CFRB 1010 roundtable in the morning, punctuated by countless “uhhhs” and other vacuous pauses that she likely thinks lend gravitas and an air of thoughfulness to her comments. She’s nothing more than an apologist for the police, the military, the misguided mission to Afghanistan and a gadfly. Someone gifted with the ability to manipulate the written word should use that force for good, not self-aggrandizement, which is what I suspect this article is since everyone is talking about it.

  22. Kevin says:


    I couldn’t agree more. I was an on-again off-again reader of Blatchford. I stopped out of disgust until somehow I was tempted to read the article she wrote about the Trudeau funeral. Surprise! It was a beautiful article, sympathetic, thoughtful and very kind to Margaret – pretty much the opposite to what I expected. So I started reading her again until the accumulated disgust turned me off again. Since then I don’t read her at all. She had two chances. Enough is enough.

  23. KP says:

    A friend and former co-worker once summed up Blatchford quite well: “She got the face she deserved,” due in no small part to her mean-spirited, awful work as a journalist.

  24. partrick says:

    Levy, Blatchford, Levant, Adler, et al are rancid souls spewing vulgar, ignorant nonsense. Other than serving the extreme end a fascist, corporate elite, I see no point to any of their work. I hate that I have to read them just to keep myself informed on what the latest assaults on our liberties, our social fabric, sell off of public resources, our well being are being planned.
    Yes, I’m paranoid, but I good with that.

    • Ted H says:

      Yes, they are all ugly people in more ways than one and despite the free discourse we cherish in a so called Western democratic society, their work has no redeeming virtues at all. They are either knowing shills for the fascist corporate elite you mention, or they are dupes.

  25. I used to see her at my local diner every so often, and often wondered why I didn’t just punch her in the face, or at least throw up on her meal. However, she’d be coming off running with a group of older ladies, and I would rationalise and hem. Of course, I didn’t have the courage to do it.

    It was particularly revolting seeing her the weekend after Jack Layton died and her shitty column that followed his death.

    Then the diner had its rents jacked up, so it had to fold, after 49 years. While I lamented its passing, weekends haven’t been nearly as nauseous since.

  26. Mary Fitzgerald says:

    Agreed 100% – the apologists seem unable and unwilling to not conflate the rape crimes from the “cyber-bullying” and so-called “slut shaming” crimes – in the context of the criminal code, extortion would my preferred charge – even if the rapes were “consensual” (!?!), the sustained and intense extortion was overwhelmingly and evidently not welcomed.

    But beyond the legality, which, whatever the outcome will be the coldest of comforts now that the poor girl is gone, where is the morality in all of this? The general population seems so desensitized that teens getting blind drunk is standard operating procedure? Who is providing it to them? Whose property is this happening on? If it were my daughter, I would be filing a civil suit post haste. Teens in drunken orgies is viewed as normative? Even from an epidemiological perspective (a global pandemic of STIs), this is unwise in the extreme. It seem profoundly sad that our young women are conscripted into a “Leaving Las Vegas” lifestyle before they leave high school.

    Such a grim irony that many of the brave Canadian forces who left the Maritimes to fight the fascist Taliban have returned to communities that seem to have a similarly debased view of how to treat women. Yes, let’s stone the raped and remove temptation from the rapists. That’s what you say Blatchford.

  27. I just read what both of the parents had to say. I think that the National Post should have the guts to print both of those statements across from a re-print of Blatchfords attack. Rahteah`s dad is a better writer than Blatchford any day as far as I am concerned.

  28. Scotian says:

    While I can understand WK’s decision to not link to the piece in question I still felt I needed to go read it for myself to see whether it was as egregious a piece of work as he was describing it, I have this thing about always checking source/raw data for myself than just relying on what someone else tells me about it wherever possible. Before I went to it I thought that perhaps WK was being a bit hyperbolic in his comments and comparison to Ezra Pound, although having read some of her work in the past I did know it wasn’t totally without some basis. However after reading this piece by her I have to say WK’s post here was if anything being overly kind and generous. That was one of the ugliest polite pieces of excrement being passed off as so called responsible journalism I have encountered in a long time from any side of the political spectrum. I mean really, as if the clear slut shaming within the piece was not enough the full and total blowjob to the police and Crown and the claiming of new information that only she and hers have from “sources close to the investigation” (a description I might add that can be honestly read to mean those being accused and their families as easily as the investigators both police and legal) reduced what has been one of the uglier human tragedies around my home town to yet another not just blame the victim but also pity the poor law enforcement side because it was too hard to do their jobs hatchet job despite what was clearly and obviously a very ugly crime of sexual assault and sexual harassment after the fact.

    Well I for one am not willing to let the authorities off the hook on this one. One of the primary reasons, which has been documented time and time and time again for why sexual assault is so under-reported as a crime is because the authorities even to this day still see the victim as having played some role in their victimization making it harder to o after the victimizers despite the simple and naked truth, when someone says no, or is is not place to be able to give informed consent (as in to intoxicated, even if they were able and had prior to getting drunk) if the other side disregards it then it is sexual assault/rape!!! Until the legal system (both enforcement and prosecution ) acts like this is actually the case this rape culture as it has been termed will not ever go away.

    Why does this irk me so much? Simple, I am in my mid 40s, and from my early teens onwards was very promiscuous, and I never once had any problem with respecting a person’s right to say no even if we were in the middle of things (and yes I have done so, even while I was in my mid teens with raging hormones so I have absolutely ZERO time/patience for anyone that tries to use that excuse), consent is ALWAYS retractable, and this idea that once it is given it cannot later be retracted is one of the more disturbing elements in our culture where this issue is concerned for me. I mean really, if I growing up back when sexual assault was still a relatively quiet and non-discussed concept (as opposed to the past quarter century now) could understand and respect these basic boundary issues there is *NO EXCUSE* for it not happening now except by wilfull blindness/choice and/or the sense given to young males that their rights always matter more than a womans, even/especially where control over their own bodies is concerned!

    What made Blatchford’s article ugliest though was that she was telling others to not make assumptions and presumptions about the guilt of the parties in question while doing exactly that where the victim was concerned, and seeing as the victim here ended up taking her own life while the attackers are not only alive but spent the past year and a half glorifying their actions to all that would listen, and the justice system not only failed to seriously look at this case but when it finally did anything it did not follow its own basic rules for questioning witnesses let alone potential suspects, namely doing so individually not as a group together, is hypocrisy beyond measure! For her to excuse law enforcement and the Crown before any in depth inquiry into their actions shows that for her it is all about defending those she sides with, not the actual facts as they may be, and to do so while sanctimoniously preaching to others about how dare they prejudge let alone condemn the inaction of the justice system in this case only shows why WK’s comparison to Ezra Pound is alas all too fitting IMHO.

    For a long time there has been indications that justice in this Province is not what it is supposed to be in its application, that how one got treated was very much determined by as much who they were ass well as who they knew as to anything else, and perhaps this case will finally blow that wide open and lance what to me has been a long standing boil on our justice system in NS. There is also a clear problem to this day with the reality of how sexual assault and the victimization of women gets treated in our local culture and it is long past time it is finally dealt with. Why did these boys think they would get away with everything they did? Because for the most part it is how things go down here even to this day. I’ve wondered if there was some private protection involved here as well, and have speculated as much, but sadly I am also aware that it didn’t need to have to be there for something this sad and sickening to have happened. The level of what is called the rape culture around here is far more the norm, I know, because I deal with far too many women that have been on the wrong side of it, and I’ve also seen the reactions I get from far too many of my fellow males when I dare to take their sides, the “bros before hoes” mentality is almost reflexive for so many males down here, regardless of where they are on the economic/social ladder. To see further crap written by a woman that reads so much like something one of those males I just described was sickening, but alas not surprising given all I have seen on sexual issues in this culture of ours. This HAS to stop, it demeans, devalues, and degrades all of us as human beings let alone for any claim to being civilized human beings.

    • deb s says:

      thanks…this is a great discussion on what is wrong with society and how they devalue the victims words/actions vs the perpetrator actions. Its why people misundertand the crux of sexual assaults.

  29. Blatchford forgot to absolve the cops for interviewing the four suspects together and not until several months after the complaint was filed with the police. Surely she has some explanation for such shoddy investigation techniques.

    • BDJ says:

      Because the police can’t force the youths to do an interrogation. Read the YCJA.

      I’m assuming your knowledge of policing comes from network television. My advice to everyone here is to join the police and solve all the problems in the world.

  30. Johnny Thunder says:

    Wow judging by this piece and the comments that followed there sure we’re a lot of posters at that party. Not sure what happened, but if a crime was committed it still has to be proven. I happen to believe a crime happened but it has to be proven, these accusations have happened before when no crime happened, anonymous screwed up once already and named and shamed a person already, are they right here too?

  31. TC says:

    Blatchford is going too far in her quest to be controversial and get attention. Further victimizing a young girl who is no longer with us and her family, not to mention anyone in similar circumstances as Rahteah Parsons is destructive and hurtful. It’s a sad indictment of just how far someone will go to garner headlines.

  32. Hugo says:

    Thanks for the objectiveness. Blatchford is a waste of time. and btw, it’s not my fault, I was throwing up bent-over from reading CB’s column, and that made me do this;
    http://i.imgur.com/0g7f3fv.jpg http://i.imgur.com/0g7f3fv.jpg

  33. Bark Haskin says:

    As the legal community in Canada has apparently forgotten the criminal code:

    264. (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.
    (2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of
    (a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;
    (b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;
    (c) besetting or watching the dwelling- house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or
    (d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.
    (3) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of
    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years;

    2b clearly encompasses all the comments posted on facebook; as facebook never deletes the records of any posting, even after they have been deleted by users, it is imperative that facebook is subpoenaed to get a full transcript of all the people, especially the alleged rapists, who posted harassing comments.

    2d clearly indicates that these pink coloured “support the boys” flyers also constitute criminal harassment. We would argue that the National Post, by distributing images of these flyers has itself now engaged in harassment.

    As the victim was clearly emotionally distraught – understandable so – the element of “safety” is magnified in the sense that just as slight shove between strong men would have a negligible effect, the same shove to an injured person could be painful in the extreme; in this case the emotional trauma would only greatly exacerbate the so-called “cyber-bullying” and “slut shaming” communications. This concept also applies to the grieving parents and family.

    Go for the full ten years behind bars. The girl is dead after all.

    I’m counting on you Kinsella to keep the pressure on and round up all the pro bono help needed to get this job done!

    If the powers-that-be are unable or unwilling to enforce the rule of law, then we will have no choice to but to consider this a declaration of war, and hence, plan B:


  34. eztyger says:

    Mr. Kinsella, you are incorrect in your assertion that a 15 year old cannot consent under Canadian law. In point of fact, The criminal code provides “close in age” or “peer group” exceptions. For example, a 14 or 15 year old can consent to sexual activity with a partner as long as the partner is less than five years older. I would respectfully suggest that you do your due diligence as a reporter when citing the particulars of Canadian law, and correct your statement “Is she at all aware that a 15-year-old can’t consent, under Canadian law?”

    • eztyger says:

      The Criminal Code of Canada does not recognize intoxication itself as legal grounds for negating consent. It is left to the courts to infer if there was a lack of consent due to intoxication, which must be proven with evidence or expert testimony on a case-by-case basis.

  35. Miter Basinsdirty says:

    Totally agree! Down with Blatchford!

  36. Kir Birstits says:

    Does not matter Eztger! Somebody must pay! Fire Blatchface!

    • eztyger says:

      Actually, responsible journalism does matter. This is not a witch-hunt.

      I find it ironic that those most concerned with bullying are generally the first ones to start calling people names.

  37. ok says:

    I Feel sorry for this poor girl and her parents she is gone but her parents are must suffer daily and need to know that she must die for so many reasons But most of what I can think. She must very sensitive or She must very kind and act simple to solve her problems hopeless to able to change and it was with her for so long period. not see this case simple case.
    She never saw awful and bad people in her life and not able to how to handle them, She did not know how to stop bad people out of her life or She has lack of correct support team around her to direct her.
    In that situation their parents should even move and change city for sake of their child safety and go place nobody know her before that happened she should long time ago, Completely change school and NEW environment and go different places and meet more people such as Trip seeing different country give them HOPE and not see world only her home and friend and nothing else.
    Extreme anxiety and stress and depression mix together, She should used medication when parents cannot calm their child. FRIEND also key factor in life of teenage girls and boys and girls are grow different in that age.
    Finally I think some course must go MANDATORY in school about how communication and how children behave Before in my age it was under religion courses to my teacher train us but now in Canada only catholic school may have one I am not sure I am not catholic. Parents MUST talk to children every day for at least 15 minutes to know and check on them.
    Alcohol and Marijuana also may cause behaviour among teenager cannot control their emotion and some behave to alcohol and marijuana not the same some get worst some may get calm down. But why she should go in link with those strange boys to begin with it. She may behave with very simple with people around herself those are training and lesson some teacher who are educated teach teenager in school. There was so much safety and security must teach kids from early age and how to not talk to stranger easy. how many time per day some one tell teens do and don’t regard to their saftey and prevention in school or home.

  38. Cromwell says:

    Blatch has graduated from police asslicker to rape apologist. No doubt her mother would be proud.

  39. po'd says:

    Best description I can think of comes from a John Candy movie;

    “The original all purpose ditch witch.”

  40. MCBellecourt says:

    Blatchford’s thinking is almost Taliban-esque.

  41. Derek Pearce says:

    I’ve always thought of Blatch, Peggy Wente, and Jan Wong as peas in a pod. Provocation masquerading as journalism. Controversy for controversy’s sake. I’ve always thought the stuff they write is far more designed to merely push buttons/get attention rather than coming from a place of conviction.

  42. po'd says:

    A little anonymous sleuthing turned up a not so anonymous blog post dedicated to Ms. Parsons issues and a careful read of the discussions, screen shots and comments is quite revealing.

    The blogger also wrote a separate brief post in response to Blatchford.


    I won’t post the link to the first one because there’s interaction from at least one of the so called boys family members and frankly it appears they aren’t bright enough to realize they are outing the people who they strive to protect. From there I was able to find a lot more through a simple search. I suspected that by now certain details would have begun to leak out, and it seems the it’s like a leaky watering can, spreading droplets all over the place.

  43. Joe says:

    I guess I come from a little different perspective than most on this board. I lost a son to suicide because of cyber bullying. He was unmercifully pilloried for something he didn’t do. He couldn’t have done it because he was 600 miles away during the time the alleged incident took place. That didn’t stop the bullies. No amount of rebuttal was sufficient. A cloak of silence descended and only the bullies’ views were allowed to be heard.

    Unfortunately I see that same kind of bullying going on on this page and in this column. There is only one side allowed to be heard and the only voice defending the other victim, the boy who was not even there, is being accused of all kinds of evil including failing to brush her teeth. I know it is all wonderful to feel sanctimonious while defending a suicide but be very careful that you don’t cause another because you are now the bully.

    Let’s be fair and honest and endeavor not to shout down one side or the other as they lay out their case.

    • que sera sera says:

      Joe, if you want to “hear the other side” in a court of law, take it up with the police who couldn’t be bothered with an SOP criminal investigation before Parsons’ death. Regardless of what the cops do, it’s too late for Parsons day in court isn’t it.

      If you want to hear some of the other side admit to their culpability and their actions in screwing a drunk, puking, 15 y.o. girl, and tormenting her with images, texts, and comments, just cruise the Internet and read their definitively stupid & completely admissible internet trail, through twitter, facebook, on blogs, through flyers, on the street, in the schools, in public, and to anyone who would listen. Much of which is corroborated and elaborated upon through the stalwart efforts of stupid family members.

      One can only speculate why they & their brethren & rape apologist groupies are suddenly so shy now.

      How dare you pretend one side is being shouted down. Get a grip. When someone elects to publish their most egregious and heinous activities, with pictures, texts, and family commentary, when they choose to put that out on the public domain, don’t pretend they have a right to silence the critics of their self-published & incriminating material.

      Public commentary on rape culture in Canada is not “bullying”. Continued attempts to silence such a discussion is BULLYING.

      • deb s says:

        I agree…thanks for posting.
        and when we are talking about who is shouting down who…lets realize that when a vast majority is agreeing on one side of the street and talking about injustice and nodding with disgust at how people misunderstand what sexual assault, and what constitutes sexual consent in this case.
        lets then look over at the other side…the one with five idiots standing their holding a sign saying two sides…but they are too shy now to show their face in the camara and use their family members to bully others …while shouting their innocence.
        well shouting is the group that has few…and seems to think the injustice is how the boys are treated.

        where is the other rational group doesnt need to shout…they just have more voices.

        • Joe says:

          Ah yes and while we are at it we can burn a few witches at the stake, maybe ruin a few lives of those ‘lousy communists’ destroy the lives of a few young men because we know that every sexual encounter between a man and a woman is rape.

          I am in no way, shape or form defending rape, rapists or any kind of rape culture (whatever politically correct nonsense that is). I am defending the right to a fair trial and the right not to be hanged by some cyber vigilante mob who believes ‘the n….r must have done it ’cause his skin is black’, Reading some of these comments reminds me of the Simpsons where Homer leads another mob racing across town in search of vigilante justice over some crime that never occurred.

          Now if you want to engage in cyber bullying then I guess there isn’t much that can be done to stop it. I simply want justice to be done. If the boys raped the girl then let them face the consequences of their actions. If the boys did not rape the girl then let us not be accusing them based on a distraught mother’s facebook posting.

          • que sera sera says:

            Your BS premise has absolutely nothing to do with justice, a fair trial, or “cyber-bullying”.

            What you are actually defending is “the boys” urgent need to suddenly have a respectful cone of silence lowered over all of their, their family members’, and their supporters public (and admissible) comments regarding their actions on the night in question and their actions subsequent to the night in question.

            What you are actually defending is the slut-shaming of Parsons initiated by “the boys” and perpetuated by a national newspaper columnist.

            What you are suggesting is that since those comments were put in the public domain, and shared with the public, to criminally harass a 15 y.o. to death over an eighteen month period, suddenly now – since the comments actually succeeded in destroying the victim – NOW, ONLY NOW, the public is supposed to respectfully refrain from commenting on those same incriminating comments.

            When you choose to put your information out in the public domain for perusal by the public (why else would you share it??) you by definition have already forfeited your right to restrict or prevent the public from commenting and your right to suddenly disassociate yourself from the information you thoughtfully provided.

            Give your head a shake. You and some members of the media are a prime example of why rape culture is alive & well in Canada.

            I wonder why boys don’t photograph & circulate trophy pictures & comments on social media of their drunken sexual encounters sodomizing their passed out male buddy?

          • deb s says:

            cyberbullying? I am certain the mom is not engaging in that in the least…again the terms seem misused. The Parsons are pouring their heart out in the media and facebook. Thats their right …they are calling on the community to pressure the police and the politicians to fix the problems.
            Problems that include internet porn being passed around that then shames a victim over and over. They are asking things to improve using the tragedy of their daughter as an example of what can happen when things get let go.

            cyberbulling is what those A-holes did…after a drunken night of sexual assault. THEY put the images out there to be shared by thousands. Not Rethaeh Parson.
            the societal beliefs around blaming and shaming the victim need to be addressed…thats not bullying…thats progress:P

            I cannot believe that whatever angle folks want to take this case from…they still dont realize these boys are continuing the cyberbulling, they are digging their own legal grave …using their family members as the pall bearers. I think that its reported … they are also engaging in face to face bullying and the father to one of the perps is also threatening folks online.

            whats going on here is a discussion…not a witchhunt! Since im not a county prosecutor…I feel justified in my freedom to express my views.

  44. Evan says:

    Joe, I couldn’t agree more. I too am concerned by the tone of this discussion. Has there been a miscarriage of justice? Perhaps. In due course, we will know. But in the meantime, I worry that the presumption of innocence has been dismantled on this board.

    • Evan says:

      Thanks Tim. I think you may have missed the point that Joe made and that I attempted to echo, namely, that a facile consensus has emerged here in the absence of all the facts. Reatha’s death is a big tragedy. I’m glad the issue is now under careful review. If there has been a crime and if the authorities bungled, them throw the book at them. But until the facts are in, I’m reserving judgment. I would urge you to do the same. Why? Because as Joe put it, there’s a danger, perhaps only remote, that other innocent lives could be destroyed by innuendo and unverified allegations that become mainstream. That would only compound the tragedy.

      • que sera sera says:

        What is the “facile consensus that has emerged here”? That fucking & photographing a drunk puking kid & tormenting her about the incident on public media for 18 months until she kills herself is perhaps a tad more serious than being late for school or forgetting to do your homework?

        I am unaware of anyone other than PARSONS whose innocent life has been destroyed by innuendo, unverified allegations, and whose dead memory is now being slut-shamed in a national newspaper. Or is there a national publication that is slut-shaming & naming her partners? Perhaps I missed that article.

        Or do you mean the “innocent lives” of those people who circulated in public their names, their information, their pictures, their comments bragging about banging & hounding PARSONS “the slut” to death? Are those the innocent lives you are referring to?

        God forbid, PARSONS tormenters were held to account for the heinous activities they bragged about in public. That would never do, eh. How sensitive of you to take the time & trouble to remind us all.

        A court of law is only ONE of many arenas where you can experience the consequences of your actions. Like PARSONS did, you & others need to accept that fact.

      • Joe says:

        Looks like Homer, Lenny and Carl have their pitchforks out Evan. We might was well just keep silent. They’s gonna be a witch burnin’ fer sher down there on the Cape. Who needs evidence when there’s a witch burnin’ to be had? Might even hang a few N….rs at the same time. Why they may even go all out and ‘off’ a few of those evil commies! Yessirree looks like a fine time for the intolerant and the ignorant. Mighty fine. You know I heard that when they’re done cleaning up Cape Breton they’re aiming at going to Boston and “riddin’ us of some of them thar Mooslem terroristy folks”. Can’t have a bomb culture and a rape culture ya know.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.