As it says on the thread title. I'd imagine many babblers, especially in the Toronto area, are familiar with Hawkes.
http://tinyurl.com/gudcuoo
Stay tuned.
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Brent Hawkes facing assault charges from 1970s
Brent Hawkes facing assault charges from 1970s
Comments
Submitted by kropotkin1951 on February 2, 2016 - 2:46pm.
I tried to find a report that actually cites the details of the crimes he is charged with but all the large MSM outlets just say indecent assault and gross indecency. The local paper has the most information.
Quote:
Rev. Dr. Brent Leroy Hawkes, 65, is charged with indecent assault and an act of gross indecency involving oral sex. It’s alleged that the offences involved a male victim and were committed in Greenwood between Aug. 1, 1974, and Dec. 31, 1975.
Hawkes is charged under the Criminal Code of Canada as it was written between 1970 and 1982. Kings RCMP filed charges against Hawkes in December.
http://www.novanewsnow.com/News/Local/2016-02-02/article-4423732/Toronto...
Submitted by bagkitty on February 2, 2016 - 5:41pm.
Xtra has a story that may answer some of your questions Kropotkin. Here is the linked article.
Submitted by kropotkin1951 on February 2, 2016 - 7:53pm.
Thats helps a bit. Now if I only still had access to Quicklaw I could figure out what the law was in those days. Hawkes would have been 24 when the first alleged events occurred. Its unusual for the Crown to go forward with charges that are that old on the basis of one complaint. I know the penalities in those days were potentially severe.
Submitted by bagkitty on February 2, 2016 - 8:53pm.
@kroptokin
You can find the historical definitions of "gross indecency" here. The primary difference (insofar as I can identify it) is that the 1970 version of the provision provided for imprisonment for 5 years, whereas the 1985 revision provided for imprisonment not to exceed 5 years. I am not certain if the former should be interpreted as a mandatory sentence or not. (Out of interest, the further penalty of whipping (on top of imprisonment) was removed in the 1954-55 revisions to the Code.)
The penalities for "Indecent Assualt on Males" are here. Ten years imprisonment plus whipping. Again, it is unclear if this is a mandatory sentence.
Submitted by kropotkin1951 on February 2, 2016 - 9:47pm.
Thank you for those links. It appears that the age of consent was 21 in that period of time and I presume an act of gross indecency would include a blow job or probably even a hand job. The Reverend says it didn't happen so If this is a he said he said situation it will make for an interesting case. I notice that it was the RCMP laying charges and not the Crown. I wonder who the Officer is that decided this should go forward.
I spend a number of years in a promiscuous phase of screwing anyone who was interested gender not withstanding. I looked older than my age when I was in my late teens and I can remember one of my lovers who was likely in his mid twenties belatedly asking me my age and when I told him 18 he was a bit concerned. I can't imagine that becoming the subject of criminal charges decades later but it was a technically a criminal offense that has no statute of limitations.
Submitted by bagkitty on February 3, 2016 - 4:02pm.
I must admit the 40 year gap puzzles me. If this were a "politically motivated" prosecution, one would have thought it would have happened in 1981 during the reaction to the bathhouse raids (Operation Soap) or during the period from 2001-2003 when the MCC was posting banns in order to side-step the refusal of the government to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples. It seems a little late in the day for a political motive to be coming into play now that Hawkes is less prominent in political matters than he would have been in either of the time periods I mention above.
I would be very cautious about this until more information is available and verified. Hawkes is on record (as reported in the Xtra article) as asserting that the allegations are wholly unfounded, on the basis that "The purported events simply did not take place." I think the presumption of innocence that is part of our legal system has to be taken into account -- at the same time, there are no grounds to assume that the individual who reported an incident is not being truthful -- I guess that that is why we have these things decided by courts...
Of all the things that puzzle me about this, the one that gives me the most pause is the statement in the Xtra article that "Both charges relate to a single person, who was a minor at the time of the allegations." At the time of the alleged offence, the age of consent (well, to be fair, for heterosexuals) was 14 - was this individual a minor by that definition? Currently, the age of consent is 16 (well, to be fair, except for buggery...) - was the individual a minor by that definition? Then, as now, the age of majority is 18, is the story using this strict definition? At the time of the alleged offence, consent between two members of the same sex was only possible if they were 21 or older... would someone somehow have the status of a minor in that case? -- If the prosecution of the alleged offence is to take place under the terms of the Criminal Code as it existed at the time, is the identity of the alleged victim still protected legislation that came into effect after the date of the alleged offence?
A few questions about journalistic practice also come to mind. While, particularly when involving minors, the identity of either offenders or victims are shielded (and quite rightly so), it is common practice to make reference to their actual age - the reference to the alleged being a minor (especially in light of confusion evidenced by the preceding paragraph) would seem to cry out for a specific reference to age. Likewise, referring to Hawkes occupation as a teacher during the period when the alleged offence took place leads almost immediately to questioning if the alleged victim was a student of Hawkes... an important consideration (especially under the current understanding of consent and the dynamics of an alleged offender being in a position of authority vis a vis an alleged victim).
Many more questions than answers at this point in time.
FWIW: I know have been throwing around the word alleged as if I had purchased it by the case lot -- I have done so because I cannot think of an appropriate synonym. I was hoping to make it crystal clear that I am trying respecting the presumption of innocence on the part of any accused -- but wish there was someway of clearly indicating that I am also trying to avoid, in any way, suggesting that one should disbelieve the individual who reported the allegation... If any of the babble scribes has any suggestions as to a better way of dealing with (and it arises every time that criminal/court matters come into a discussion) I invite them to jump into the discussion.
Submitted by kropotkin1951 on February 3, 2016 - 8:16pm.
Your thoughts closely mirror my own. I never discount the testimony of a person who comes forward charging abuse but I also believe in the presumption of innocence. The reporting in this case has been very bad especially around the matter of the age of the complainant and the relationship to Hawkes. If sex did occur and it has been forgotten about it makes a major difference to me if he was 20 and not in a pupil teacher relationship. I just did a little mind test and frankly I don't think I could remember all the people I slept with in some periods of my life.
Submitted by voice of the damned on February 3, 2016 - 11:34pm.
bagkitty wrote:
FWIW: I know have been throwing around the word alleged as if I had purchased it by the case lot -- I have done so because I cannot think of an appropriate synonym. I was hoping to make it crystal clear that I am trying respecting the presumption of innocence on the part of any accused -- but wish there was someway of clearly indicating that I am also trying to avoid, in any way, suggesting that one should disbelieve the individual who reported the allegation... If any of the babble scribes has any suggestions as to a better way of dealing with (and it arises every time that criminal/court matters come into a discussion) I invite them to jump into the discussion.
I'm not sure there's really any way of squaring the circle on this. If you say a crime is "alleged" to have taken place, you are implying that the person who says it did may be making untruthful statements. That's not neccessarily the same thing as saying that he's lying(eg. he may just have a faulty memory), but it is saying that his word should not, at least in public discussion, be automatically taken at face value.
Submitted by bagkitty on February 4, 2016 - 12:31am.
votd: guess there is very little option other than to continue to make it clear that one is using the term "alleged" as a strictly technical one and addressing the overtones of disbelief explicitly -- and remembering that unless proven statements by police, accuser and accused all should be considered allegations.
Submitted by bagkitty on February 4, 2016 - 12:40am.
@kropotkin: oh you are preaching to the choir - being out and active in the period (pre-1985 redefinition of the age of consent for most things) I have to be honest and say I would have an extremely hard time remembering even the first name of many of my partners. It was pre-AIDS crisis and I was an enthusiastic participant in recreational sex. I've been trying to determine how many would have also been under 21 at the time, and I am still stuck at single digits... 40 years on and it kind of boggles my mind that completely consensual sexual activity on my part could expose the number of men it would to potential criminal charges. (I never really kept a tally... but the number would not be "inconsiderable").
Submitted by mark_alfred on February 5, 2016 - 11:25pm.
Craig Scott wrote:
Statement from Craig Scott on charges against Rev. Brent Hawkes
February 2, 2016
In the news today is coverage of charges laid by the RCMP in Nova Scotia against one of Canada’s most committed and respected fighters for human rights, for social justice and for building bridges across faiths. Rev. Brent Hawkes has been charged for conduct alleged to have occurred some 40 years ago. In my capacity as the Member of Parliament for Toronto-Danforth (March 2012 – October 2015), and as a member of the congregation of Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto which is in Toronto-Danforth, I came to know Brent very well. He is a person of great character and integrity, a person marked by a deep capacity for compassion and empathy. Not only do I believe he is incapable of seeking to harm another person but also I believe that truth-telling is at the very core of his being.
Therefore, knowing Brent as I do, I wish to add my voice, unreservedly, to that of his legal counsel, Clayton Ruby, when Mr. Ruby says – and I now say with equal force – that I believe Brent completely when Brent states that these events did not happen and that the accusations are false.
Some will say that nobody should be prejudging a court case, out of respect for the complainant. This is a wholly unrealistic position in a world that is dominated by media sensationalism and that produces trials by media (including now, social media), which can destroy reputations (and lives) of accused persons simply by virtue of allegations being out there. I do not have to know the accuser to know that I believe Brent Hawkes to be innocent, because I believe Brent. Period. And, when I believe someone to be unjustly accused, I feel no duty to await the slow grinding of the wheels of the justice system before showing that person my full public support.
-- Craig Scott, professor of law at Osgoode Hall Law School; former MP for Toronto-Danforth (2012-2015).
Submitted by kropotkin1951 on February 6, 2016 - 7:30pm.
This is an interesting explanation of the law and a good commentary on the inappropriateness of using those archaic sections of the Criminal Code in this day and age.
Quote:
Valverde says she was shocked when she saw that Hawkes was charged with gross indecency.
“I just don’t see any possible justification why anybody would bring up a section of the Criminal Code with such a bad history,” she says.
Charging someone with gross indecency today brings up a number of potential complications.
Because the age of consent was 21, anyone under that age could have been considered a minor unable to consent at the time.
A spokesperson for the Nova Scotia RCMP tells Daily Xtra that they are unable to reveal the age of the alleged victim at this time, but confirmed that it could be anyone up to the age of 21.
Valverde says that there are a number of possibilities for why the charge is being used in the Hawkes case.
“They often charge people with three different things for the same crime, that’s very common,” she says. “So they can plea bargain, or they can have some bargaining power.”
Valverde says that once details about the case emerge, the most important question will be if the alleged sexual activity that took place would be legal today.
“And if it is legal now, then you really have to wonder about the prosecution,” she says.
Valverde worries about the precedent that using such historically homophobic charges sets.
“It sends a message to gay men, older gay men especially, that they may not have gained all of the rights they think they have gained,” she says.
http://www.m.dailyxtra.com/toronto/news-and-ideas/news/the-history-gross...
Submitted by Mr. Magoo on February 6, 2016 - 9:20pm.
Of course I know nothing of the complainant in this, and I'm not here to deny anyone their voice, but is it OK to just say, provisionally, that something in the milk ain't clean?
Submitted by RevolutionPlease on February 7, 2016 - 1:56am.
Do you ever contemplate, provisionally, waiting for the details?
Submitted by Northern PoV on February 7, 2016 - 11:52am.
Mr. Magoo wrote:
Of course I know nothing of the complainant in this, and I'm not here to deny anyone their voice, but is it OK to just say, provisionally, that something in the milk ain't clean?
I disagree. I say the accused gets the presumption of innocence and the benefit of due process. Especially on any charge based on an ancient event (13 years is a long time, let alone 40)
Submitted by monty1 on February 7, 2016 - 12:12pm.
Hemust be very wealthy or have wealthy backers because he has Clayton Ruby.
Submitted by kropotkin1951 on February 7, 2016 - 12:23pm.
Quote:
At the Summit of the Americas last month, Robinson was hit in the leg with a plastic bullet and tear-gassed.
The British Columbia MP wouldn't comment on a second lawsuit he filed against the National Post.
That lawsuit claims the newspaper took statements Robinson made about his pants being torn and used them out of context.
The Post ran a series of farcical articles, purporting to raise money for a New Pants for Svend fund.
There was nothing funny about the violence in Quebec City, Robinson said.
Only by turn to his lawyer Clayton Ruby was he taken seriously, he said.
"You shouldn't have to do that. You shouldn't have to turn to Clayton Ruby to make sure that police don't stomp on the rights of individuals."
http://www.queensjournal.ca/story/2001-05-29/news/torn-pants-no-joke-say...
Submitted by Northern PoV on February 7, 2016 - 12:36pm.
kropotkin1951 wrote:
Quote:At the Summit of the Americas last month, Robinson was hit in the leg with a plastic bullet and tear-gassed.
The British Columbia MP wouldn't comment on a second lawsuit he filed against the National Post.
That lawsuit claims the newspaper took statements Robinson made about his pants being torn and used them out of context.
The Post ran a series of farcical articles, purporting to raise money for a New Pants for Svend fund.
There was nothing funny about the violence in Quebec City, Robinson said.
Only by turn to his lawyer Clayton Ruby was he taken seriously, he said.
"You shouldn't have to do that. You shouldn't have to turn to Clayton Ruby to make sure that police don't stomp on the rights of individuals."
http://www.queensjournal.ca/story/2001-05-29/news/torn-pants-no-joke-say...
So you are pro-defendant here but neutral commentators in Ghomesi are misogynist?
Submitted by monty1 on February 7, 2016 - 12:50pm.
Personally, I found the defintion of misogyist so wrong in all ways for me that I did a little of my own psychoanalysis of my personality to find out if I was a man hater. But that sort of left me just as cold. I took it as an opportunity to learn something more about myself, and not as an insult as it was meant. Were there other similar accusations Northern PoV?
Submitted by kropotkin1951 on February 7, 2016 - 1:08pm.
Northern PoV wrote:
So you are pro-defendant here but neutral commentators in Ghomesi are misogynist?
I have repeatedly called JG a misogynist. I am not sure where I have called any neutral commentators misogynist, please point it out for me. The main difference so far in the two cases is with JG he admits that he assaulted the women but says that they wanted it. Hawkes is currently denying that the incident happened. As well when JG's story broke a bunch of women came forward with similar stories. It is the multitude of the stories and JG's insistence that they all wanted to be assaulted that is way different. With Hawkws we shall see since it is early days but so far his complainant seems to be a one off.
As well i think that beating on women is wrong while I think that sex between an 18 year old and a 24 year old is no problem. The use of an archaic homophobic statute that makes any type of sex between two males if one is under 21 is the problem I have. If the details show that Hawkes was in a position of power as a teacher my views might change and if the complainant was younger than 16 at the time that will have a major impact on my thoughts.
Submitted by bekayne on February 7, 2016 - 1:32pm.
kropotkin1951 wrote:
The use of an archaic homophobic statute that makes any type of sex between two males if one is under 21 is the problem I have. If the details show that Hawkes was in a position of power as a teacher my views might change and if the complainant was younger than 16 at the time that will have a major impact on my thoughts.
It's the problem a lot of us have with this case
Submitted by pookie on February 7, 2016 - 1:37pm.
voice of the damned wrote:
bagkitty wrote:FWIW: I know have been throwing around the word alleged as if I had purchased it by the case lot -- I have done so because I cannot think of an appropriate synonym. I was hoping to make it crystal clear that I am trying respecting the presumption of innocence on the part of any accused -- but wish there was someway of clearly indicating that I am also trying to avoid, in any way, suggesting that one should disbelieve the individual who reported the allegation... If any of the babble scribes has any suggestions as to a better way of dealing with (and it arises every time that criminal/court matters come into a discussion) I invite them to jump into the discussion.
I'm not sure there's really any way of squaring the circle on this. If you say a crime is "alleged" to have taken place, you are implying that the person who says it did may be making untruthful statements. That's not neccessarily the same thing as saying that he's lying(eg. he may just have a faulty memory), but it is saying that his word should not, at least in public discussion, be automatically taken at face value.
Hm - not sure I agree. Properly understood, the "allegations" relate to the criminality of the act, which depends on more than witness truthfulness. As well, there is a wide scope between accepting witness testimony beyond a reasonable doubt, and thinking that they are lying.
Submitted by pookie on February 7, 2016 - 1:41pm.
kropotkin1951 wrote:
Northern PoV wrote:So you are pro-defendant here but neutral commentators in Ghomesi are misogynist?
I have repeatedly called JG a misogynist. I am not sure where I have called any neutral commentators misogynist, please point it out for me. The main difference so far in the two cases is with JG he admits that he assaulted the women but says that they wanted it. Hawkes is currently denying that the incident happened. As well when JG's story broke a bunch of women came forward with similar stories. It is the multitude of the stories and JG's insistence that they all wanted to be assaulted that is way different. With Hawkws we shall see since it is early days but so far his complainant seems to be a one off.
As well i think that beating on women is wrong while I think that sex between an 18 year old and a 24 year old is no problem. The use of an archaic homophobic statute that makes any type of sex between two males if one is under 21 is the problem I have. If the details show that Hawkes was in a position of power as a teacher my views might change and if the complainant was younger than 16 at the time that will have a major impact on my thoughts.
Sorry for raising Ghomeshi stuff in this thread.
Has JG actually admitted - in FB posts or whatever - to applying force to any of the three complainants?
Submitted by Mr. Magoo on February 7, 2016 - 1:59pm.
Quote:
Do you ever contemplate, provisionally, waiting for the details?
Quote:
I disagree. I say the accused gets the presumption of innocence and the benefit of due process. Especially on any charge based on an ancient event (13 years is a long time, let alone 40)
Yikes! Re-reading my post I can see where I was unclear.
I think there's something fishy about this accusation, not Hawkes.
Submitted by mark_alfred on February 7, 2016 - 2:03pm.
Re post #23. The main FB post JG made is here: http://globalnews.ca/news/1637310/full-text-jian-ghomeshis-post-on-why-h... I'm unaware of anything else posted or stated by him.
Submitted by Northern PoV on February 7, 2016 - 2:10pm.
Mr. Magoo wrote:
Quote:Do you ever contemplate, provisionally, waiting for the details?Quote:I disagree. I say the accused gets the presumption of innocence and the benefit of due process. Especially on any charge based on an ancient event (13 years is a long time, let alone 40)Yikes! Re-reading my post I can see where I was unclear.
I think there's something fishy about this accusation, not Hawkes.
Thanks
I wandered over here from the Ghomeshi clusterf**k cause it appears to be double standards time
A qualified defence for Hawkes is fine but discussing empirical evidence in the Ghomesi case is out of bounds.
Submitted by monty1 on February 7, 2016 - 2:10pm.
Mr. Magoo wrote:
Quote:Do you ever contemplate, provisionally, waiting for the details?Quote:I disagree. I say the accused gets the presumption of innocence and the benefit of due process. Especially on any charge based on an ancient event (13 years is a long time, let alone 40)Yikes! Re-reading my post I can see where I was unclear.
I think there's something fishy about this accusation, not Hawkes.
Didn't you mean what you said?
Submitted by voice of the damned on February 7, 2016 - 2:12pm.
pookie wrote:
As for your first point, that's valid. There are cases where everyone agrees on what happened, but can't agree on whether it was illegal or not(eg. people charged with promoting hatred via something they published).
As for the second point, well, if I say "We can't be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant's statement is accurate", I am saying that there is a possibility that they are lying or delusional. Which might not be as absolute as saying that they ARE lying or delusional, but still not exactly flattering to the complainant's character. voice of the damned wrote:bagkitty wrote:FWIW: I know have been throwing around the word alleged as if I had purchased it by the case lot -- I have done so because I cannot think of an appropriate synonym. I was hoping to make it crystal clear that I am trying respecting the presumption of innocence on the part of any accused -- but wish there was someway of clearly indicating that I am also trying to avoid, in any way, suggesting that one should disbelieve the individual who reported the allegation... If any of the babble scribes has any suggestions as to a better way of dealing with (and it arises every time that criminal/court matters come into a discussion) I invite them to jump into the discussion.
I'm not sure there's really any way of squaring the circle on this. If you say a crime is "alleged" to have taken place, you are implying that the person who says it did may be making untruthful statements. That's not neccessarily the same thing as saying that he's lying(eg. he may just have a faulty memory), but it is saying that his word should not, at least in public discussion, be automatically taken at face value.
Hm - not sure I agree. Properly understood, the "allegations" relate to the criminality of the act, which depends on more than witness truthfulness. As well, there is a wide scope between accepting witness testimony beyond a reasonable doubt, and thinking that they are lying.
Submitted by voice of the damned on February 7, 2016 - 2:14pm.
Another way of phrasing my above point..
If I believed with all my heart that I had seen someone commit a crime, and reported it to the police, I'd feel pretty denigrated if the court issued a verdict that amounted to aaying I might be lying or delusional. Even with the caveat "might" thrown in.
Submitted by monty1 on February 7, 2016 - 2:25pm.
voice of the damned wrote:
Another way of phrasing my above point..
If I believed with all my heart that I had seen someone commit a crime, and reported it to the police, I'd feel pretty denigrated if the court issued a verdict that amounted to aaying I might be lying or delusional. Even with the caveat "might" thrown in.
Oh, you shouldn't be so hard on yourself. It happens every day in the justice system to very good people. I hope you really didn't mean that.
Comments
Do
Don't