Hello, Roy here. I just wanted to let you know that you can listen to The Roy Green Show ad-free on Amazon Music, included with Prime. Puck drops, tip-offs, first pitches, kick-offs. When the game is on, you call the shots.
Head to betway.ca and bet your way. Must be 19 plus Ontario only. If they're responsible, concern about your gambling? Visit connexontario.ca.
Seven words that'll scare any politician. Roy Green is holding on line one. The Roy Green Show on the Chorus Radio Network continues. The Roy Green Show on the Chorus Radio Network and Spacey from House of Cards after sexual assault allegations, quite a few allegations against Spacey now, who, according to more than one person now, has made sexual advances to teenage boys.
The issue of sexual harassment and sexual assault and sexual abuse continues to gather momentum, sexual harassment. Of course, I think most recently, the whole ball started to roll with Bill Cosby, and I was glad that women were stepping forward and making themselves heard and saying no more. Now the celebrities, male celebrities, are increasingly named as predators. But what about women who perhaps believe they have no option to accept sexual harassment or abuse and rape?
Does the law not protect them? And this has to do with a case in Ottawa, where a court a few days ago found the husband not guilty of raping his wife, because according to the judge, the man who was part of an arranged marriage in Gaza believed that he could have intercourse with his Palestinian wife any time he wanted to, even when she said no, which according to the judge, she probably did many times. The woman also believed her husband could engage in intercourse any time he wanted to. But why does that matter?
What he thought? Or which she thought? If she said no and he went ahead, then isn't it rape? And you can't argue spousal considerations, because in 1983, Canadian sexual assault law was amended to include sexual assault against a spouse.
Joining me on the Roy Green Show on the Court's radio network to speak about this, as he does often about legal issues, is Scott Newark, former Alberta prosecutor, executive officer of the Canadian Police Association, adjunct professor at Simon Fraser University. What am I missing here, Scott? 1983, the law changes. So there is no spousal exclusion to a rape allegation or a rape charge.
But this judge says, well, you know, the husband, I don't really think the husband's that believable. She is. I believe her. But he's not guilty because he didn't understand what the law is.
What's going on? When I first saw this reported, and congratulations, frankly, are due to the reporter, Andrew Duffy from the Ottawa Citizen, people sometimes forget about the important role that the media plays. He realized that this was a case that had some larger issues as well, too, as you just described, and he published the story. Because the judgment itself is subject to publication bans, ironically, if you can believe it, to protect the victims.
But I've obtained a copy of the judgment, and I read it, and Roy, it is just apart from what I think is absolutely incorrect interpretation of the existing law, which we can get into. The whole thing, the portion that deals with the sexual assault allegations is about, you know, three pages long. It is a really, really shoddy legal decision, in my opinion. And as you pointed out in your introduction, not only is it, I think, philosophically offensive that the judge would make the ruling that he did, but we have very, very specific provisions in our criminal law, in our criminal code, hello, the law of Canada, that actually say that, you know, you have to have the consent of the person to be involved in sexual contact.
And as you say, a specific section that makes it clear that that protection of the potential victim applies in a marriage situation as well, too. And to say that, oh, well, you know, their religion or culture says that, and they believe, and the judge found that the guy and the wife at the time honestly believed that he was entitled to have sex with her any time he wanted, whether she consented or not. But, you know, you could say, well, we didn't know what the Canadian law is. Section 19 of our criminal code articulates a longstanding principle, which is that ignorance of the law is not a defense.
And hard as it is to believe in any of this. On something as, you know, philosophically or societal principles, the importance of this, this judge doesn't even mention those sections. Okay? In my opinion, that alone is grounds for an appeal.
But I think the larger issue is that we should be extremely concerned about this, because literally what this ruling means is that the protections that are provided by our secular law and the legal obligations are being tossed out the window by this judge because he believes that the individual believed that his cultural religion said he didn't have to follow Canadian law. That's alarming, and that's something that I am hoping to read in the days to come, that the government, the provincial crown that has a jurisdiction, is filing an appeal in this case, and that our self-proclaimed feminist prime minister will also direct the justice minister that the federal government will seek to intervene in support of the appeal. Because this is a decision that has significant negative societal ramifications, in my opinion. Now, why would the judgment be under a publication ban?
Because it names, we put in restrictions to protect identification of the complainant, and there was also his children that were charged in relation to his children as well, too. Okay, so what I also don't understand is, given the fact that the law is very clear, and the law is also very clear that ignorance is no excuse, what did the judge mean when he repeatedly said, and I really thought Mr. Duffy did a great job of the story. What did he mean when he says the prosecution didn't make its case?
Well, what he's getting at is that in any criminal charge, the crown is required to prove two elements, what's called actus reus, which is, in other words, the actual specific act, in this case, would be the sexual assault, and also what's known as mens rea, or criminal intent. And because this guy said that he believed, or that he concluded that the accused believed he was entitled to force himself sexually on his wife, and his wife believed that as well, too, that that somehow meant that he lacked a criminal intent. The point of it is, however, that our law supersedes a cultural or religious belief, and the protections that we create in our law actually should take precedence. This was a historical case.
This had happened back in 2002, and it wasn't until about 10 or 11 years later when the marriage had broken up, and there was a custody dispute, and the woman happened to be talking to the police, and in doing so, as she was explaining some of these circumstances, she realized that the law supposedly was there to protect her. And so the police said, well, actually, he's not allowed to have done that. He is in particular. He was angry about something and grabbed her, pulled her down onto the couch, was pulling off her pants.
The judge found that a fact, and you're correct that he said that he found her believable and him not. The judge found it a fact that she had said, stop it, stop it, three separate times. But he continued anyway. Not only that, Mr.
Duffy points out in his story that the judge said she, the wife, was a credible witness who gave straightforward answers. And then he says, the husband, the accused, was argumentative, evasive as a witness, and he, the judge, rejected his account as not believable. So if he rejects the account as not believable, what's he doing declaring him not guilty? Because he feels, the judge concluded, that the belief that he was entitled to force himself sexually on his wife because of his religion or culture was something that meant that he didn't have the necessary mental intent.
Yeah, but we don't put judges on the bench so they can interpret law according to their personal beliefs. That's not entirely accurate. That is part of the role of judges is to interpret the circumstances, but that's what I find so offensive about the case, is that the findings that the judge made, I would suggest, are absolutely clear in the context of our law that that is not a defense. Scott, there would have to be so many cases of all stripes and sizes, of all descriptions, that have entered Canadian courtrooms where the accused doesn't know the specifics of the law he or she is accused of having broken.
That doesn't mean that because they're ignorant of that particular law that they broke, that they should have the option of getting off. That's section 19. You're right. This one goes farther, though, because in their, these were both of them, it was an arranged but not a forced marriage.
The girl had been in Canada for about three years, and she went back to Gaza to request of her parents and married a Palestinian Muslim. She was a Palestinian Muslim as well, too. And she also believed that, as a religious cultural dictate, that she was obliged to consent to it. And my point simply is that what I think this judge has made a terrible mistake in, is that religious and cultural beliefs, and frankly, whatever the religion or culture is, do not supersede Canadian law.
Hello? You live in Canada, you're entitled to protections of the law, and you're obliged to follow the law. And there was no statute of limitations to absolve him of the act. No, no.
This is just something that, I mean, it was a historical event, and look, I think in fairness, you could take into account the circumstances when you were dealing with sentencing, and say, like, this happened a long time ago, and they were, you know, unusual circumstances in the sense that he thought he could do this, but that doesn't take away the legal obligation not to act in this action, or the legal protection. So the judge could have, you know, reduced the sentence, but to actually say that the law doesn't apply in these circumstances, I think, is a dangerous, dangerous undermining of basic and important Canadian legal principles. All right, stay with us, Scott Newark, former Alberta Crown Attorney, former Chief Executive of the, or Executive Director of the Canadian Police Association, adjunct professor at Simon Fraser University. We're going to come back and talk more about this case.
This is going to have an impact on other women, whether it's women in minority communities or women generally. When this issue, when the issue of sexual abuses or rape comes up, what happens in the courtroom impacts other women. And I remember speaking with a Toronto lawyer several times, and I'll tell you that story when I come back, and we'll talk to Scott and get his thoughts on it. Stay with us.
Passionate, patriotic, a little digitalistic, and always professional. Hear what Roy Green has to say on the Chorus Radio Network. Follow me on Twitter at TheRoyGreenShow, emails to Roy at RoyGreenShow.com. So here's the story again.
A man in Ottawa has sexual intercourse with his wife against her wishes. They both believe that he can do that because of their cultural past. And then years later, a number of years later, the wife finds out that he couldn't have sex with her against her wishes, and she lays charges and goes to court. And the judge decides that even though she's credible and her husband, her former husband is not, that he's not going to find this husband guilty because the husband didn't know, that having sex with his wife against her wishes was against the law.
He didn't know that. So, Scott, I remember speaking with a criminal lawyer in Toronto on the program, and he'd been advising women, and he said it was fairly standard, he'd been advising women who came to him and complained of a sexual assault, perhaps not to report it, because if it goes to court, it's going to be he said, she said, which can ultimately be more difficult for the woman. So he would advise women not to pursue it, unless they really were determined to. And then he had one night, he saw this little girl sleeping three years of age, and he thought, what if this happened to my daughter when she's an adult?
And since that time, he's never made that suggestion to women any longer. Yeah. Well, and that's part of it. I mean, our legal system has evolved.
We've actually changed laws specifically to recognize the circumstances in which these kinds of offenses can take place. And that's what makes it so offensive, because the accused, the guy never denied doing it, or that she said, you know, stop it, stop it. He never denied it. I mean, that's what's even more outrageous about this particular case.
And I am very surprised and alarmed that two weeks afterwards, we still have not seen any notification from the Ontario Attorney General's office that they're going to appeal. And so I would urge your listeners, as we've done in the past, Roy, as you remember, if you're as alarmed and outraged about this case, get in touch with your member of Parliament of Ontario, your member of Provincial Parliament of Ontario, and ask them to get in touch with Ontario Attorney General, Nazir Yachmi, and say, like, are you going to appeal this case? And if not, why not? The area, as many listeners are on this program, on the Chorus Radio Network, get in touch with the Ontario Attorney General's office.
Sir, or get in touch with your MP and have them raise it with the Minister of Justice to find out whether or not, given the national issues involved, and this is our national criminal code, whether the federal government will itself be urging the Ontario government to file the appeal. Imagine that appeal. Scott, imagine the impact, the judgment like this, particularly if it's not appeal, the impact this judgment will have on women who may be newcomers to this country, or not newcomers, but women who are intimidated by their significant others, and maybe felt some, yeah, maybe I have an option here, with all the stories and all the reports about the sexual abuse and sexual harassment in the news now, feeling maybe I can go forward and then hear about an issue like this or a case like this, and it shuts them down potentially. I think it's a denigration of what is Canadian culture, okay?
We have made a conscious decision as a society that we're going to have certain laws that protect victims and in these kinds of circumstances, generally female victims. That's a decision we made as a society, and it's a protection that is available to every person that is in this country, and it's an obligation on every person that's in this country, and we should not be turning a blind eye to people that break those laws, and that in effect violate that cultural decision that means being a Canadian and being part of Canada. Okay, this is going to make you crawl into the end of this judge, cause you to crawl into his head. Do you think that political correctness could have an impact, could have been an influence on this decision?
I don't know, but I can tell you quite apart from, you know, the larger social issues, in my opinion, the judgment is really badly written. The judge doesn't even deal with the specific legal sections of the criminal code to address, you know, why it is that he's ignoring them. And on that basis alone, I think that the, without any question whatsoever, the decision should be overturned. All right, Scott, good talking to you.
All right, what? Scott Newark, on the Roy Green Show. If you're in Ontario, get in touch with your MPP, or get in touch with the both of them, with the Attorney General's office, and if you're outside the province, and this case matters, then get in touch with your member of Parliament, and tell them you expect a federal government to launch an appeal. That's a terrible situation.
That's absolutely terrible. When we come back, it's Catherine Swift, Linda Levenel, Michelle Simpson. They're the beauties, I'm the other part of that equation, and we have a lot to talk about, including, who would have thought it? Bill Morneau.