Triple sex assault predator and the media that wont identify him.

[Kalis]

Having Googled it, Wijdan appears to be a female name.

I am so confused.

[Jotaux]

The CBC is owned by the government and is pretty shitty when it comes to journalistic standards. I remember they buried an interview from a female game developer because it didn't fit the story they were trying to tell of online harassment. Funnily enough it was one of the only developers they interviewed that actually made anything.

That said I don't think the names of suspects should be given out. Too much damage can be done to an innocent person.

[TrumpIsPresident]

see the "dumb, loaded question".

The only answer you're going to accept is "BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PROTECT MUSLIMS!!!!!!!!!!!". So why bother with your inane questions?

I ended the thread with a simple question.

Everybody else here managed to give their opinion without becoming belligerently hostile, except you.

Maybe if you spent more time developing an intelligent response and less time telling people what they think you'd have come off as an adult instead of well ..I'll leave it at that.

Just don't quote me if you want to pick fights, ok, its boring.

[Vanyali]

I ended the thread with a simple question.

Everybody else here managed to give their opinion without becoming belligerently hostile, except you.

Maybe if you spent more time developing an intelligent response and less time telling people what they think you'd have come off as an adult instead of well ..I'll leave it at that.

Just don't quote me if you want to pick fights, ok, its boring.

Tell me then, why do YOU think they left it off?

Come now, you can't ask everyone else without giving your opinion.

[Deleted]

No ones name should ever be published unless they are found guilty in a court of law, too many peoples lives have been fucked beyond repair just for being charged even if they are found innocent.

indeed, should be illegal for media to report names like that until they have actually been found guilty, so stupid how the can say

"terry jones has been accused of diddling kids" before anything has been proven, completely ruins a potentially innocent persons name. sure once they are found guilty, plaster their name everywhere

[Deleted]

indeed, should be illegal for media to report names like that until they have actually been found guilty, so stupid how the can say

"terry jones has been accused of diddling kids" before anything has been proven, completely ruins a potentially innocent persons name. sure once they are found guilty, plaster their name everywhere

Reminds of a riot we had down this end a long time ago when it was found out a few pedophiles were being housed here, the local rabble attacked a pediatricians home and set fire to his parrot to teach him a lesson. Sadly this is not a fucking joke, some people are not too bright and very quick to judge.

[Jotaux]

I should add that while I think its good to not include the name, I do not think CBC left the name off for anything but damage control.

- - - Updated - - -

Reminds of a riot we had down this end a long time ago when it was found out a few pedophiles were being housed here, the local rabble attacked a pediatricians home and set fire to his parrot to teach him a lesson. Sadly this is not a fucking joke, some people are not too bright and very quick to judge.

Like they just heard there was a pedophile in the area and thought that they would be allowed to work with kids, so they attacked a pediatrician?

[Time Sage]

Because everyone has a right to privicy. Honestly news really shouldn't report names until after they're charged.

[Deleted]

It's weird how quickly my fellow "Innocent until proven guilty" people turn so quickly into "burn the rapist!" Feminist mentality when the person accused is a foreigner.

- - - Updated - - -



Fuck, said it before i could finish typing.

dam, first page so early, too soon too soon. You have to give them time to proof your point on comments before outing it. Else you look just as unreasonable as the ones you acuse.

I agree 60% with you though. It just depends how it's formulated. (thats why i disagree with vanyali).

It depends under what argument the comment is meant.
Suppose your against publicly announcing names in media:

There are 2 different aspects to it:
1. The arguments why you are against it
2. The showing the hypocrisy of the system in place. If persons of profile X are announced why isn't profile Y announced. It's an argument out of the principle of making it consistantly being aplied while this system is in place.

This topic is about Aspect 2...although it's about white guilt/sjw rather than the names announced in media. The innocent until proven guilt is secondary.
You changed it to the secondary subject because of a preconceived stereotype over an accumulation of topics (which i agree with you on:P).

It's always difficult not looking as a hypocrit in aspect 2 when it are snappy comments with only one side. And since it's a bit greyish i probably pick and choose as well which i find hypocritical and which is trying to make a point. A smarter person probably stays with the narative and doesn't lower himself into this trap.

But....read next bit

=============================================================================

Who didn't think the following. Okey rapists names are ussually publicised in the given nation media even more its a "serial" rapist. But this time wasn't

What did you think:
1. Was it female? no male
2. Was it a moslim country etnicity or non-white person ?....................AAH THERE YOU HAVE IT......ofcourse....
3. Hmm but was their a special circumstance why they didn't announce for this case? seems not.

[Justpassing]

What are we, as MMO-C, supposed to say about this? Like, say or discuss what?

[Vanyali]

What are we, as MMO-C, supposed to say about this? Like, say or discuss what?

At a guess..

Cultural assimilation not working, ship all muslims back to their home country, they're betraying our country to protect the muslims, this is what liberals want because they love muslims...

that's usually the intent of these types of threads.

I just find it amusing that people seem to veer so far from their previous stance on names in newspapers because of the name in question.

[Deleted]

I should add that while I think its good to not include the name, I do not think CBC left the name off for anything but damage control.

- - - Updated - - -



Like they just heard there was a pedophile in the area and thought that they would be allowed to work with kids, so they attacked a pediatrician?

They attacked many other innocents too, pretty much any single man they thought was a bit weird.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...hildprotection

[TrumpIsPresident]

Tell me then, why do YOU think they left it off?

Come now, you can't ask everyone else without giving your opinion.

Because media transformed from information distribution to information shaping.

Its function is not to inform but to push agendas, whatever agendas they may be, and convince the people who bite into them that they are "informed" simply for having been convinced.

[Adam Jensen]

Innocent until proven guilty.

I hope his name is not released until after the trial, no one should lose their innocence or their reputation to the courts of public opinion.

[Vanyali]

Because media transformed from information distribution to information shaping.

Its function is not to inform but to push agendas, whatever agendas they may be, and convince the people who bite into them that they are "informed" simply for having been convinced.

Right. So, basically what I just said above.

[Jotaux]

I just find it amusing that people seem to veer so far from their previous stance on names in newspapers because of the name in question.

Well to be fair I have only seen 1 or 2 people changing their stance and even then just the op before your original post.

[RickJamesLich]

It's pretty disturbing that "in the name of equality" the newspaper decides to omit information about the suspect..... like his name lol, when they would not extend that courtesy to other races. The level of stupidity is over 9000. Sometimes it seems like this world really is going to go in a 1984 type of direction.

[Vanyali]

Well to be fair I have only seen 1 or 2 people changing their stance and even then just the op before your original post.

That's because a lot more of the thread is mocking them for doing so

- - - Updated - - -

But c'mon, how am I gonna get everyone else to hate the same people that I hate?! It's important that I do that!

Just say they smell and have cooties, it worked in kindergarten!

[RickJamesLich]

Tell me then, why do YOU think they left it off?

Come now, you can't ask everyone else without giving your opinion.

To be kind of fair, it's kind of a running gag, at least here in the states. Generally if you hear about a homicide but a description of the suspect is not provided, it's a safe assumption to say that they are black. This isn't even a racial thing, rather the media for years has developed a pattern of leaving out the skin color of the "criminal" in the story if they are black. It appears Canada is doing the same thing with muslims.

And yes, the reason they do this, because in their sick mind, they think we owe certain racial minorities "favors" and also, everyone will be mean to minorities if they report the truth. That's why racial tensions aren't improving, at least in America, because so few people want an honest discussion. Rather they just want to state their points of view and censor anything that may disagree, even in the slightest. Not sure about Canada of course, but I'm assuming this type of thing can only build distrust with the viewers and readers.

- - - Updated - - -

Innocent until proven guilty.

I hope his name is not released until after the trial, no one should lose their innocence or their reputation to the courts of public opinion.

That really is a discussion for another matter. The issue is that the media appears to be omitting the names of certain minorities that commit crimes, but do not extend that courtesy to all. All this talk of whether or not someone should be named before they are proven guilty, is only taking away from the discussion at hand.

[Vanyali]

To be kind of fair, it's kind of a running gag, at least here in the states. Generally if you hear about a homicide but a description of the suspect is not provided, it's a safe assumption to say that they are black. This isn't even a racial thing, rather the media for years has developed a pattern of leaving out the skin color of the "criminal" in the story if they are black. It appears Canada is doing the same thing with muslims.

And yes, the reason they do this, because in their sick mind, they think we owe certain racial minorities "favors" and also, everyone will be mean to minorities if they report the truth. That's why racial tensions aren't improving, at least in America, because so few people want an honest discussion. Rather they just want to state their points of view and censor anything that may disagree, even in the slightest. Not sure about Canada of course, but I'm assuming this type of thing can only build distrust with the viewers and readers.

My entire point was that it had fuck-all to do with my original post, which was that the Champions of Men (tm) crusading against the feminists that put their names in the paper are now on the opposite side because of who did it. I made no judgment on whether the reason why they did so was right, wrong, or justified at all, just that it was an amusement to see on this board, of all places, people railing against a name NOT being put in for a charge, not a conviction.