Thank you for this, that is profoundly of interest.
Salient points summary for others:
Extrajudicial Body regulates Medical Professionals in Canada
Rule exists with Zero-Tolerance implementation aiming to punish sexual assault
Rule forbids: "Any Sexual Act performed on a Patient"
"Patient" = "Anyone who receives Treatment"
"Treatment" = "Any use of the professional's licensed talents"
Wrinkle emerges when you presume a talent that is incidental to everyday life
example: A Person who is a Doctor takes his Wife's temperature. Doctor and "Patient" have sex at any point in history or the future. Violation with zero-tolerance resulting in Doctor's expulsion from practicing anywhere.
This rule's shortcoming has been recognized and challenged, and Upheld multiple times in the past with the rationale: "No court would prosecute under such frivolous circumstances, so there is no problem with the rule and it will stand"
Present situation:
Husband and Wife practice massage on each other.
Husband is reported by a disinterested 3rd Party to regulatory board for violation of the previously described rule.
Husband's dues to organization are seized to hire an investigative lawyer who gets all the "facts" while charging him mercilessly for his own persecution.
Wife tells them all to pound sand and refuses to testify or press any charge
Tribunal finds Husband guilty as described and he is expelled from the medical profession.
Aftermath:
Due to financial difficulty Husband and Wife divorce
Due to despondency Husband refuses to pursue additional remedy and fades away from the proceedings
Law firm who would have championed him are left with no ability to further challenge without a complainant and the Rule still stands
A travesty all around. Extra facts: The "Tribunal" were all women with no law expertise who hired a lawyer to explain their own proceedings and rules to them, and who informed them that their rules were clear (if stupid). The "disinterested 3rd Party" was also a woman who was concerned for her own complicitness in the "sexual assault" if she didn't report the Husband of her own volition after their casual conversation. Basically Soviet rules: incriminate your neighbor or you are guilty of their (theoretical) crimes.
In exactly the same way Title-9 Tribunals are conducted in schools in America. They're busybodies who like to be involved in regulatory nonsense because it gives them a sense of purpose. Bureaucracies exist to justify their own existence.
Extra facts: The "Tribunal" were all women with no law expertise who hired a lawyer to explain their own proceedings and rules to them, and who informed them that their rules were clear (if stupid). The "disinterested 3rd Party" was also a woman
Yo, we aren't all like that. There is good reasons many women abstain from the feminist movement and call out bitches that color our world and your with their nastiness. Yeah, even so, sometimes we have shit we have to actively work on, but so do legit guys, part of being human that. Won't catch me denigrating men as a whole for the bullshit of some. Here's one way to know the difference 9 times of 10, women in general hate the word cunt, but based women won't hesitate to use it appropriately as it applies here to these women when appropriate. If you get a flowery, argumentative
or wall walker response to that, think twice and run fast lol.
I don't see any further details, but if the divorce was due to financial difficulty, it may be purely for financial reasons (i.e. she didn't leave him, just divorced he so they can keep some stuff.)
'Legally speaking, there is no such thing as "pressing charges" for private persons. The way the system works is, crimes are investigated by the police, and criminal charges are brought before the Court by a prosecuting attorney (the District Attorney for state crimes, or the United States Attorney for federal crimes). Private persons can report crimes to the police, and can cooperate with the prosecutor in making their cases - and this is usually what people mean when they talk of "pressing charges" - but that's all they can do. We have no legal power to compel (or to refuse) any prosecution.
The police will sometimes ask crime victims if they want to 'press charges,' but this phrase is deliberately misleading. What police mean when they say this is, if we refer this matter to the prosecutor and they decide they want to charge the perpetrator with a crime, will you cooperate by showing up and testifying? They ask this because, in many cases, victims don't want the perpetrator to be prosecuted, and without their cooperation, a successful prosecution is impossible. But if there's enough evidence for a case without the victim's cooperation, the police may not give them the option. And conversely, if the police don't want to pursue the matter or if the prosecutor doesn't believe there's enough evidence to bring charges before a court, no one else can compel them to do so.'
Basically, it didn't matter what she said. The Cult of Pussypass got 'im.
There's still no reason, even if you want kids. Surrogates are legal in some places. Paying up front is better than having toxic female influence on your kids before being ripped off for far more.
See that one guy in the wheelchair that has sued thousands of bay area businesses (and possibly elsewhere) for "ADA violations". He just looks them up on the google, then files suit. They either settle for thousands, or spend tens of thousands on attorney fees.
We weren't given any good information on that, unfortunately. The lawyers infer it was due to financial hardship due to the Husband being fleeced in the investigation (they forced him to pay for his own investigator who was allowed to charge anything he wanted) and subsequently being unable to practice his profession. Wife was the lesser earner we assume since she wasn't practicing massage as a career like he was. So their household income is likely destroyed overall.
The divorce was a double-whammy since it crushed the Husband and he has decided to go live alone on a mountain instead of pursuing justice for himself.
The divorce was certainly about other things too, but we're not told what those things are, so we can only speculate.
Thank you for this, that is profoundly of interest.
Salient points summary for others:
A travesty all around. Extra facts: The "Tribunal" were all women with no law expertise who hired a lawyer to explain their own proceedings and rules to them, and who informed them that their rules were clear (if stupid). The "disinterested 3rd Party" was also a woman who was concerned for her own complicitness in the "sexual assault" if she didn't report the Husband of her own volition after their casual conversation. Basically Soviet rules: incriminate your neighbor or you are guilty of their (theoretical) crimes.
Add "Doctor Masturbates" and I think we've got 'em.
That sounds really stupid. How does such a system even come into existence?
In exactly the same way Title-9 Tribunals are conducted in schools in America. They're busybodies who like to be involved in regulatory nonsense because it gives them a sense of purpose. Bureaucracies exist to justify their own existence.
But I'm wrong and they don't plot against us.
That is extremely fucked up, scusi, but nothing else will do for for me to des ribe that situation. There isn't a whisp of logic to it.
This kind of thing is far more likely in places where people avoid doing the needful.
Trust no woman.
I wonder who the fronthole-hurt downvoter is.
Yo, we aren't all like that. There is good reasons many women abstain from the feminist movement and call out bitches that color our world and your with their nastiness. Yeah, even so, sometimes we have shit we have to actively work on, but so do legit guys, part of being human that. Won't catch me denigrating men as a whole for the bullshit of some. Here's one way to know the difference 9 times of 10, women in general hate the word cunt, but based women won't hesitate to use it appropriately as it applies here to these women when appropriate. If you get a flowery, argumentative or wall walker response to that, think twice and run fast lol.
Get the fuck outta
dodgecanadaYour spouse can destroy your life. Gotta marry someone that isn't crazy.
The spouse didn't report this, some other woman did.
The wife refused to testify or bring charges.
Don't talk to other women.
so she refused to testify for him and divorced him and that wasn't her fault? wtf?
I don't see any further details, but if the divorce was due to financial difficulty, it may be purely for financial reasons (i.e. she didn't leave him, just divorced he so they can keep some stuff.)
For him? She wasn't going to press charges.
There shouldn't have been a case at all.
'Legally speaking, there is no such thing as "pressing charges" for private persons. The way the system works is, crimes are investigated by the police, and criminal charges are brought before the Court by a prosecuting attorney (the District Attorney for state crimes, or the United States Attorney for federal crimes). Private persons can report crimes to the police, and can cooperate with the prosecutor in making their cases - and this is usually what people mean when they talk of "pressing charges" - but that's all they can do. We have no legal power to compel (or to refuse) any prosecution.
The police will sometimes ask crime victims if they want to 'press charges,' but this phrase is deliberately misleading. What police mean when they say this is, if we refer this matter to the prosecutor and they decide they want to charge the perpetrator with a crime, will you cooperate by showing up and testifying? They ask this because, in many cases, victims don't want the perpetrator to be prosecuted, and without their cooperation, a successful prosecution is impossible. But if there's enough evidence for a case without the victim's cooperation, the police may not give them the option. And conversely, if the police don't want to pursue the matter or if the prosecutor doesn't believe there's enough evidence to bring charges before a court, no one else can compel them to do so.'
Basically, it didn't matter what she said. The Cult of Pussypass got 'im.
Either way it's not her fault.
Some random biddy is the one who reported the "crime"
Or just not marry.
if a man has no interest in having kids then there is zero reason to ever get married or allow a woman to live with you.
If you want a kid, adopt. If you want to pass on your genetics, donate sperm. Problem: Solved.
There's still no reason, even if you want kids. Surrogates are legal in some places. Paying up front is better than having toxic female influence on your kids before being ripped off for far more.
I say this as someone who had a good mother.
I really hurt the fronthole havers, didn't I?
You described an alternative to literally the only reason they are useful, bar none.
Never believe that nobody will be stupid enough to take a rule to its absurd conclusion.
See that one guy in the wheelchair that has sued thousands of bay area businesses (and possibly elsewhere) for "ADA violations". He just looks them up on the google, then files suit. They either settle for thousands, or spend tens of thousands on attorney fees.
That's one thing they are not.
Thing they said would never happen, happens.
Many such cases.
What these guys don't realise is that it's not an accident. It's by design.
Canadians born after this stupid bloody paradigm comes careering to its end will have one hell of a mess to clear up.
I have come to the conclusion: Canada is not real. They are just a testing ground, a firing range for stupid shit.
Brazil has become a documentary.
also reposted to kia2 on ruqqus: https://ruqqus.com/+kotakuinaction2/post/ciui/canada-massage-therapist-mentions-that-he
Anyone have a link to an article? Want to share this with friends without them having to watch a 20 minute video
what the hell is with the divorce, it makes no sense.
We weren't given any good information on that, unfortunately. The lawyers infer it was due to financial hardship due to the Husband being fleeced in the investigation (they forced him to pay for his own investigator who was allowed to charge anything he wanted) and subsequently being unable to practice his profession. Wife was the lesser earner we assume since she wasn't practicing massage as a career like he was. So their household income is likely destroyed overall.
The divorce was a double-whammy since it crushed the Husband and he has decided to go live alone on a mountain instead of pursuing justice for himself.
The divorce was certainly about other things too, but we're not told what those things are, so we can only speculate.
pressure of the lawsuit from the sounds of things