Montgomery defendant acquitted
It’s disturbing to read that the person who has harassed Sue Montgomery for twenty years was acquitted of criminal charges this week, and this by a woman judge who says Montgomery is simply not scared enough. Surely it’s the harasser’s actions and not the target’s emotional response that should be on trial?
(Note: I later deleted an “allegedly” because the court ruling was that the man has harassed Montgomery, but not criminally.)
Sunday, the Journal also gave an account of the case and reminds us that the defendant is still to face charges of breaking court conditions and communicating with Montgomery.
Chris 19:46 on 2019-06-14 Permalink
Why note the judge is a women? Why should/would/ought that make any difference?
Dominic 20:05 on 2019-06-14 Permalink
@Chris Because women are far more likely to have a stalker than men are. While men are stalked as well, its also far more likely that the stalker is male. The gender of the judge is definitely something to note.
Chris 20:08 on 2019-06-14 Permalink
I agree women are more likely to be stalked. The rest is non-sequitur. A judge bases decisions on facts and argument. Her sex is irrelevant.
Kate 21:01 on 2019-06-14 Permalink
A woman judge – any judge – should have understood that a woman like Sue Montgomery is not going to weep and tear her hair in public to register sufficient fear to satisfy the current terms of the law.
This is a woman who’s gone successfully from being a well regarded journalist into politics, despite knowing that she’d be facing public harassment at every step. Many women would’ve left the area or chosen to lie low, but Montgomery did not. She isn’t pretending it hasn’t shaken her up: she’s spoken about her fear, frustration and anger, and anyone can find valid accounts of the trauma caused to victims by relentless stalking – this is not hysteria or fiction.
The judge should have taken the fear as read – and yes, the more so because she is a woman, and there isn’t a woman on this earth who hasn’t felt a touch of that fear. Montgomery is going to fight the terms of that law, and I hope she succeeds.
Incidentally, I’ve never met Ms. Montgomery, so I’m not praising a friend or acquaintance here.
Blork 21:06 on 2019-06-14 Permalink
I was gobsmacked when I read this. WTF? It might be different if this were a civil case where Montgomery had to show some loss in order to receive damages, but a criminal case? Does this mean if I murder someone who doesn’t flinch while I’m murdering them that it isn’t a murder? FFS! WTAF?
Blork 21:07 on 2019-06-14 Permalink
@Chris: “A judge bases decisions on facts and argument.” Clearly not this one.
Chris 21:22 on 2019-06-14 Permalink
Blork, could be, I don’t know the details of the case. But if the judge erred, I again say her sex is irrelevant, both men and women judges err.
Max 22:05 on 2019-06-14 Permalink
That judge is clearly an idiot. The video depicts Sue’s frame of mind in that one place at that one time. Why is the judge placing so much emphasis on that versus all the history of harassment? Hopefully someone’ll punch this Robert douche in the face 2 or 10 times and put the whole issue to rest.
Mark Côté 22:30 on 2019-06-14 Permalink
Last time I checked judges were all humans, and all humans have biases of one kind of another. To think they are all magically completely objective is ludicrous.
Michael Black 10:16 on 2019-06-15 Permalink
This is an odd story since it starts with the church, which seems fairly informal about clergy, but then the guy latched onto Montgomery, maybe as a member but also as a reporter, and she’s become the target, not the church.
It doesn’t matter whether she feels safe or not. She shouldn’t feel so hounded.
I can think of someone who does the same thing, Kate won’t mention his name here, and as I recall he has had various run-ins with media outlets, though municipalities seem fine with him.
Michael
Kate 10:59 on 2019-06-15 Permalink
Michael, I haven’t mentioned the name of Montgomery’s stalker either. I don’t want to put out Google bait.
(By the way, how are you? Still in hospital?)
Ephraim 16:49 on 2019-06-15 Permalink
In Quebec, you don’t need a criminal case to get an injunction. And injunctions are good for up to 3 years at a time. I hope that she at least has an injunction. And you can actually state in the injunction that the person doesn’t even have a right to mention your name because of verbal harassment. So you could ban them from being within a zone and even keep them from talking about you on social media. (I know this because we had a discussion with the police about someone in this regards.)
Kate 20:08 on 2019-06-15 Permalink
Ephraim, it’s clear from this Gazette item earlier this year that this man was constrained by court order, which he violated. I don’t know the details.
Ephraim 20:52 on 2019-06-16 Permalink
Kate obviously the fines aren’t getting to him. You can see the info about protection orders…. https://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/en/programs-and-services/services/applying-for-a-protection-order-in-a-civil-matter the fact is, if she has one, he can’t even TALK about her to third parties… the cops should just repeatedly get him on that.
Of course, we are talking the Montreal police. Not exactly known for doing their job.