Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Locke

Somehow he got a gag order on this up until the day of the election? Come on.

Yeah, I'm sure that, 24 years ago when they enacted the publication ban (which is usually done to protect the victim, especially underage ones) they knew that Chu would leave CPS and become a politician and that there would be a contested election he'd be involved in in a couple of days after the expiration.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Yeah, I'm sure that, 24 years ago when they enacted the publication ban (which is usually done to protect the victim, especially underage ones) they knew that Chu would leave CPS and become a politician and that there would be a contested election he'd be involved in in a couple of days of the expiration.

So 24 year Publication bans are just an everyday kind of thing for the CPS? Happens all the time? Just a product of doing business?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Yeah, I'm sure that, 24 years ago when they enacted the publication ban (which is usually done to protect the victim, especially underage ones) they knew that Chu would leave CPS and become a politician and that there would be a contested election he'd be involved in in a couple of days after the expiration.

Sorry, I like you and I genuinely appreciate your input...but I'm going to need a really good explanation as to why 'this is okay.'

It seems to me that Mr. Chu should have spent a couple years savouring gourmet Prison Food rather than cashing civic cheques.

[Captain Otto]

Originally Posted by Locke

So 24 year Publication bans are just an everyday kind of thing for the CPS? Happens all the time? Just a product of doing business?

It's the court that impose publication bans. And it's only the court or victim (upon application) that can remove it.

I don't think CPS has anything to do with it.

Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk

[Captain Otto]

Originally Posted by Locke

Sorry, I like you and I genuinely appreciate your input...but I'm going to need a really good explanation as to why 'this is okay.'



It seems to me that Mr. Chu should have spent a couple years savouring gourmet Prison Food rather than cashing civic cheques.

I thought no criminal charges were ever laid.

Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

It's the court that impose publication bans. And it's only the court or victim (upon application) that can remove it.

I don't think CPS has anything to do with it.

Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk

Its almost as though the Police and the Courts work closely together. But that cant be...

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

I thought no criminal charges were ever laid.

Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk

How would we ever know? This was buried over 20 years ago. The rug this was swept under is already in a landfill.

[Captain Otto]

Originally Posted by Locke

Its almost as though the Police and the Courts work closely together. But that cant be...







How would we ever know? This was buried over 20 years ago. The rug this was swept under is already in a landfill.

Are you suggesting our courts aren't autonomous? But hey, misinformation has been doing the world a ton of good.

Look Locke, I know you have your angle and you push it at all costs regardless of whether you have proper or accurate information. That's cool. I think the majority here understand that angle and really, don't take your that seriously.

Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Locke

Sorry, I like you and I genuinely appreciate your input...but I'm going to need a really good explanation as to why 'this is okay.'

It seems to me that Mr. Chu should have spent a couple years savouring gourmet Prison Food rather than cashing civic cheques.

I really should know better than to try to interact with you on 'police' related things, but apparently I just don't.

And I again reiterate that I am not defending Chu and/or whatever he did.

However...I don't know what he did do, so I can't "pass judgement" on the actions and punishments taken at the time. I don't know if the judgement passed down is an appropriate punishment for the crime. I am also trying to keep in mind that it happened 24 years ago, and attitudes were different then around sexual harassment and sexual assault.

I've seen articles that stated that he "just touched her leg" while on duty/in uniform. I've seen some that said they mutually felt each other up under their clothes while he was off duty/out of uniform. That's as far as any actions taken with each other have gone according to the publicly released statements. I've seen a lot of people running with that and assuming that everything from the touch on the leg happened up to Chu holding his gun to her head while he raped her while in uniform.

But, since we don't know what actually happened, we can't say if the punishment is right or wrong, too much or not enough.

I will say, given Chu's inability to keep any story straight for more than the first time it passes his lips, I'm not inclined to give him any benefit of the doubt. I don't feel anything (that we are currently aware of) that he did was "ok" at all. But we also don't know what he actually did. So I am reserving judgement.

I will say, to the best of my knowledge (which is anecdotal in nature, as ever, MBates may have more info) that publication bans, especially around cases involving sexual issues and minors aren't that uncommon at all. Publication bans are for the victims, not the offenders. I don't have any idea what goes into the selection of the length of them.

[Fuzz]

So this is weird...I went looking for the Ward 4 candidature forum video. I'm 95% sure it was on Youtube. It's not in my history, and searching for it brings up this page only:

https://www.dalhousiecalgary.ca/ward...didates-forum/

Nothing. So I check the page source:

<meta property="article:published_time" content="2021-09-29T14:25:30+00:00" /> 

 <meta property="article:modified_time" content="2021-10-19T21:05:54+00:00" />

Huh. Edited away. Is the community association protecting Chu now? Why remove this, if not for the controversy? Seems something you would just leave up.

EDIT:
Ah, it was on Vimeo. Google Cache had the page with the link still there. Why remove it?

https://vimeo.com/618094968/5dc6fa0b4f

Not sure how to do Vimeo embed...

[Bigtime]

Ward 13 Councillor Elect breaks his silence, believe this only leaves Chabot that we have not heard from:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1451154432842813444

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Ward 13 Councillor Elect breaks his silence, believe this only leaves Chabot that we have not heard from:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1451154432842813444

He has condemned it.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by getbak

Statement from Ward 7 Councilor-elect Terry Wong...

It’s funny (not funny) that he says he stands by the victim. Yesterday he was content to stand on the sidelines.

He also used the same language that Kenney did (“if the allegations are true then Chu must step aside”).

And as noted above, his understanding of the MGA (and not requiring a by-election) appears to be incorrect. I wonder if “Wong is wrong” is going to be the name of the next YYCCC megathread…

[Fuzz]

if the allegations are true

I don't understand that cop out. There are police records that detail what happened. Even if you ignore what the victim has said(and you in no way should), and take those at face value, they are still unbefitting of someone holding public office. So you don't need to wait around for anything to be proven, it already has. These politicians need to be called out on that.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

I really should know better than to try to interact with you on 'police' related things, but apparently I just don't.

And I again reiterate that I am not defending Chu and/or whatever he did.

However...I don't know what he did do, so I can't "pass judgement" on the actions and punishments taken at the time. I don't know if the judgement passed down is an appropriate punishment for the crime. I am also trying to keep in mind that it happened 24 years ago, and attitudes were different then around sexual harassment and sexual assault.

I've seen articles that stated that he "just touched her leg" while on duty/in uniform. I've seen some that said they mutually felt each other up under their clothes while he was off duty/out of uniform. That's as far as any actions taken with each other have gone according to the publicly released statements. I've seen a lot of people running with that and assuming that everything from the touch on the leg happened up to Chu holding his gun to her head while he raped her while in uniform.

But, since we don't know what actually happened, we can't say if the punishment is right or wrong, too much or not enough.

I will say, given Chu's inability to keep any story straight for more than the first time it passes his lips, I'm not inclined to give him any benefit of the doubt. I don't feel anything (that we are currently aware of) that he did was "ok" at all. But we also don't know what he actually did. So I am reserving judgement.

I will say, to the best of my knowledge (which is anecdotal in nature, as ever, MBates may have more info) that publication bans, especially around cases involving sexual issues and minors aren't that uncommon at all. Publication bans are for the victims, not the offenders. I don't have any idea what goes into the selection of the length of them.

Keep in mind the current scenario admitted to by Chu is

He met a 16 year old while in uniform at a pub who he assumed was 18, after work he came back to the pub, he took her home and had under clothes touching interaction after which the women claimed she was sexually assaulted which the police did not investigate properly, which the victim fought for justice for 9 years and it resulted in a 5 year reprimands

And keep in mind his first response to the story in the CBC was to not disclose the truth.

That’s the beat case scenario so you can certainly pass judgements on those actions.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by getbak

Statement from Ward 7 Councilor-elect Terry Wong...

I have 2 beefs with this statement:

1) (I have this same issue with every statement that uses language like this) "This type of behavior is abhorrent to me as a father of three daughters"
This should be abhorrent to you as someone who cares about other human beings. If you need to have a personal connection, to someone similar to a victim to have empathy for that person or to think it shouldn't have happened to them, then you don't really have empathy at all, you're just worried that something similar could happen that would affect you.

2) You had to consult with your community? Were you actually wondering if there was a large swath of your ward who would think "Yeah, that's okay". I suppose there are probably quite a few constituents who don't have daughters, so probably best to see what they think.

3) (Bonus) "If the allegations are true"....THEY ARE TRUE. Sean Chu has admitted to having sexual contact with an underage girl, who he met while in uniform, that isn't up for debate. Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt that none of the other allegations are true, that should be enough. And you add that he has lied about the details/circumstances for both incidents, lies that are also worth resigning over, and suddenly giving him the benefit of the doubt doesn't seem so reasonable.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

Are you suggesting our courts aren't autonomous? But hey, misinformation has been doing the world a ton of good.

Look Locke, I know you have your angle and you push it at all costs regardless of whether you have proper or accurate information. That's cool. I think the majority here understand that angle and really, don't take your that seriously.

Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk

I think it is very fair to question the publication ban. The courts are autonomous, but I would think someone would need to request that gag order. Are you suggesting the victim asked for it? Doesn't make much sense as I understand her view is that this has been handled as a "cover up".

So when was the order issued and on what party's request, and why would it happen to be lifted on the Friday afternoon prior to the civic election?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

I think it is very fair to question the publication ban. The courts are autonomous, but I would think someone would need to request that gag order. Are you suggesting the victim asked for it? Doesn't make much sense as I understand her view is that this has been handled as a "cover up".

So when was the order issued and on what party's request, and why would it happen to be lifted on the Friday afternoon prior to the civic election?

Honestly it’s a cop out to use a defence like “well, of course the courts are autonomous”. Sure from a high level examination, of course they are. We don’t live in a dictatorship.

But is it possible there are individual cracks in the system? All it takes is one judge who isn’t playing by the rules and who has a vested interest in helping the police/Chu. It doesn’t require a vast conspiracy and losing all faith in our judicial system. Just one ####### willing to help sweep this under the rug is all it takes.

[Fuzz]

And it's not like all judges are perfect. Remember this guy?

A former judge who resigned from his position after coming under fire for asking a rape complainant why she couldn’t keep her knees together has won the right to practise law in Alberta again.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4227215/k...ciety-alberta/

I think it's fair to ask these questions.

[Boreal]

Weird. It is almost like the CPS should lose the funding it has to investigate itself… or certain parts of their internal checks and balances should be… oh… I don’t know… de-funded and reallocated externally.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Boreal

Weird. It is almost like the CPS should lose the funding it has to investigate itself… or certain parts of their internal checks and balances should be… oh… I don’t know… de-funded and reallocated externally.

It has,

I think the Chiefs response outlines how the complaint process and independent investigation process works today compared to when this occurred.