Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GGG

When I say no material difference I mean Chu, admitted molester of underage girls, and Chu, I just suck at city council would both perform equally and it’s pretty clear that Chu, I just suck at city council is the choice of ward 4. He was crushing DJ Kelly in the early vote. Since the two Chu’s both vote the same way on every piece of legislation there is no loss of representation.

Do you like the UCP recall thresholds? I think they are too high to be realisticly achievable but any lower leaves them open to abuse. The election every 4 years is a reasonable way of addressing this issue. Remember that in introducing recall legislation you need to assume it will be abused to the maximum extent possible.

I think the recall thresholds being high is important for that reason. I also think the part about underage girls means there would be a chance of getting the required signatures to get him recalled.

[Wormius]

Well, this is a bit of a revelation from Farrell.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1452835890540126213

[Fuzz]

How come the voting public seems to be the last to find out about all this?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

How come the voting public seems to be the last to find out about all this?

We've been over this... there was a publication ban.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

How come the voting public seems to be the last to find out about all this?

Hell of a well-kept secret for one of the most unlikeable and useless councillors the city has seen. Surprised the rumour didn't make it beyond city council.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

Cool. I don't think there's any debate there.

But back to the thread, please be VERY clear on what the police cover-up was in this case. Who was involved? When did it occur? What levels of government were involved?

Also, again, considering this thread, how were police doing whatever they wanted to whomever they wanted to without consequence.

You've made a lot of innuendo and I, and I'm sure others, would like to see what facts you have.

I don't think any of that is patently unreasonable.

You know...I entertained the thought of actually dignifying this with a response with detailed research.

If you want my honest opinion it deserves one. The fact of the matter is sad. Its sad because I dont care.

I used to care. But Sean Chu is going to sit around and collect his pensions and we're all going to clap.

He could propose that Airdrie claim ownership of the Moon! Lets all applaud!!

Sorry. I dont get this. He was clearly sketchy from Day 1. Even though his Police reputation was hidden by his friends.

I don't get it. Slight differences in circumstances and this is a man who is in jail.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Well, this is a bit of a revelation from Farrell.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1452835890540126213

This actually makes me more annoyed. If there were rumblings of this for years why did no one do anything about it sooner?

[SebC]

What part of "publication ban" do you people not understand?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

This actually makes me more annoyed. If there were rumblings of this for years why did no one do anything about it sooner?

I would assume that if fellow Councillors started openly talking about rumblings and rumours against a colleague it would likely put them in some hot water. I'm certain there are codes of conduct against that sort of stuff and would probably leave them open to some sort of slander case.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by SebC

What part of "publication ban" do you people not understand?

The part I don't understand is why was there a publication ban that protected Chu from having this information come out?

Publication bans are supposed to protect the victims from being identified or identifiable. In many cases like this, all of the details of the abuse are blocked because the relationship between the abuser and the victim is so close that any details would be enough to make it possible to identify the victim.

That shouldn't have been the case here because (as far as I know) the victim and Chu had no prior relationship other than a possible previous encounter in his role as a police officer and her as a member of the public.

None of the information that has come out in the last two weeks has done anything to identify the victim. Why wasn't this same amount of information available publicly 24 years ago -- or any point since then?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by getbak

The part I don't understand is why was there a publication ban that protected Chu from having this information come out?

Publication bans are supposed to protect the victims from being identified or identifiable. In many cases like this, all of the details of the abuse are blocked because the relationship between the abuser and the victim is so close that any details would be enough to make it possible to identify the victim.

That shouldn't have been the case here because (as far as I know) the victim and Chu had no prior relationship other than a possible previous encounter in his role as a police officer and her as a member of the public.

None of the information that has come out in the last two weeks has done anything to identify the victim. Why wasn't this same amount of information available publicly 24 years ago -- or any point since then?

The relevant legal code was cited earlier. If a minor requests a publication ban, the judge pretty much has to impose one.

In the case of sexual offences, the Criminal Code says a judge must order a publication ban to protect the identity of all victims of sexual offences and witnesses of sexual offences who are less than 18 years old. In these cases, the judge tells the victim, witness or Crown prosecutor that they may make a request for this protection. If a request is made, the judge must order a publication ban.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by getbak

The part I don't understand is why was there a publication ban that protected Chu from having this information come out?

Publication bans are supposed to protect the victims from being identified or identifiable. In many cases like this, all of the details of the abuse are blocked because the relationship between the abuser and the victim is so close that any details would be enough to make it possible to identify the victim.

That shouldn't have been the case here because (as far as I know) the victim and Chu had no prior relationship other than a possible previous encounter in his role as a police officer and her as a member of the public.

None of the information that has come out in the last two weeks has done anything to identify the victim. Why wasn't this same amount of information available publicly 24 years ago -- or any point since then?

The general public doesn't have enough information to identify the victim, but people closer to the situation might.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by GGG

it’s pretty clear that Chu, I just suck at city council is the choice of ward 4.

And yet, it isn't. Ward 4 doesn't want a child molester representing them in city council, as the election day vote clearly shows. Even if Chu's pedo past doesn't affect how he votes in council, it still matters to ward 4 voters that he not be in council. You might not think it matters, but it does.

Do you like the UCP recall thresholds? I think they are too high to be realisticly achievable but any lower leaves them open to abuse. The election every 4 years is a reasonable way of addressing this issue. Remember that in introducing recall legislation you need to assume it will be abused to the maximum extent possible.

No matter what system, rules, or mechanisms that are in place, they will be open to abuse. Case in point, the status quo is open to abuse. Chu gets years & years as a councillor that he certainly would not have got otherwise, by concealing important information from the public. That is abuse. Also, think about elections in general... those who raise the most campaign funds have a clear advantage over those who raise fewer funds. This means that elections are just as much (if not more) about who raises the most money as it is about who has the best ideas & policies. You can be demonstrably worse than your opponent when it comes to fulfilling the interests of voters, but win anyways because you have a much larger amount of campaign funds to blast your name, message, and spin across every form of advertising, and paint yourself in the best light possible.

I like the UCP recall legislation in principle, but the 40% threshold seems a bit excessive. Something like 25%-30% seems more realistic. A referendum vote should then take place regardless of whether it's an MLA or a municipal politician. I also think that some kind of collateral should have to be fundraised, but the collateral is refunded if the recall vote is successful. This would further dissuade frivolous recall attempts.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The relevant legal code was cited earlier. If a minor requests a publication ban, the judge pretty much has to impose one.

What led to the ban being lifted, and why was it the Friday before election day?

[MoneyGuy]

Was Chu ever charged? If not, why not?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Was Chu ever charged? If not, why not?

Cynical me:

You're kidding right? The last Police Officer who was charged had to suffocate someone to death and be outed by an irretrievable video.

And then they proceeded to Tear Gas the hell out of anyone who mentioned it.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The relevant legal code was cited earlier. If a minor requests a publication ban, the judge pretty much has to impose one.

My understanding of the law is that any ban is strictly to protect the identity of the victim and any underage witnesses. That doesn't mean there needs to be a total ban on any and all details of the case if they won't compromise those identities. These bans are not designed to protect the identity of the accused unless publishing the accused person's identity would identify the victim based on their relationship.


There have been many cases where an abuser's name and the details of their crimes were published without the victim's name being published. Graham James is a good example. His case became public around the same time as Chu's incident. When the accusations against James became public, Kennedy was the only one of his victims who spoke out. It was known that at least one other professional player was a victim and many people speculated about it being Fleury, but we didn't know that for sure until he declared it publicly years later. I believe there are additional victims whose identities are still unknown.

I remember another case from around that same time where the father of a girl I went to Jr. High with was charged with (and ultimate convicted of) molesting a number of teenage girls. The reason I know he was the father of a girl I went to school with is because many of the stories about his trial mentioned the names of his children. The reporting never mentioned the names of any of his victims.


Arguably, in the interest of public safety, the details of the accusations against Chu (and his admissions) should not have been subject to a publication ban except for specific details about the accuser's identity.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by getbak

My understanding of the law is that any ban is strictly to protect the identity of the victim and any underage witnesses. That doesn't mean there needs to be a total ban on any and all details of the case if they won't compromise those identities. These bans are not designed to protect the identity of the accused unless publishing the accused person's identity would identify the victim based on their relationship.


There have been many cases where an abuser's name and the details of their crimes were published without the victim's name being published. Graham James is a good example. His case became public around the same time as Chu's incident. When the accusations against James became public, Kennedy was the only one of his victims who spoke out. It was known that at least one other professional player was a victim and many people speculated about it being Fleury, but we didn't know that for sure until he declared it publicly years later. I believe there are additional victims whose identities are still unknown.

I remember another case from around that same time where the father of a girl I went to Jr. High with was charged with (and ultimate convicted of) molesting a number of teenage girls. The reason I know he was the father of a girl I went to school with is because many of the stories about his trial mentioned the names of his children. The reporting never mentioned the names of any of his victims.


Arguably, in the interest of public safety, the details of the accusations against Chu (and his admissions) should not have been subject to a publication ban except for specific details about the accuser's identity.

This is my understanding as well. A total ban seemed inappropriate for these circumstances. Further, there was reporting that the victim had been alleging "coverup" for some 9 years and sought redress. That doesn't necessarily mean she would want the publication ban lifted for all details, but one would think that more details should have been made public, as that seemed to be her intention.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by SebC

What part of "publication ban" do you people not understand?

It seems reasonable to object to the publication ban and want more information on why it wasn't lifted earlier though.

IMO, if the victim requests it be lifted that should be an administrative formality.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The relevant legal code was cited earlier. If a minor requests a publication ban, the judge pretty much has to impose one.

That actually explains nothing and doesn't answer any of the questions in this thread.

Originally Posted by SebC

What part of "publication ban" do you people not understand?

Well clearly no one understands, even you.