8.11.2009

"i didn't know truth had a gender"

Has your head exploded in a while? No? Then read this.
Lisa MacLeod is a young female politician who commutes to her job at Queen's Park from Ottawa and leaves her husband, Joe, and four-year-old daughter, Victoria, at home. Mr. Justice Douglas Cunningham of Ontario Superior Court said this is a big distraction for the 34-year-old woman and as a result he felt he could not accept her evidence as corroboration of the Crown's key witness in the recent high-profile, influence-peddling trial of Ottawa Mayor Larry O'Brien. . . .

On Monday, Ms. MacLeod, the Conservative MPP for Nepean-Carleton, called the judge's reference "pathetic" and "surreal."

"I didn't know truth had a gender or a family, she said.

Do men not juggle the demands of work and family? Are they able to do so without their brains being so fried that their testimony is worthless?

I wonder, does Justice Cunningham so disapprove of working women that he cannot give credence to what one such woman has to say?

When, oh when, will this appalling sexism end??

6 comments:

James said...

Do men not juggle the demands of work and family?

Sure they do. But apparently, they don't actually care about heir families, so they aren't a distraction at all.

L-girl said...

Do men not juggle the demands of work and family?

Sure they do. But apparently, they don't actually care about heir families, so they aren't a distraction at all.


And certainly not enough - not enough men are equal partners in family and home life, and I have a suspicion its worse in Canada than the US. (A blog post for another day.)

Amy said...

The judge actually said this out loud in a court? Astounding.

When will sexism end? Somehow I think it is linked to when homophobia ends, that is, when people are seen as people, not as their sex or gender, in everything they do: work, play, love.

And sad to say, I don't think that will happen anytime soon, but I do think we are moving in the right direction.

ADHR said...

No. False. Sorry. The full decision is here; the relevant paragraphs are 61-4.

What the judge says, clearly, is that the defense raised these issues, and he allowed that they were true. That is, she really was quite busy. But, as he clearly explains, the reason for affording her testimony "little weight" was that it was imprecise and unreliable. Not that she was busy.

L-girl said...

No. False. Sorry.

Perhaps you are confusing me with the Globe and Mail? Your comments should be directed to the writer and editor of that article.

Thanks for the link to the decision.

Kim_in_TO said...

What the judge says, clearly, is that the defense raised these issues, and he allowed that they were true.

Oh. So the bullshit originated with the defense, not the judge; the judge just agreed with it.

Hi there. It's 2009.