Columnist Enlists Anonymous to Take Down Rapists

[Canadish]

How do we know this chick really was raped?

For all we know she got drunk, let the crew hit it, and then felt bad about it the next day.

Calling for a witch hunt before getting all of the facts together is a terrible idea.

Why was this person BANNED for this post? It is a completely feasible scenario and within the same realms of possibility that she was actually raped.

Or do we have to condemn without trial, ignore due process and engage in vigilante activity whenever the words "rape", "bullying" and "suicide" are involved?

Apparently "alleged" doesn't exist in our vocabulary.

Wow... holy shit... concurred. Are we going to ban everyone who's said anything about due process?

I'm gonna need to back this one up as well. I didn't like the guy's tone, but his point was perfectly valid.

What the hell are you guys playing at here?

 

[el_kabong]

I'm a man who believes in "rule of law", maybe to a fault. So, to me, this call to vigilantism seems to be counteractive to the actual "justice" they seek. If their plan succeeds, they will simply be subjecting more people to the same kind of bullying that the original victim suffered through. Torturing terrorists doesn't make you a hero. It makes you a terrorist, too.

If you feel that some injustice has been committed, then work within the system. While I'm not completely familiar with Canadian laws, it seems that they should have some sort of legal process through which one can try to bring true justice to the criminals in question or at least work to prevent things like this from happening in the future. However, if you subvert the law to your own ends, you are indicating that the very justice you are seeking does not apply to you. It's incredibly hypocritical and not at all productive from a societal growth standpoint.

The Laws are just things created by men who do their best to put judgement on people. By that very definition, the law is not perfect because it was made by imperfect people. The problem is, when the law fails, you shouldn't just sit there and do nothing. I would rather have vigilante justice then a bureaucratic system that's more concerned with red tape then actual justice.

I'm not claiming that laws can't be flawed. However, a society without rule of law, where all citizens are deemed to have equal treatment under the laws created, is anarchy and doesn't have a place in a representative democracy. The citizens elected their officials who, in turn, create the laws. If the citizen elect officials that create laws that are unfair or detrimental to the society at large, it's up to the citizenry to work to repeal or modify those laws by pressuring their representatives accordingly.

Using lynch-mob mentality and terrorist tactics are a disservice to a civilized democracy. All you're doing with the tactics listed in the article is punishing a sacrificial red herring while the unjust law remains in place to create more victims and outrage. If you want to expend energy fighting for the victims, fight the law and help ensure that others don't suffer the same injustice. Vengeance is a selfish thing and rarely does it result in real, lasting justice.

 

[Formica Archonis]

One of the cardinal rules of Anonymous is also that they are not anyone's personal army.

I don't know, seeing as Kinsella appears to have successfully sicced them on the NDP provincial premier and the cop who headed security for the the federal Conservatives' last G8/G20/Gwhatever shindig, even specifying the Thursday Night All-You-Can-Dox Platter.

 

[AxelxGabriel]

I'm not claiming that laws can't be flawed. However, a society without rule of law, where all citizens are deemed to have equal treatment under the laws created, is anarchy and doesn't have a place in a representative democracy. The citizens elected their officials who, in turn, create the laws. If the citizen elect officials that create laws that are unfair or detrimental to the society at large, it's up to the citizenry to work to repeal or modify those laws by pressuring their representatives accordingly.

Using lynch-mob mentality and terrorist tactics are a disservice to a civilized democracy. All you're doing with the tactics listed in the article is punishing a sacrificial red herring while the unjust law remains in place to create more victims and outrage. If you want to expend energy fighting for the victims, fight the law and help ensure that others don't suffer the same injustice. Vengeance is a selfish thing and rarely does it result in real, lasting justice.

There are plenty of examples in history where you really can't fight agaisnt unjust laws. Like Tyranny or fascist states. If anyone even slightly went agaisnt even the smallest of laws, you were killed. Do you seriously think anyone would listen to or support someone who's against a law against such power? Are you saying the Founding fathers of America, instead of revolution should've just made a bill to be heard by the English? Should the Jews should've just made a representative vote in Nazi Germany?

Besides, when it comes to laws nowadays, it's not about keeping peace, it's about maintaining order. An order that has become so cold and detrimental that it forgets that laws were meant to serve man, not the other way around.

The problem you're missing about the article is that the girl's family WENT to the law and by that VERY law, she's going to get ZERO justice. It's clear the law is flawed and should be changed,but that does NOT mean we should stand around and the girl's rapists get away with it while we wait for months or even years for the rules to be changed, even if they would be at all.

 

[Quantum Glass]

I'm not claiming that laws can't be flawed. However, a society without rule of law, where all citizens are deemed to have equal treatment under the laws created, is anarchy and doesn't have a place in a representative democracy. The citizens elected their officials who, in turn, create the laws. If the citizen elect officials that create laws that are unfair or detrimental to the society at large, it's up to the citizenry to work to repeal or modify those laws by pressuring their representatives accordingly.

Using lynch-mob mentality and terrorist tactics are a disservice to a civilized democracy. All you're doing with the tactics listed in the article is punishing a sacrificial red herring while the unjust law remains in place to create more victims and outrage. If you want to expend energy fighting for the victims, fight the law and help ensure that others don't suffer the same injustice. Vengeance is a selfish thing and rarely does it result in real, lasting justice.

Anonymous is literally asking for proper legal action to take place. They're threatening to trigger a vigilante reaction if they don't get what they want, yes, but asking for the government to enforce it's own laws is not what I'd call anarchism.

 

[el_kabong]

I'm not claiming that laws can't be flawed. However, a society without rule of law, where all citizens are deemed to have equal treatment under the laws created, is anarchy and doesn't have a place in a representative democracy. The citizens elected their officials who, in turn, create the laws. If the citizen elect officials that create laws that are unfair or detrimental to the society at large, it's up to the citizenry to work to repeal or modify those laws by pressuring their representatives accordingly.

Using lynch-mob mentality and terrorist tactics are a disservice to a civilized democracy. All you're doing with the tactics listed in the article is punishing a sacrificial red herring while the unjust law remains in place to create more victims and outrage. If you want to expend energy fighting for the victims, fight the law and help ensure that others don't suffer the same injustice. Vengeance is a selfish thing and rarely does it result in real, lasting justice.

There are plenty of examples in history where you really can't fight agaisnt unjust laws. Like Tyranny or fascist states.

Last I checked, neither Canada or the US is under a dictatorship. Citizens have plenty of right to legal and just action in these places to revoke laws that don't involve terrorism and harassment. We're not talking about a government that rules by divine right or are appointed for life. Politicians have a shelf life. They have power because their people gave it to them and it's their people's to take away. Speak through legal political activism. If you're content to beat up symptoms while the problem at large remains unresolved, you serve no one but your own personal motivations and the agenda of politicians who would rather take shots at easy punching bags rather than putting in the work needed to facilitate real change.

Also, way to invoke Godwin's Law. I expected it eventually. Because, you know, some criminals falling through the cracks due to bureaucracy is TOTALLY on par with the attempted extermination of an entire people by a military state.

 

[el_kabong]

I'm not claiming that laws can't be flawed. However, a society without rule of law, where all citizens are deemed to have equal treatment under the laws created, is anarchy and doesn't have a place in a representative democracy. The citizens elected their officials who, in turn, create the laws. If the citizen elect officials that create laws that are unfair or detrimental to the society at large, it's up to the citizenry to work to repeal or modify those laws by pressuring their representatives accordingly.

Using lynch-mob mentality and terrorist tactics are a disservice to a civilized democracy. All you're doing with the tactics listed in the article is punishing a sacrificial red herring while the unjust law remains in place to create more victims and outrage. If you want to expend energy fighting for the victims, fight the law and help ensure that others don't suffer the same injustice. Vengeance is a selfish thing and rarely does it result in real, lasting justice.

Anonymous is literally asking for proper legal action to take place. They're threatening to trigger a vigilante reaction if they don't get what they want, yes, but asking for the government to enforce it's own laws is not what I'd call anarchism.

I know. How weird is it that Anonymous is the voice of reason? I was trying to focus more on the people calling on them for illegal action (or "justice" as they like to call it). I actually meant no slight to Anonymous in this situation, as they appear to be making the right call (at least the one that aligns with my personal feelings on the necessity of rule of law). Though, who knows how long that is going to last.

 

[Abomination]

I know. How weird is it that Anonymous is the voice of reason? I was trying to focus more on the people calling on them for illegal action (or "justice" as they like to call it). I actually meant no slight to Anonymous in this situation, as they appear to be making the right call (at least the one that aligns with my personal feelings on the necessity of rule of law). Though, who knows how long that is going to last.

So... essentially you know you've got a screw loose if Anonymous appears to be the level headed one in a conversation?

 

[JoJo]

How do we know this chick really was raped?

For all we know she got drunk, let the crew hit it, and then felt bad about it the next day.

Calling for a witch hunt before getting all of the facts together is a terrible idea.

Why was this person BANNED for this post? It is a completely feasible scenario and within the same realms of possibility that she was actually raped.

Or do we have to condemn without trial, ignore due process and engage in vigilante activity whenever the words "rape", "bullying" and "suicide" are involved?

Apparently "alleged" doesn't exist in our vocabulary.

Given the low number of posts and general vibe from that user, I wouldn't be surprised if they were a banjumper come back for round 2. Of course, you'd have to ask a mod to be sure.

 

[Howling Din]

It is not Vigilantism. You're supposed to report crimes. And testify if you have knowledge of it. It is the angry mob that will punish the rapists if Anonymous releases the names that will be doing the vigilantism.

 

[Quantum Glass]

I know. How weird is it that Anonymous is the voice of reason? I was trying to focus more on the people calling on them for illegal action (or "justice" as they like to call it). I actually meant no slight to Anonymous in this situation, as they appear to be making the right call (at least the one that aligns with my personal feelings on the necessity of rule of law). Though, who knows how long that is going to last.

Oh. In that case, I agree completely. My apologies for not looking into the context behind your post; I need to be less hasty at jumping to conclusions.

 

[KeyMaster45]

ALLEGED rapists.

What the bleeding fuck is happening to "innocent until proven otherwise"?

In the internet justice system, the people are represented by two separate and totally unequal groups. The anons who investigate crime and the angry mob who prosecute the offenders. All suspects must provide pics of their innocence or get the fuck out.

OT: I'd say this person is playing with fire, but Anonymous has just lost it's vicious bite over the years. All this concentrated activism stuff is hardly done in the spirit of for teh lulz.

 

[Lt. Rocky]

If all is as it truly seems, then I am ashamed to call myself Canadian. Anonymous, I may be indifferent towards you, but reason and morale have appearanced to have sunked so low it's only fitting that you'll be the ones to put the pieces back together. So have fun fellas. Do what you do best.

 

[Eternal_Lament]

This is all just a mess that I'm not sure what to think.

Let's just say, for the sake of reference, that Rehtaeh was raped (I don't know enough about the case to make an opinion on this), then the lack of anything having been done about it does seem like a travesty. Still, I'm not sure getting Anonymous involved is a good idea. This group of Anonymous may have said that they won't dispatch vigilante justice, but considering the veiled threat at the end of their statement it would be safe to say that this is an operation that can easily fuck up. Perhaps the other parts of Anonymous won't be as reserved and may go farther than they should, and considering how easily someone innocent may accidentally be identified as one of the rapists, this seems to me as something with no real happy ending.

Further, let's say this is a situation not only where only Anonymous can do good, and manage to actually do everything by the book. I still see their inclusion as opening the flood gates as it were. Alright, so a group came together to solve a case that the justice system was unable to do. What happens next time though? Does the group wait after nothing happens, or do they start to act before anything can even be done? What if everything has been followed to the letter of the law, but the group isn't convinced and continues investigating? This seems to me like inviting trouble, trouble that we may be happy to have now considering the circumstances, but trouble we'd have a hard time getting rid of once our emotions die down.

 

[BabySinclair]

Depends who takes the case. Anonymous has innumerable secs, many with differing ideology

Some consider themselves white knights & act more or less accordingly, others... we'll see

That's what interests me really, some may be the white knights while other sections may not take kindly to being asked for advocacy.

Cry havoc...

This makes me sad,

Why didn't I go for the Julius Ceasar quote? I had first post, memorized the monologue years ago for a school assignment, and it fits so well.

I'll go sit in my corner and read my Shakespear again.

 

[major_chaos]

Why was this person BANNED for this post?

Wow... holy shit... concurred. Are we going to ban everyone who's said anything about due process?

What the hell are you guys playing at here?

While I find the post in question disgusting, and his second one more so, largely because of the wording, that isn't why he was banned. He was banned because of the blatant implied racial slur in his name.

 

[Abomination]

Why was this person BANNED for this post?

Wow... holy shit... concurred. Are we going to ban everyone who's said anything about due process?

What the hell are you guys playing at here?

While I find the post in question disgusting, and his second one more so, largely because of the wording, that isn't why he was banned. He was banned because of the blatant implied racial slur in his name.

Huh, I must be dyslexic because I thought his name was "Ignonymous" but I can see, I guess, how someone could be offended by that name.