Adult. Human. Female.
Three simple words. Three simple words that effectively and accurately describe a woman. You'd think this would be easy stuff, right?
Well, not if you are a woke Supreme Court justice in Canada, it's not.
This morning, The National Post in Canada reported yet another ridiculous case of mental and linguistic gymnastics handed down by Canadian Supreme Court Justice Sheilah Martin in a sexual assault case that has been going on up north for seven years.
FIRST READING: Supreme Court decision say that the word 'woman' is confusing, 'unfortunate' https://t.co/iPMhtR2Vcy pic.twitter.com/2GT8swgzgT
— National Post (@nationalpost) March 13, 2024
According to The National Post, the ongoing case involves a sexual assault allegation made by a woman against Charles Kruk. We won't delve too deeply into the details of the case, but in short, Kruk took an intoxicated and lost woman home with him in 2017, ostensibly to call her family, but when she passed out, she woke to find her pants off and Kruk penetrating her. Kruk claims that this did not happen and she was just 'startled awake' after she had removed her own pants.
That's the ugly case summary, but it is important to have that context to understand the full depravity of what happened in the Supreme Court, where Martin added an even further insult to women everywhere, not to mention the one who had allegedly been assaulted.
At trial in 2020, a B.C. judge rejected Kruk’s defence in part on the grounds that the complainant was not likely to be mistaken about the sensation of vaginal penetration.
'She said she felt his penis inside her and she knew what she was feeling. In short, her tactile sense was engaged. It is extremely unlikely that a woman would be mistaken about that feeling,' read the initial decision.
It was this line that drew Martin’s approbation, and the seeming implication that the passage should more appropriately have been 'it is extremely unlikely that a person with a vagina would be mistaken about that feeling.'
Recommended
A person with a vagina. Unbelievable. This is a Supreme Court justice speaking. Here are Martin's exact words:
Hear that, ladies? It is 'unfortunate' for you to call yourselves women.
Better stick with 'birthing person,' 'person who menstruates,' 'egg producer,' or 'breastfeeder.' Or now, according to Martin, 'person with a vagina.'
There was no "confusion". The complainant was female (& referred to as 'she'), the accused was male (& referred to as 'he'). There was never any "trans" component in this case - so what "confusion" could there be? This judge is creating confusion, not erasing it.
— The Countess In Cowboy Boots (@LooneyOldLady) March 13, 2024
This is so appalling. What hopes do Canadian women have when the Supreme Court says “woman” is confusing and instead refers to rape victims as “people with vaginas.”
— Amy Eileen Hamm (@preta_6) March 13, 2024
As @TristinHopper wrote, not a single person involved was trans.
This is so disgusting. https://t.co/1KLEuNorQo
Not that it would make a difference even if there WAS a trans person involved, but setting that aside, this is a clear case of a man and a woman. There's nothing 'confusing' about it.
We are ruled by a global conspiracy of midwits https://t.co/onGtFT40x1
— Wesley Yang (@wesyang) March 13, 2024
'Midwits' might be too generous, to be honest.
“The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in a recent sexual assault case that it was “problematic” for a lower court judge to refer to the alleged victim as a “woman,” implying that the more appropriate term should have been “person with a vagina.”
— Tracey Wilson (@TWilsonOttawa) March 13, 2024
After generations of women fighting… https://t.co/rxa8SXVusr
The rest of that tweet concludes, 'After generations of women fighting to be equal, recognized - we have been reduced to an organ.'
I am not a *person with a vagina* , I am a woman.
— Gillian Flavell (@FlavellG) March 13, 2024
You are woke apologists sucking up to a squealing microminority who demean women and you are helping to set back hard fought women’s rights by decades.
Not surprised though, since Trudeau appointed so many of you.
Pillocks. https://t.co/eiCwzT10KZ
Say it louder for the Supreme Court justices in the back.
How women can put up with this continued woke erasure of their entire existence is beyond comprehension. But it sounds like most women -- at least all of the sane, rational ones -- are not willing to tolerate it any longer.
Our highest court is tainted. https://t.co/HLjWff4H8W pic.twitter.com/vuu2WgRUd2
— Mary Elle (@prettypatriotCA) March 13, 2024
I laughed when Trudeau said "people-kind" instead of saying "mankind" because I thought he was joking.... Canada is in deep trouble. https://t.co/EGCWon2v4y
— Our Bou 💫 (@happy_foxxy) March 13, 2024
Trudeau is a cancer and he has infected the entire nation, right up to its highest court.
If the Supreme Court of Canada doesn't know what a woman is, they shouldn't be adjudicating any case that involves them https://t.co/IJj7pYE5kT
— The world has gone mad 🍎 (@HaveWeAllGoneM1) March 13, 2024
Not much behind those eyes. pic.twitter.com/UsLZ8Y2QCc
— Whiskeytomcat (@whiskeytomcat) March 13, 2024
It's always in the eyes. Always.
Adult.
— Anti-Taxxer (@colossusPhD) March 13, 2024
Human.
Female.
See? Not confusing in the least. Let alone 'unfortunate.'
The next relevant question is whether the words 'wise' or 'intelligent' are confusing and unfortunate with regard to describing certain Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada.
— Ragnar Danneskjold (@Beaf333) March 13, 2024
Now THAT is a good question worth debating.
Awkward https://t.co/g5VcluI5Hl
— DILLIGAF (@DawsonsLeftPeg) March 13, 2024
Hey, that's weird, isn't it? It seems that Martin CAN understand what a woman is without confusion ... when she wants to.
Can you imagine every March 8?
— June Marie (@auntiemlin) March 13, 2024
Happy International 'person with a vagina' day !
Ony in Canada 🙄 https://t.co/uX9QcthdMk
What better way to celebrate Women's History Month than to completely obliterate the entire meaning of 'woman' throughout history?
I just heard the camels back snap. https://t.co/HCekfbHVcD pic.twitter.com/d9tkEBUHgh
— Meagra (Mac/Meags) (@MeagraMac) March 13, 2024
We can only hope.
There is a plus side to the story. Despite Martin's ridiculously woke phrasing for women, she did make the correct ruling in the case: Kruk's defense is laughable and there is no way that the woman he allegedly assaulted was confused about the feeling of penetration.
But it is baffling how she could come up with that sensible conclusion while simultaneously -- and insanely -- finding the word woman confusing.
There is a famous tweet by the comedian, author, and podcaster Bridget Phetasy on this topic. It's just one word.
It goes like this:
https://t.co/tbq3AwYFlG pic.twitter.com/aOJPXvYsvF
— Bridget Phetasy (@BridgetPhetasy) June 30, 2022
We'd highly recommend that Justice Sheilah Martin watch that tweet over and over on a loop until it sinks in for her.
A Clockwork Orange style, if necessary.
***
Join the conversation as a VIP Member