Locker room type behaviour?

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

There are many fine issues in this episode which need to be sorted out:

 

First, those guys should be given a full opportunity to explain their position and afforded with due process like any other human being on this planet. To lynch them out right is simply absurd.

 

Second, there is a valid issue of assumption of privacy. If we are going to allow materials based on invasion of privacy to be used, then what would stop the government from hacking all the Johns accounts to prevent crimes under Bill C-36 from happening. There are no limits for the "Thought Police"!

 

Third, rape (the action and planning) is a crime. But, for a crime to be established a state of mind needs to be established as well. I really doubt this is the case, and if it were, it should be the job of the Crown prosecutor.

 

Fourth, what remains out of this basically are some words used by guys who immaturely thought that Facebook is a secure medium for playing the big boys. Yes, it is overtly immature, but to take it beyond this is prejudicial, at least, at this stage.

[roamingguy 300292]

There are many fine issues in this episode which need to be sorted out:

 

First, those guys should be given a full opportunity to explain their position and afforded with due process like any other human being on this planet. To lynch them out right is simply absurd.

 

Second, there is a valid issue of assumption of privacy. If we are going to allow materials based on invasion of privacy to be used, then what would stop the government from hacking all the Johns accounts to prevent crimes under Bill C-36 from happening. There are no limits for the "Thought Police"!

 

Third, rape (the action and planning) is a crime. But, for a crime to be established a state of mind needs to be established as well. I really doubt this is the case, and if it were, it should be the job of the Crown prosecutor.

 

Fourth, what remains out of this basically are some words used by guys who immaturely thought that Facebook is a secure medium for playing the big boys. Yes, it is overtly immature, but to take it beyond this is prejudicial, at least, at this stage.

 

First, are they being denied the chance to explain themselves? It would be nice to hear their side of the story. They are the ones choosing to be silent, and not explain themselves. So all we have to go on is the CBC story and the FB posts.

 

Second was their privacy really invaded? They used social media...social media gets it name for a reason. Only a fool would believe that what is posted on the internet is really private irrespective of the settings on your FB account. The minute you share your thoughts with anyone on the internet you give up any control of privacy. The only way for your private thoughts to remain private is to share them with nobody

 

Third, as of yet, no one, I believe is treating what these guys did as criminal...I may be wrong here. The university is reviewing their status as students and they may not graduate, and Ontario wants the names of those students in case they try to get licenced in Ontario as dentists. It sounds more like some are being proactive, showing concern for possible future patients (and maybe victims)...but that is not the same as treating them as criminals, with arrests, prosecutions and possible incarcerations

 

Fourth, yes it is words they are being judged on. Prejudicial, far from it though. Everyone gets judged on their words. A person's words reflect a person's thoughts. And his/her thoughts control his/her actions. And a person controls what he/she says. These "men" freely chose to post those words, so how can one say it is now prejudicial that those words are used to judge them.

 

With all that being said, wouldn't the university and various licencing bodies, be it Nova Scotia, Ontario or whichever be negligent not taking action under current circumstances. If they allowed these students to graduate and the licencing agencies licenced them, and subsequently they did drug and rape a patient what sort of liability would they face. Put another way, doesn't the university and licencing agencies have a duty to protect future possible patients from students they know have expressed thoughts of drugging and raping women.

 

RG

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

First, are they being denied the chance to explain themselves? It would be nice to hear their side of the story. They are the ones choosing to be silent, and not explain themselves. So all we have to go on is the CBC story and the FB posts.

 

If people chose the right not engage in the fire of the media and get toasted in hands of reporters, it does not mean that they have nothing to say to defend themselves in the appropriate forums.

 

Second was their privacy really invaded? They used social media...social media gets it name for a reason. Only a fool would believe that what is posted on the internet is really private irrespective of the settings on your FB account. The minute you share your thoughts with anyone on the internet you give up any control of privacy. The only way for your private thoughts to remain private is to share them with nobody.

 

I hope the same principles apply when you share your thoughts with one of the fine ladies to arrange for a rendezvous, irrespective of the privacy setting of google/CERB/etc.

 

 

Third, as of yet, no one, I believe is treating what these guys did as criminal...I may be wrong here. The university is reviewing their status as students and they may not graduate, and Ontario wants the names of those students in case they try to get licenced in Ontario as dentists. It sounds more like some are being proactive, showing concern for possible future patients (and maybe victims)...but that is not the same as treating them as criminals, with arrests, prosecutions and possible incarcerations

 

The tone in this thread is almost incriminating so far.

 

Fourth, yes it is words they are being judged on. Prejudicial, far from it though. Everyone gets judged on their words. A person's words reflect a person's thoughts. And his/her thoughts control his/her actions. And a person controls what he/she says. These "men" freely chose to post those words, so how can one say it is now prejudicial that those words are used to judge them.

 

So when someone masturbates fucking his classmate and vise verse, it means their thought will control their actions and next day they will wake up to go and just do it!

 

Their words were not intended for public, their was a valid privacy expectation.

 

With all that being said, wouldn't the university and various licencing bodies, be it Nova Scotia, Ontario or whichever be negligent not taking action under current circumstances. If they allowed these students to graduate and the licencing agencies licenced them, and subsequently they did drug and rape a patient what sort of liability would they face. Put another way, doesn't the university and licencing agencies have a duty to protect future possible patients from students they know have expressed thoughts of drugging and raping women.

 

Talk to a group of feminists and every hobbyist is an exploiter. So if a doctor is a hobbyist, wouldn't some consider him as exploiter as well. Should he be fired as well!

 

Words have context, which we are not fully aware of yet.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

From my perspective the "expectation of privacy " idea is just a red herring... this behavior would not be anymore appropriate or acceptable if it was done in private. Had these individuals chosen to make these comment quietly to each other while in the halls of the school about passing female students it would still be seen as offensive, degrading and threatening by many people. If the female students were to discover after the fact that this was happening many would not simply see it as just playful banter by the boys in private.

 

And I will die for this red herring because without it we are in the superstate Oceania, 1984.

[Ice4fun 78396]

And I will die for this red herring because without it we are in the superstate Oceania, 1984.

 

I fully support the "expectation of privacy" idea and would fight with you if this was a case of big brother accessing private records and using them against you... that's not what is happening here their comments became public because one of the group exposed them. If a party to the communication makes the communication public then how can we realistically suggest that our rights to privacy are being taken away.

 

Making inappropriate comments on a social media group and expecting that it's private is just silly... this is not personal communication between two individuals it's a group posting.

 

In my opinion we undermine our actual rights to privacy when we try to extend them to things like Facebook groups.

 

Just my Opinion

 

Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

I fully support the "expectation of privacy" idea and would fight with you if this was a case of big brother accessing private records and using them against you... that's not what is happening here their comments became public because one of the group exposed them. If a party to the communication makes the communication public then how can we realistically suggest that our rights to privacy are being taken away.

 

Making inappropriate comments on a social media group and expecting that it's private is just silly... this is not personal communication between two individuals it's a group posting.

 

In my opinion we undermine our actual rights to privacy when we try to extend them to things like Facebook groups.

 

Just my Opinion

 

So the logic is that one of the group decided to expose them! So he would face the same sanctions (possible expulsion)?

 

Expectation of privacy has nothing to do with the vehicle or the number of participants, it is a concept. Once an individual joins a private club he is bound by the rules of the club and he owes the others a duty to respect the privacy of what happens in that club. That must be silly by some people standards!

 

This is simply a case of a high school snitch.

[roamingguy 300292]

I4F is right, privacy would be an issue if the State, or in this case the media/university attempted to, without a warrant read and act on the private words of individuals.

But this isn't the case. These individuals, these "gentlemen" volunteered their thoughts to the public. The university and media were recipients

of these men's words and thoughts, from these men. And the university would now be negligent if it didn't act.

Privacy isn't the issue at all. They can't have an expectation of privacy when one of their "exclusive" group lets it blurt out publically for all to read

 

RG

[Ice4fun 78396]

So the logic is that one of the group decided to expose them! So he would face the same sanctions (possible expulsion)?

 

Expectation of privacy has nothing to do with the vehicle or the number of participants, it is a concept. Once an individual joins a private club he is bound by the rules of the club and he owes the others a duty to respect what happens in that club. That must be silly to some people standards!

 

This is simply a case of a high school snitch.

 

No this is the case of them stupidly assuming that a group on facebook had established rules that protected them from being held accountable for their actions.

 

Stepping up and protecting others from inappropriate actions is in fact having standards and if my son or daughter stood up and did that in high-school or anywhere else I would be very proud of him.

 

There is no big brother bully in this story... just a bunch of stupid men acting badly

 

Just my Opinion

 

 

Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

Privacy is at the core of this case on two frontiers:

 

First, if it turned out that some of the crooked professors made a deal with one of the group to leak the information so it looks as if one of the group betrayed his colleagues, then the whole case will be a misconduct on the part of the university.

 

Second, with the expectation of privacy one can justify that their behaviour is not their own typical behaviour while facing the public.

 

Give it a good lawyer and this case will turn out into nothing or by maximum a slap on the wrist.

[Ice4fun 78396]

Who are these crooked professors?

 

Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

Read the news articles away from the media spin, remember those old days in the high school and you "might" see between the lines an institutional misconduct, coupled with a media spin along the common lines of sexism and a 13 escaping goats who will be lynched unless their pappas and mammas dig in their pockets for an aggressive attorney who would turn this garbage upside down.

[Miss Jessica Lee 43328]

Not even doctors are expected to uphold their doctor / patient oath with regards to privacy if they feel someone might be harmed if they do so.

 

About the only person they could have disclosed this to and expected it to stay private would have been a priest, during confession.

 

The fact that the facebook group included the school's name makes this hardly a private matter between buddies in a group.

 

They fucked up. And they got caught.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

If they feel someone might be harmed, then we are talking criminal offenses, either actual planning or execution, not mere unintentional uttering. That is something I totally support disclosing, but so far not the case.

[roamingguy 300292]

If they feel someone might be harmed, then we are talking criminal offenses, either actual planning or execution, not mere unintentional uttering. That is something I totally support disclosing, but so far not the case.

 

Posting about chloroforming women, specific women by name, and having hate sex (rape to me) with them...that isn't far enough for you to have the university to expel these 13 men. We aren't even talking criminal prosecutions here, just expelling them from university. Or is it more important to you that they continue with their education, become dentists, and in a few years down the road be in a position where they have the means and opportunity to practice what they uttered about doing on FB

The real protection of women is far more important than the abstract protection of FB hate postings. If that makes me Orwellian so be it

 

RG

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

I've read every comment carefully and thank you for responding.

 

There are a few points I would like to make since I was stupid enough to start this.

 

If you go to the bother of creating a "private" facebook group then you should have some expectation of privacy, otherwise why have private groups? Do you really believe as long as the privacy breach wasn't state sanctioned, then exposure is fair game? Use you head and ask yourself if you would feel the same way should you be "outed" by someone you visited or were found out about your activities by someone grabbing your hobby phone and having a peak. Isn't there a similar expectation of privacy? Any argument at this point would be a distinction without a difference.

 

Your thoughts are not actions. I've had many "thoughts" that I would not want to publicly declare but that does not mean by any stretch that I actually would plan steps to carry that out. Suggesting otherwise is contemptible. To the people who would quote examples, remember the exception does not make the rule. Where would we be if it did?

 

I'm surprised that we are so against people having nasty thoughts and yet many of us engage in deception on here not to mention outright criminal behaviour given the new law. What about all the people who think what we get up to is immoral and would judge us in an instant if found out? To them and us I say remove the f'ing log from your own eye first.

 

It's always been easy to round up several villagers for a good ole burning at the stake. What's always in short supply unfortunately is someone willing to show compassion and have an interest in rehabilitation for those who made mistakes.

 

I say "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". We all will make mistakes, some involving actions and some involving words. If you ever find yourself among that group and wonder why the world is so judgemental and cold, maybe some of you just need to look in the mirror.

[Miss Jessica Lee 43328]

They didn't just think these thoughts.

 

They thought about it. Then they went a bit further....

 

They sat down at a keyboard and typed them out. They shared them with the group. The group discussed the thoughts. Some agreed and expanded on the thoughts. It appears, although I'm no expert on behaviour, that they were enjoying it, were entertained, even aroused by it.

 

Sooooooooo much more than a dirty thought that stays in one's own mind. Just sayin'

 

 

ps.. it wasn't stupid to start this .. I think we've had a really good discussion. And still are. :)

[Parker 19761]

Someone's 'supposedly' totally private, online group, not hosted by the creators, on a social media platform...

 

There are lots of ways to keep something private. This isn't one of them.

 

 

jmo..

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

Posting about chloroforming women, specific women by name, and having hate sex (rape to me) with them...that isn't far enough for you to have the university to expel these 13 men. We aren't even talking criminal prosecutions here, just expelling them from university. Or is it more important to you that they continue with their education, become dentists, and in a few years down the road be in a position where they have the means and opportunity to practice what they uttered about doing on FB

The real protection of women is far more important than the abstract protection of FB hate postings. If that makes me Orwellian so be it

 

RG

 

You are not talking about criminal prosecution because there is no case for criminal prosecution. Simply a group of kids uttering immature jokes behind their computer screens in a private boys' club. If there was a case of criminal prosecution the Crown must step in. So far it doesn't seem to be.

 

If this university expels 13 students whom it selected for a highly competitive field just few years earlier, irrespective of the cause, the dean of the school must be expelled as well because it is a global admission failure.

 

Where is the common sense in all this? Do you want to convince me that 13 students are all unfit because they shared some utter nonsense in a Facebook group in the cyber era.

 

Yes, expulsion is a stupid sanction for even a single one of them. There many ways to get the best out of them and rehabilitate them, if there are proven concerns.

[Ice4fun 78396]

If you go to the bother of creating a "private" facebook group then you should have some expectation of privacy, otherwise why have private groups?

 

If you are smart enough to get into Dental School you should be smart enough to understand that "privacy and facebook" don't really go together... if you post it on facebook you should be willing to accept the fact that anyone may see it And when they do there might be consequences. If these gentlemen want to take legal action against their fellow student who broke the impenetrable privacy they established I will just say... good luck with that.

 

Do you really believe as long as the privacy breach wasn't state sanctioned, then exposure is fair game? Use you head and ask yourself if you would feel the same way should you be "outed" by someone you visited or were found out about your activities by someone grabbing your hobby phone and having a peak. Isn't there a similar expectation of privacy?

 

When I entered into this hobby and hid it from my wife and others I understood that there where risks and serious consequences if I was caught but I continued knowing this. If I am outed now as you suggest I certainly will be mad at the individual who outed me but I somehow doubt my wife or the divorce court judge would give much credence to my argument that my privacy right had been breached and therefore I should not be held accountable for my actions.

 

our thoughts are not actions. I've had many "thoughts" that I would not want to publicly declare but that does not mean by any stretch that I actually would plan steps to carry that out. Suggesting otherwise is contemptible.

 

You are right we probably all have thought we would not want to publicly declare... that's why we don't declare them publicly... that's why we don't post them to a facebook group... it's call common sense.

 

I'm surprised that we are so against people having nasty thoughts and yet many of us engage in deception on here not to mention outright criminal behaviour given the new law. What about all the people who think what we get up to is immoral and would judge us in an instant if found out? To them and us I say remove the f'ing log from your own eye first.

 

See note above about being actually responsible and accountable for our own actions. I don't give a rates a...ss what most people think of my actions but do hold myself fully accountable if my actions hurt others especially the people I love.

 

It's always been easy to round up several villagers for a good ole burning at the stake. What's always in short supply unfortunately is someone willing to show compassion and have an interest in rehabilitation for those who made mistakes. You would think these dentists were serial killers if you came into the story late.

 

I say "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". We all will make mistakes, some involving actions and some involving words. If you ever find yourself among that group and wonder why the world is so judgemental and cold, maybe some of you just need to look in the mirror.

 

My position on this all along has been to let the process that the university has in place proceed... the only question in my opinion is what is the appropriate recourse and to be honest that is hard to know based on the limited info we have.

 

Two words... Personal Accountability

 

Just my Opinion

 

Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk

[henryporter 1836]

Jessica and Parker look smoking hot so I will agree with them on this and everything else.

 

Seriously though I have read a bit about this and tried to keep up with the comments on this thread.

 

These guys are just childish and have not yet even developed into men. When they do they may become even more scary and dangerous or turn into decent humans by learning from their mistakes.

 

In the present they deserve what they get in terms of the shit that gets flung their way. Its got nothing to do with China or Russia or the fact that we are on here as CONSENTING adults going about our business.

 

I value my privacy and that of everyone else. Facebook would not be my first choice to keep something private so they deserve whatever they get from trusting that platform our the group that was using it.

 

They seem to lack simple respect for women, themselves and anyone else that may be impacted by their thoughts and possible actions.

 

And for that there is a price to pay.

[Miss Jessica Lee 43328]

You are not talking about criminal prosecution because there is no case for criminal prosecution. Simply a group of kids uttering immature jokes behind their computer screens in a private boys' club.

 

when did they regress into kids? I thought these were fourth year university students.

 

On one hand we're accused of emasculating the western man, and on the other we're overreacting to a bunch of silly kid behaviour.

[henryporter 1836]

when did they regress into kids? I thought these were fourth year university students.

 

On one hand we're accused of emasculating the western man, and on the other we're overreacting to a bunch of silly kid behaviour.

 

They are kids even though they are in 4th year university.

That seems to be the norm these days and guys like to live at home until they are 30.

 

Oh and real men don't get emasculated. They just don't.

[Miss Jessica Lee 43328]

They are kids even though they are in 4th year university.

That seems to be the norm these days and guys like to live at home until they are 30.

 

Oh and real men don't get emasculated. They just don't.

 

hahaha.. otay ;)

 

seriously. I have a son who will be 24 next week. He's no kid, and hasn't been able to use that lame excuse since he blew out his 18th candle. He is a grown man and expected to behave like one.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

when did they regress into kids? I thought these were fourth year university students.

 

On one hand we're accused of emasculating the western man, and on the other we're overreacting to a bunch of silly kid behaviour.

 

They are adults by law irrespective of their graduate status. The word kids was a contextual one and meant to convey the meaning that they were uttering immature jokes.

 

On the other hand if I were to reveal the inconsistencies in the other side of the argument, the list is endless. A private club is not private, a criminal act under the Criminal Code of Canada is a matter of consenting adults affairs, etc.

[Miss Jessica Lee 43328]

They are adults by law irrespective of their graduate status. The word kids was a contextual one and meant to convey the meaning that they were uttering immature jokes.

 

I hear you ... but I think that's a lame excuse. Here's why.

 

My son did something really stupid in grade nine. Nobody was hurt, but I suppose someone could have been. Regardless, the act was irresponsible, and although not criminal, most certainly not acceptable in a school setting. He was expelled for the remainder of the semester. His academics suffered. He was shamed. He was punished.

 

In grade nine. 13 years old.