The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

New Defense by #FreeKate Defender: ‘But It Would Be Perfectly Legal in Canada!’

Posted on | May 30, 2013 | 42 Comments

Having previously discussed the role of Liberal Logic™ in justifying the actions of accused sex offender Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt, it’s time to expand a bit further on their methodology.

You must understand, when arguing with these people, that no fact or logic can ever persuade them that they are wrong. You might as well try to convince me that Auburn University is superior to the University of Alabama as to attempt to convince a #FreeKate fanatic that this deliberate violation of Florida law should be punished as a felony.

They’ve made up their minds, and further debate is useless.

They began their argument by reaching a conclusion and are now merely hunting around for “evidence” to justify whatever emotional prejudice inspired their initial fact-deficient rush to judgment.

Before we move on to the matter of Canadian “Free Kate” apologist Kristin Ireland, let me remind you of The Story Too Good to Be True:

So, if we can believe a word Kaitlyn’s mom says (a necessary caveat, as she has been caught in multiple lies already) precious Kate was a happy, popular heterosexual until her senior year in high school, when she met this irresistibly hot freshman girl and — boom! —  Instant Lesbian.

What’s wrong with that story? I mean, besides everything?

S.J. Reidhead voiced her own dark suspicions, and it doesn’t matter whether you share those particular suspicions or not. My point is that there is something distinctly weird in this story — something that doesn’t quite add up, some element of implausibility — which should have been obvious to any reasonably intelligent person the moment they encountered Kelley Hunt Smith’s account of this case.

Many people seemed to have an emotional predisposition to believe the “Free Kate” narrative which overpowered whatever mental defenses they had against such a dubious tale. Something was being left out of the story, and I still don’t think we know exactly it was, but if what Kaitlyn’s mom says is true (a necessary caveat) we’re talking about a hitherto unknown disorder: Sudden Onset Lesbian Jailbait Syndrome.

Having often scoffed at those who play the Internet Detective game — people who think they’re super spies, uncovering Hidden Truth through Google searches — I will not speculate further as to what it is we don’t know, except to say we don’t know everything yet, or otherwise my Bullshit Detector wouldn’t be going off like a fire alarm.

Twenty-seven years in the news business, my friends.

Don’t ever try to run this kind of dishonest hustle on me. I once drove all the way to Kentucky to prove Andrew Sullivan wrong, and friends tell me that Vero Beach is lovely this time of year.

Let’s compare and contrast, shall we? Kaitlyn’s mom:

Anyone who knows my daughter Kate, knows how wonderful she is. . . . She has always been a wonderful student, respected and well liked. . . . She has never been in trouble, ever, she truly is the model student and child.

Teen who says he’s a Sebastian High School classmate of Kaitlyn:

I can tell you that the way the media is portraying her is far from reality. . . . [F]rom personal experience I can say that she is not a good person and is not ‘innocent’. She is known as a whore throughout the school, constantly starts high school drama, gets in school suspensions, and is overall not well liked at all. . . . It’s just that my whole school knows she’s not a good person and don’t think it’s fair the media is portraying this otherwise.

It is impossible to reconcile these accounts. Alternatives:

  1. The teenager is lying, except that he offers his testimony while providing video that shows Kaitlyn (identifiable by her telltale tattoo) shouting obscenities while inciting her younger sister in a fight against another girl at the beach;
  2. Kaitlyn’s mother has been deceived by her daughter;
  3. Kaitlyn’s mother is deliberately lying to defend her daughter;
    or perhaps
  4. A little bit of both #2 and #3.

It’s up to you what to believe about all this, but unless you altogether lack any common-sense skepticism, the one thing you can’t do is to accept Kelley Hunt Smith as a trustworthy witness. Even while I was writing this, someone called my attention to evidence that would tend to make me lean toward explanation #3.

We’re talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, folks, and there is no public relations firm in the world that could fix this problem. It may be too late for the ACLU, Equality Florida and the Purpose Foundation to rescue their credibility except by complete repudiation.

But we were talking about Canada, and I digress . . .

Kristin Ireland describes herself as an advocate of “LGBTQ-supportive” parenting, an interesting term in this context, and further says:

Of course, we all know that facts are subjective . . .

Uh, no, ma’am, they’re not. One thing that facts never are is “subjective,” but never mind. Let’s get to where you comment on your own post:

I’ve seen the affidavit. But I have no idea if it’s legitimate or not. I don’t care if she was 17 or 18 when the relationship began. We are talking a matter of months here. My point is that it should not be a crime. And being illegal it certainly should not be a felony. That anyone would think it should be amazes me.

“I’ve seen the affidavit,” she says, which leads me to suspect that this is how “LGBTQ-supportive” parenting operates:

“Kaitlyn, I’m running to the store. Be back in an hour.”
“OK. . . . Hey, Mom?”
“What, dear?”
“Can you bring home some batteries?”
“Sure, honey. What size?”
“D cells. And, hey, Mom, while you’re at it –“
“Yes, dear?”
“Looks like I’m running a little low on lubricant, too.”
“Sure. Sounds like you’re having another slumber party tonight. Guess I’d better pick up some wine coolers while I’m at it.”
“Thanks, Mom — you’re the greatest!”

What kind of parenting is this? If you’re “supportive,” what is it exactly that you are you supporting? Equality? Do we expect parents to be so blithely accommodating of their teenagers’ heterosexual activity under all conditions? (Emory University student David Giffin easily dismantles this equality-based argument, by the way.)

Yet Kristin Ireland professes to be amazed that in Florida the parents of a 14-year-old should have the power of the law helping them protect their child against corrupting influences. And I was amazed at her amazement until I found out she lives in Ottowa:

All sarcasm aside, let me quote what the mother of the younger girl said when she learned Kaitlyn Hunt had rejected the plea deal, and that this case would be headed for trial:

“I think all the mothers and parents that know this is wrong, I think they will stand by us. I think parents — any parent will protect their child. That’s what we do as parents. So, I think that they will say, ‘Hey — lets stand with those people.'”
— Laurie Smith

We must pray that she is right. This is not Canada . . . yet.




 

PREVIOUSLY:

 


Category: Canada, Crime, Florida, Kaitlyn Hunt

Comments

42 Responses to “New Defense by #FreeKate Defender: ‘But It Would Be Perfectly Legal in Canada!’”

  1. BobBelvedere
    May 30th, 2013 @ 8:38 pm

    RT @smitty_one_each TOM New Defense by #FreeKate Defender: ‘But It Would Be Perfectly Legal in Canada!’ http://t.co/mXeVC3t4XB #TCOT

  2. G Joubert
    May 30th, 2013 @ 8:57 pm

    Don’t ever try to run this kind of dishonest hustle on me. I once drove all the way to Kentucky to prove Andrew Sullivan wrong, and friends tell me that Vero Beach is lovely this time of year

    Looks a lot like you’ve already gone all in on this one too. Not that that’s a bad thing, but just sayin’.

  3. SJ Reidhead
    May 30th, 2013 @ 8:58 pm

    I repeatedly go back to the fact that I don’t understand why some people are so lacking in ‘sensibilities’ that they can’t comprehend the difference between right and wrong. So, it’s legal to rob the innocence of a child when they are 14, not only in a few states here but in Canada. Does that make it morally right? Even given the fact that there are some 14-year-old teens who are, for one reason or another, not the least bit innocent, that does not allow for the wholesale sexualization of children. I am forced to come to the conclusion that some of it is pedophilia. Some of it is also about individuals who simply lacking a comprehension of what innocence truly is. Fortunately, I’m not seeing this as an offshoot of a live and let live culture, or even gay/lesbian rights, but more a reaction of men and women who may have been involved in this behavior in their youth, as a willing participant. One gets the idea, from some of their arguments, they are trying to legitimize their own past behavior.

    I happen to think we, as adults have some responsibility as guardians of the innocent. I think it is an argument that can be made without regard to religion or politics, simply on a legal basis. I keep bringing in the laws here in New Mexico. All adults are held responsible for the protection of minors. If this situation had occurred here, the parents of Kate Hunt would also be charged.

    We’re also looking at people who don’t want to admit they’ve been ‘had’ by an 18-year-old sociopath (I think you are right about the designation). No one wants to admit they’ve been conned. When they do wake up, it’s not going to be pretty.

    SJR
    The Pink Flamingo

  4. Mm
    May 30th, 2013 @ 9:06 pm

    Add this to other irrelevant arguments that Kate defenders have put forth: they went to the same school, they were on the same team, they are less than 10 years apart in age, i.e., teenagers, they are “lesbians,” they are “dating,” the victim is taller… These are thin attempts to justify moral depravity.

  5. Osumashi Kinyobe
    May 30th, 2013 @ 9:07 pm

    I don’t know what that broad is thinking but I personally don’t know anyone in Canada who approves of child abuse the way she and the- ahem- accused clearly do.

  6. Dandapani
    May 30th, 2013 @ 9:08 pm

    Stacy, are you going to FL on the ShoeLeather fund?

  7. K-Bob
    May 30th, 2013 @ 9:17 pm

    The magnification ploy is an old tactic now, and takes advantage of the long game approach. The way it works is, you take an issue like this one: where the moral and ethical sensibilities have always depended on social norms that have been settling for hundreds of years, and then try and shoehorn another perspective into it by magnifying the whole situation until, like they did with homosexual marriage, people get tired of it, and just give up.

    The law must have sharp teeth, and the only way to avoid them in exceptional cases should be with the intermediation of a judge that knows what he or she is doing. This attempt at an end-run around the law and social norms is going to go the same route: they will keep escalating any case like this they can find, no matter how many lives are ruined, until they get what they want: the ability for adults to use children as sexual partners.

    It needs to be shut down, hard. American culture failed to defend marriage, but now it’s kids they want. If the law starts to bend on this, we’ll have to enforce it more directly.

  8. Finrod Felagund
    May 30th, 2013 @ 9:18 pm

    Blame Canada! Blame Canada! (/south park)

  9. robertstacymccain
    May 30th, 2013 @ 9:27 pm

    RJ, we just need to keep up the fight here, and they’ll be so humiliated they won’t try anything like this again for a million years.

    I’ve seen this kind of thing before: They looked before they leaped, chose a fight on what they thought was “high ground” and didn’t bother to reconnoiter their position. We’ve already overrun their first two lines of defense, the few remaining smart people inside their perimeter have already figured out their position is untenable, and our task now is two-fold:

    1. Keep up the pressure; and
    2. Start figuring out how to cut off their line of retreat so we can catch them in the open and destroy them.

    Fear not. We aren’t fighting alone.

  10. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    May 30th, 2013 @ 9:32 pm

    She would probably be acquitted in P-Town or San Francisco, but she happened to do the deed around Indian River, Florida.

    She might just get acquitted there. Never underestimate the stupidity of some Floridians.

  11. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    May 30th, 2013 @ 9:33 pm

    There are some countries where murder and mayhem are allowed. I guess we can use that as a defense too?

  12. K-Bob
    May 30th, 2013 @ 9:42 pm

    O/T without comment –> “IT’S COME TO THIS: Holder Justice Department Says It Will Help Enforce Islamic Sharia Law” —Doug Ross

    Don’t reply to this O/T, just go read it.

  13. Pablo
    May 30th, 2013 @ 9:43 pm

    While I agree with just about everything you’re saying, this is not pedophilia. It could be hebephilia or ephebophilia, but it is decidedly not pedophilia. As right as we are on all of this, let’s not feed them a mistake to grasp upon and wave about.

    Kaitlyn is trouble, and her family is worse. Let’s focus on what we have in front of us, as it is plenty.

  14. Shawny
    May 30th, 2013 @ 10:02 pm

    No shit Sherlock! Even if everything they did was otherwise (in some future hell hole of a world I don’t want to imagine) legal, and considered socially acceptable…..then how about in the damned classroom, in the church, in Walmart and the local IHOP, with the neighbors goat or great dane……because, you know they’re cute too. No one else in that school bathroom consented to what they were doing, nor did the school.
    NO F’ing way all of our children get exposed to this, distracted, damaged or endangered by it. That’s why a majority made it against the law. You don’t like it, go somewhere it isn’t illegal, or find enough people who agree with you to change the law. But until you do, sit down, STFU and either obey the law or accept the punishment.

  15. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    May 30th, 2013 @ 10:15 pm

    It is not pedophilia. But it is a crime for an 18 year old to take advantage of a 14 year old.

  16. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    May 30th, 2013 @ 10:16 pm

    Maybe that Canadian law is about sex with sled dogs and caribou. It does get mighty cold and lonely in the territories.

  17. Osumashi Kinyobe
    May 30th, 2013 @ 10:19 pm

    Don’t give that broad any ideas.

  18. JeffWeimer
    May 30th, 2013 @ 10:41 pm

    “Don’t ever try to run this kind of dishonest hustle on me. I once drove all the way to Kentucky to prove Andrew Sullivan wrong, and friends tell me that Vero Beach is lovely this time of year.”

    That is money right there, my friends. Why I just can’t quit theothermccain.com. That, and Smitty.

  19. jakee308
    May 30th, 2013 @ 10:41 pm

    That fellow student who relates that she’s a drama queen and starts stuff? In her REAL picture (her mugshot photo of no makeup and black hair) she reminded me of Shannon Doherty.

    Beauty’s only skin deep, ugly goes to the bone and crazy is in the DNA.

  20. jakee308
    May 30th, 2013 @ 10:46 pm

    You say potato, I say pohtato.

    Sex with a child == pedophilia.

    The specific age doesn’t have much to do with the psychological intent. In fact the porn industry caters to this market legally by utilizing as many women as they can find who LOOK underage yet aren’t.

    Women themselves respond to this subconscious impulse of attraction to younger sex partners by utilizing makeup in certain ways. (not all women just some but most women will try to reduce the age they look)

  21. Freddy At Night
    May 30th, 2013 @ 10:51 pm

    I note that KHS’s original remark about “religious zeolites” has been edited – I don’t know why I found the original so hilarious…

    Also, I don’t think we should lose control of the high ground here by labeling Ms. Hunt as a “something-o-phile”. This is a legal matter, not a clinical case study, and we risk invoking the dreaded hot mess what is the DSM-IV or the new and even more controversial DSM-5. Nor is it about “pederasty”, (my favorite term – only because I believe true homosexuals are actually pederasts by nature.) And neither is this a common Romeo and Juliet “forbidden love” situation – nothing that happened here is anything other than a simple, common crime! While I’m not convinced that Ms. Hunt realizes the perversity of her actions, let us hope she soon does because that is why we have laws, and the law is crystal clear in this situation and being “gay” does not change that – yet, anyway!

    And Canada?! Is that like “normal for Norfolk” or something? Canada… Really? We’re friggin’ doomed!

  22. Adjoran
    May 30th, 2013 @ 11:11 pm

    The law says it is a felony for an adult to have sex with a 14 year old. It is enforced, and has been in the past.

    The sick perverts who side with the abuser are not only morally bankrupt, but suckers – they are too stupid to understand the Hunts are just out to make a buck out of it.

    If they would take a deep breath and think a minute, and consider Da Tech Guy’s salient question: “So, it’s okay with a 14 year old, would it be okay if she was 13?” they might realize they’ve been duped. Either their argument is with a small clause in Florida law they’ve never complained about before, or they support abusing young girls.

    I know, I know, the Canuckistan chick is all doe-eyed over the romance of that first encounter, finger-Fluking in the school toilet stall, which is probably much sweeter than her own experience, but that’s why we want to fence the border, eh?

  23. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    May 30th, 2013 @ 11:48 pm

    Terms and words have meaning.

    No. It is not pedophilia. Pedophilia is an adult who has sexual attraction to prepubescent children. This victim was 14. She was not prepubescent (the proper term for this would probably be ephebophilia) And yes that makes a difference. Pedophilia is a far worse crime.

    I am not justifying what this 18 year old did to this 14 year old. It is properly a crime and it should be punished. There are circumstances in this case that warrant the punishment being a felony. But it is not pedophilia.

  24. John Bradley
    May 31st, 2013 @ 1:25 am

    “It’s not even a real country, anyway!”

  25. jakee308
    May 31st, 2013 @ 2:29 am

    Next thing you know, you’ll be quoting the Psychologist’s Desk Reference and we’ve all seen where THAT has led, haven’t we? So you want to define it one way and I say it’s another. That’s okay but don’t think for one minute that somehow your definition is better than mine or fairer or balances the sick minds that indulge in that type of act regardless of the age of the victim. Does it give the victim any degree of relief to know that they’re assaulter wasn’t a pedophile under your definition? I don’t think so. Your (or others’) age differentiation is MEANINGLESS in the long run and doesn’t change it’s evilness ONE BIT.

  26. Wombat_socho
    May 31st, 2013 @ 2:42 am

    So why did you even bother bringing it up?

  27. Tommy Valentine
    May 31st, 2013 @ 2:42 am

    Tommy Valentine liked this on Facebook.

  28. SDN
    May 31st, 2013 @ 7:31 am

    Like I said in the previous thread, the freekate strategy is to hang the jury. Can’t be anything else.

  29. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    May 31st, 2013 @ 8:39 am

    Oh please jakee308, don’t be an anal retentive. Age definitions in terms of legal standards may vary but they are not meaningless. Think of it more like a sliding scale.The older the adult and the younger the child, the worse the crime. By defining anything involving sex involving a person under the age of consent as “pedophilia” you diminish real pedophilia.

    Go back and read what I said. Sexually assaulting a prepubescent child by an adult is more evil than what Kaitlyn did to this 14 year old. Kaitlyn is definitely in the wrong and definitely (in my opinion) guilty of a crime. The crime is an adult having sex with a child is who is 14. And I agree with you, she should be punished for that.

  30. librarygryffon
    May 31st, 2013 @ 9:29 am

    In most of the middle east, they’d both be stoned to death for this behavior. Ms. Ireland to the contrary, I don’t think I want our definitions of morality and legality to be based on what random other country thinks is OK.
    Somewhat OT: I wonder if Ms. Ireland is a typical leftist/feminist who thinks that Islam is a wonderful peaceful religion?

  31. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    May 31st, 2013 @ 11:06 am

    You are absolutely right. That is her strategy. The problem is there is a lot of evidence (if it comes in) to hurt her credibility. If she tries to put her “good” character in play, the prosecutor will get to rebut.

  32. Arlene
    May 31st, 2013 @ 11:22 am

    I’m middle aged and a Canadian. 16 has always been known to be the age of consent where I live. I worked in a school with teens until 6 years ago and they all knew what was and was not jailbait.

    I believe in one province, Quebec, the age of consent was 14 until only a few years ago. There was a long legal battle to get that age raised. It is now 16 but there are considerations similar to what are called ‘Romeo and Juliet’ considerations in the USA.

  33. Scribe of Slog (McGehee)
    May 31st, 2013 @ 11:39 am

    The specific age doesn’t have much to do with the psychological intent.

    Actually, it does. At least a 14-year-old looks like a sexual being, especially in this day and age where looking 14 is what keeps 40-something supermodels in business.

    It’ a far different thing to get a chubby for Honey Boo Boo.

    And now I’m going to go soak in a tub of brain bleach. I hope everyone else here has plenty for their own needs.

  34. Scribe of Slog (McGehee)
    May 31st, 2013 @ 11:41 am

    That’s what the sled dogs said.

  35. Freddy At Night
    May 31st, 2013 @ 11:53 am

    I had heard that the age-of-consent laws in Canada were a major sticking point during the legalization of homosexual “marriage” there – and that those laws were modernized and strengthened specifically with pederasty in mind… The homosexual activist groups in Canada have been the most vocal opponents of age-of-consent reform, obviously!

  36. Pablo
    May 31st, 2013 @ 11:54 am

    “So you (or others’) want to define it one way and I say it’s another.
    That’s okay but don’t think for one minute that somehow your definition
    is better than mine or fairer…”

    My definition is better than yours because it’s correct and yours is not. Same applies to terms like “consent” and “assault”. If you think you can decide what they mean as you go, you might as well join Team Hunt now.

  37. SDN
    May 31st, 2013 @ 12:24 pm

    For her strategy, it doesn’t matter as long as at least one Kool-Aid drinker is available.

  38. Arlene
    May 31st, 2013 @ 12:33 pm

    Those would most likely mainly be from Eastern Canada.

    I am a Western Canadian – Albertan. We won’t get into the cultural differences but suffice it to say it is large and contentious.

  39. alwaysfiredup
    May 31st, 2013 @ 12:33 pm

    In Canada they can drink at age 18-19, depending on the province. In the US they can’t. Are we suddenly going to campaign against MIPs for 19-21 y/o’s?

  40. BBC’s Pedophilia/Ephebophilia Problems Mount | The Necropolitan Sentinel
    May 31st, 2013 @ 12:51 pm

    […] Kevin Clash could not be reached for comment, but Stacy generally can. […]

  41. Osumashi Kinyobe
    May 31st, 2013 @ 2:19 pm

    They huddle together in fear.

  42. ‘Relationship’ as a Euphemism: What Does This Tell Us About the Culture? : The Other McCain
    June 8th, 2013 @ 1:20 am

    […] molested? Exposure to pornography? Abusive boyfriends? Why or how has this phenomenon – Sudden Onset Lesbian Jailbait Syndrome — become seemingly […]