Jun 07 2007

But what about the rapist’s rights?

Published by at 4:15 am under Vancouver

“Nobody has a right to tell this rapist where he can or can’t live.”

Unfortunately for the citizens of Vancouver’s Surrey suburb, who are protesting the convicted serial rapist who has decided to settle in their community after serving twenty years, that statement (by one deluded but curiously anonymous commenter on a local blog forum) is technically accurate. Concerned citizens can only make life extremely inconvenient for this monster – enough that he’ll eventually be forced to move on.

Then the next community will have to deal with him, and the process will repeat itself ad infinitum until Paul Douglas Callow does the honorable thing – hopefully cutting his own balls off and bleeding to death.

But Callow is receiving some unexpected help from Vancouver’s concerned citizens. Writes one misguided Vancouverite: “I’m on Callow’s side. We can’t expect that 20 yrs won’t have an impact on someone. He was never into kids, so the parents could lay off. Ok, keep yr wits about you if you will, but forgiveness is good for everyone.”

Screw forgiveness. It’s too bad that our dangerous offender legislation doesn’t apply to this scumbag, so we could lock him up for the rest of his miserable existence.

But that doesn’t mean we’re under any obligation to let Callow live a normal life. He certainly had no such consideration for his victims.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

9 responses so far

9 Responses to “But what about the rapist’s rights?”

  1. on 07 Jun 2007 at 8:09 am

    While certainly not anywhere close to the same degree of crime, I find it interesting that you can so easily forgive Gordon Campbell for driving drunk, allowing him to govern the Province.

  2. on 07 Jun 2007 at 10:41 am

    He said on CTV newsnet that he served his full sentence and has the right to live any place he wants to in Canada. He then went on to say that he could not guarantee he wouldn’t rape again.Send him to Toronto/Danforth.

  3. on 07 Jun 2007 at 4:09 pm

    Sean…

    WTF?!?!? Gordon Campbell’s DUI? Get a grip. Having zero tolerance for dangerous offenders like Paul Callow is not the same as condemning all people who have ever been arrested, regardless of the offense, and you know it.

    Nice try to change the topic, but what I wrote in the North Shore News in 2003 about Campbell’s brush with the law is hardly relevant to this case.

  4. on 08 Jun 2007 at 5:43 am

    Sean: the risk of Mr. Campbell reoffending is low, and his crim wasn’t anywhere close to the same degree. Not so for Mr. Callow.

    At the risk of link-sucking, my March post on the Metblog and the ensuing discussion covered this case well. There’s not a lot to add.

    What I would say is that Callow isn’t allowed back in Ontario, but more importantly, he’s slipped through an odd crack or two in the justice system. Had he committed his crime more recently, he’d probably be designated a Dangerous Offender and still be in prison.

    So he’s out now, having served his entire sentence. But move on to where? I don’t think your suggestion of suicidal castration is very productive.

  5. on 08 Jun 2007 at 2:47 pm

    Ryan, I only was reminded of your March Metroblogging post a few hours after I posted this. Otherwise, it would have been linked to in any case, so no link-sucking apology required.

    Cheers.

  6. on 08 Jun 2007 at 7:16 pm

    “While certainly not anywhere close to the same degree of crime”

    “Sean: the risk of Mr. Campbell reoffending is low, and his crim wasn’t anywhere close to the same degree”.

    Do you people even read, or just react?

    Anyways, is all this protesting going to decrease the likelihood of re-offending? I know they have the right to be upset, but I mean, what good can come out of this?

  7. on 17 Jun 2007 at 3:48 am

    This is a little late, but I echo the sentiments when I heard Callow say he “couldn’t guarantee not to reoffend”. In my opinion that places him as a danger to society. When a convicted rapist offers up the opinion that he may rape again, it doesn’t put anybodys mind at ease. And if he does rape again, oh sweet Jesus I would not want to be the bleeding heart who defended him publicly in the media.

  8. on 03 Jul 2007 at 9:37 pm

    Of course he can’t guarantee he won’t reoffend! Anyone who is let out of prison and says “I promise I will NEVER EVER reoffend” is delusional and probably lying. You can never 100% guarantee something! Are we all supposed to be mind-readers now?
    He also said “I think people have a RIGHT to fear me, but SHOULD they? I don’t think so,” meaning he understands people’s worries and fears, but that they don’t need to be because he has no intention of causing any more harm.
    Now, I’m not condoning any of his actions, but I’m in disagreement with the whole “Let’s make his life as miserable as possible!” deal.
    If anything, becoming a crazy mob and harassing this man will only push him into reoffending.
    As of right now, he is living with a family who loves him, and is abiding to all the conditions set to his release.
    I just think it’s weird that God can forgive all if they show remorse, but human beings can’t? It’s depressing.
    Even if you aren’t a Christian, I think we can all abide by the simple rule that we live and let live. If you don’t like the rules set by the government that the people set into power, then change the rules. Don’t go breaking the law just to be a hero.

  9. on 21 Aug 2007 at 1:54 am

    So how’s that “ad infinitum” you mentioned in your post working out for you? How many communities has he been “driven out” of since he moved to Fraser Heights. Guess your crystal ball is broken huh?

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply