Cliven Bundy may be planning to bring his epic sense of entitlement to Oregon, to pitch a fit because his sons were actually arrested for breaking multiple laws.

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy may be coming to Oregon to demonstrate on behalf of his sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy, as well as the remaining four armed occupants of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

Nevada State Assemblywoman Michele Fiore told OPB Monday that she, along with other state lawmakers from western states, will be traveling to meet Bundy in Burns and in Portland.

Fiore said the final details of the trip are still being planned, but she expects to be in Portland on Thursday night to protest the jailing of Ammon and Ryan Bundy.

“There is a Nevadan [Ryan Bundy] sitting in jail, and as an office holder, I will be there to demand his release,” Fiore said. “If that Nevadan can’t leave Oregon, we will bring Nevada to him. Peaceful, of course.”

So a state lawmaker thinks the laws don’t apply to people from her state. Or something.

Bundy sent a letter last week to Oregon Gov. Kate Brown and President Barack Obama, calling for all federal and state police to leave Harney County immediately, and for the refuge occupation to continue.

That would be funny if it weren’t for the fact that he himself has broken multiple laws, and helped himself to national resources at our expense, at gunpoint, and gotten away with it.

An event next week in Minneapolis.

The Minnesota Republic is pleased to host Milo Yiannopolous and Christina Hoff Sommers as they interview each other about the awful topic of contemporary Feminism.

Having failed to find a single member of the University of Minnesota’s Gender, Women & Sexuality Studies Department to debate Milo on the (supposed) virtues of modern, third wave, “quantum superstate” feminism, we are delighted to announce that Christina Hoff Sommers will be joining Milo on stage for this event!

This event will be held in Cowles Auditorium in the Humphrey School of Public Affairs. REMINDER: This event is free, unticketed, and will be seated at a first come, first served basis.

This event will be free and open to all members of the public.

Milo Yiannopoulos is a journalist, broadcaster and internet personality. He is one of the best-known cultural commentators in Europe and his profile in America is rising rapidly thanks to fearless reporting about internet culture, video games, feminism, free speech and the effect of technology on society. He is a leading figure in the cultural libertarian movement and a senior editor at Breitbart.com.

You can find Milo’s work all over the internet, though the best place to start would be his own website.

Christina Hoff Sommers is an author and former philosophy professor who has written a number of books including “Who Stole Feminism” and “The War Against Boys” both of which are sharply critical of contemporary feminism. She is currently a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and the host of a weekly video blog, “The Factual Feminist.” She coined the term “equity feminist” to describe her own philosophy, and to distinguish it from “victim” or “gender feminism.”

You can find her published works on Amazon.

And The Factual Feminist videos.

No low too low.

Originally a comment by James Garnett on How much worse prospects for young people today are.

It’s very much true that things are worse now for younger people in the USA, too. Economically and career-wise, I mean. When I entered university at age 18 in 1984, a full semester of tuition at my state university cost about $1500, which is about $3500 in 2016 terms. That was just tuition. Back then, I recall that a salary of $40,000/year on graduation was relatively decent (in my field, Computer Science). Moreover, getting into the university was just a matter of having good grades and SAT scores.

Today students must pad their personal resumes with volunteering and extracurricular activities in addition to having good grades just to be accepted to the same university, and once accepted, they face single-semester tuitions of a little over $10,000. Upon graduation, they can look forward to a salary of around $70,000/year. So income hasn’t quite doubled, but expenses have almost tripled—and that’s just tuition. There are living expenses as well, and those have risen at the same rate.

So young people are working harder, paying more, and earning less. I know some younger colleagues who are facing decades of debt payments, as a result. How is someone supposed to save for retirement like that, when they are going to be scraping by, practically hand-to-mouth until at least their 40’s and sometimes even 50’s? The answer is obviously that they are not.

Is it any wonder that younger people are rejecting establishment candidates, and opting instead for those who promise them at least the same level of opportunity and life-success as we, their parents, had and have?

In case people would like to discuss the nitty gritty of the US presidential campaign without being interrupted by me saying I’m not interested in that.

That great feminist Bill Clinton is all in a lather about the sexism of Bernie Sanders supporters.

Bill Clinton uncorked an extended attack on Senator Bernie Sanders on Sunday, harshly criticizing Mr. Sanders and his supporters for what he described as inaccurate and “sexist” attacks on Hillary Clinton.

…

His heated remarks here reflected the frustration the Clintons felt two days before the primary in a state that has rewarded them in the past, but that appears ready to hand Mr. Sanders a decisive victory. Mr. Clinton seemed especially irritated that New Hampshire, after lifting his 1992 bid for the Democratic nomination and handing her a comeback win in 2008, would now abandon his wife.

Because after all, they liked him, and she’s his wife, so they ought to like her. Nothing sexist about that.

Also the sense of entitlement is not persuasive. The office is not their personal possession.

But Mr. Clinton’s most pointed remarks may have been when he took aim at Sanders supporters who, he said, use misogynistic language in attacking Mrs. Clinton. He told the story of a female “progressive” blogger who defended Mrs. Clinton online through a pseudonym because, he said, the vitriol from Mr. Sanders’s backers was so unrelenting.

“She and other people who have gone online to defend Hillary, to explain why they supported her, have been subject to vicious trolling and attacks that are literally too profane often, not to mention sexist, to repeat.” Mr. Clinton, growing more demonstrative, added that the liberal journalist Joan Walsh had faced what he called “unbelievable personal attacks” for writing positively about Mrs. Clinton.

People say sexist things about his wife. Other than that, he doesn’t care.

The White House has Obama’s remarks at the mosque the other day.

Now, a lot of Americans have never visited a mosque.  To the folks watching this today who haven’t — think of your own church, or synagogue, or temple, and a mosque like this will be very familiar.  This is where families come to worship and express their love for God and each other.  There’s a school where teachers open young minds.  Kids play baseball and football and basketball — boys and girls — I hear they’re pretty good.

Um…no. Not exactly; not entirely. According to Asra Nomani and Ify Okoye, the mosque in question is strictly gender segregated:

This past weekend, dozens of girls and boys as young as about 8 years old ran up the stairwell to the main entrance of the musallah, or main prayer hall, of the Islamic Society of Baltimore, where President Obama visits Wednesday in his first presidential visit to a U.S. mosque. As the children rounded the corner, a stern mosque Sunday school teacher stood before them, shouting, “Girls, inside the gym! Boys in the musallah.”

The girls, shrouded in headscarves that, in some cases, draped half their bodies, slipped into a stark gymnasium and found seats on bare red carpet pieces laid out in a corner. They faced a tall industrial cement block wall, in the direction of the qibla, facing Mecca, a basketball hoop above them. Before them a long narrow window poured a small dash of sunlight into the dark gym.

On the other side of the wall, the boys clamored excitedly into the majestic musallah, their feet padded by thick, decorated carpet, the sunlight flooding into the room through spectacular windows engraved with the 99 names of Allah, or God, in Islam. Ornate Korans and Islamic books filled shelves that lined the front walls.

So, no, the mosque will not be “very familiar” to most people, just as a church which confines girls and women to an unadorned annex while boys and men get the church proper will not be “very familiar.” Obama shouldn’t normalize gender separate and unequal that way. I understand why he does it but I think he shouldn’t.

He does it because Muslims face a great deal of hostility and prejudice, and sometimes abuse and violence. He’s right to try to change that.

We’re one American family.  And when any part of our family starts to feel separate or second-class or targeted, it tears at the very fabric of our nation.  (Applause.)

It’s a challenge to our values — and that means we have much work to do.  We’ve got to tackle this head on.  We have to be honest and clear about it.   And we have to speak out.  This is a moment when, as Americans, we have to truly listen to each other and learn from each other.  And I believe it has to begin with a common understanding of some basic facts.  And I express these facts, although they’d be obvious to many of the people in this place, because, unfortunately, it’s not facts that are communicated on a regular basis through our media.

So let’s start with this fact:  For more than a thousand years, people have been drawn to Islam’s message of peace.  And the very word itself, Islam, comes from salam — peace.  The standard greeting is as-salamu alaykum — peace be upon you.  And like so many faiths, Islam is rooted in a commitment to compassion and mercy and justice and charity.  Whoever wants to enter paradise, the Prophet Muhammad taught, “let him treat people the way he would love to be treated.”  (Applause.)  For Christians like myself, I’m assuming that sounds familiar.  (Laughter.)

And yet Islam didn’t acquire so many followers by peaceful means. And if Islam really is rooted in a commitment to compassion and mercy and justice and charity, then why are countries where Islam is the official religion such horrible places for human beings? Why are they not conspicuous for compassion or justice?

The Vatican has tossed out one of the two abuse survivors on its commission for the protection of children.

UK child sex abuse lobbyist Peter Saunders, who was given a “leave of absence” from his role in the Holy See’s Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, has said that the “Vatican system” seems “essentially corrupt and unwilling to do the right thing”.

After a commission meeting on Saturday, the Holy See announced “it was decided” that Mr Saunders would take a leave of absence in order to “consider how he might best support the commission’s work”.

Ah that agent-free passive voice. “It was decided” – by whom, exactly? God? The EU? The combined will of humanity? And that butler-like circumlocution – a leave of absence to think hard about how he can be more obedient to the church, is what they mean. Why else would he be singled out for a “leave of absence” i.e. a suspension?

According to Vatican sources, this was prompted by concern among members that Mr Saunders had a conflict-of-interest created by his dual role as a campaigner with the UK child sex abuse lobby Napac and as a policy consultant on the Vatican commission.

Ahhhhhh yes. You know who else has a conflict of interest here? The Vatican. The whole entire Vatican, which has an interest in convincing the world that there was no child abuse and that the Vatican never turned a blind eye to that non-existent child abuse and that the Vatican never concealed that non-existent child abuse and never protected the priests who perpetrated it.

So yeah. Take a leave of absence yourselves why don’t you. Disband. Break up. Go away. Stop telling the whole world what to do. You’re a mafia wrapped in a cloak of goddy respectability. It’s a racket, and you should take an extended leave of absence to think about it, one lasting ten or twenty centuries.

Last week Saunders dared to criticize the pope for not attending the meetings to answer questions, when he’d said he would. Shock-horror among the assembled bishops.

He also criticised the pope’s appointment last summer of controversial Chilean bishop Juan Barros to the Diocese of Osorno. Bishop Barros has been accused of covering up the sex abuse crimes of Fr Fernando Karadima, a Chilean priest.

Yes but he’s Pope Frankie, he has a nice smile, he lives in a little guesthouse instead of the Vatican best bedroom, he drives around in a small car.

Speaking to The Irish Times on Sunday, Mr Saunders said he was “shell-shocked” and disappointed at the manner in which the “inquisition” had expressed a vote of no confidence in him.

As far as he is concerned, he has not taken a leave of absence, while he says the only person who can sack him is Pope Francis.

So “the Holy See” told a big fat lie. Imagine my astonishment.

On Sunday, Vatican spokesman Greg Burke confirmed that Mr Saunders was now on a leave of absence, adding that he had had problems with his fellow commission members.

His departure means Irish survivor Marie Collins is now the only sex abuse victim serving on the 17-member commission, which includes eight women. She confirmed to The Irish Times that commission members had been dismayed by Mr Saunders’s critical remarks, often made to the media and not to the commission itself.

Wow. That really takes the biscuit. Saunders is a survivor of the abuse dished out and concealed by the church, and members of the church commission are “dismayed” by his failure to be deferential enough.

Lindy West doesn’t take much satisfaction from seeing Roosh get a little of the kind of hostile attention he and his fans have forced on her for years. Unlike Roosh, she doesn’t wish that kind of thing on people.

Unlike Roosh, I actually oppose doxxing and death threats, even against people I dislike. So it’s difficult for me to enjoy watching anyone, even someone who’s tormented me with a pathological intensity for years, go through a hell I’ve devoted so much of my professional life to fighting.

And, ethical concerns aside, Roosh facing some karmic retribution for the havoc he’s wreaked on women’s lives doesn’t bring me much satisfaction, because it really doesn’t accomplish much. He was already a buffoon caterwauling on the fringe. That the whole world knows it now doesn’t change that fact. What matters is that we recognize that Roosh and his repellant worldview don’t exist in a vacuum; they’re an extreme crystallization of attitudes with real roots in our real lives.

I don’t want horrible men to be doxxed and threatened online – I want them to be better.

That’s exactly it. Revenge is no use; revenge doesn’t get us anywhere; the thing to want is rehabilitation.

Originally a comment by Nell on Capstone shmapstone.

We had a similar situation in the UK. When Corbyn emerged as the front -runner, feminist commentators used exactly the same arguments to try to get young women behind one of the female candidates. It failed. I think something that many older, more established people can’t seem to intuitively grasp is how much worse prospects for young people today are.

Most of us are thousands of pounds in debt, with no jobs or insecure casual jobs with wages that barely cover the travel costs. The government’s austerity measures have hit young people and women particularly hard. Housing benefits and unemployment benefits are going to be scrapped or curtailed for under 25s, and child benefits are going to be limited, but it only for women starting to have children now. We can’t afford to live once these changes come in. Rates of mental illness are increasing – about a third of my generation now have some form of mental illness, and mental health care is being slashed. and there is no sign of things getting better, no one likes thinking about the future because we can’t see anything good in it.

In the leadership elections both female candidates were pro-austerity, they said they would carry on with what the Tories started. So when commentators start saying you have to vote for the female candidate or that the left wing candidate is unelectable, pick one of the ‘centrists’, no one listens. Being able to vote for a female candidate on the basis that she is a woman is a luxury you can have if you don’t depend on the services she has pledged to cut. And we don’t really care if she was more electable because with her politics it wouldn’t matter, as long as they’re pro austerity we are screwed whether Labour or the Tories get in.

I don’t know what it’s like for young women in the US but if it’s anything like it is here, appeals to feminism and electability aren’t going to work, it will just turn people away from feminism and from mainstream politics. There’s also the danger that you turn people away from the Democrats completely. Over here, among many young people, and all generations in Scotland, the Labour-Right have become as hated as the Tories. If Corbyn gets overthrown and replaced with an ‘electable’ right winger, young people aren’t going to rally around his replacement, they’re just not going to vote. There’s a danger that using these tactics young voters will end up as anti-Clinton or Democrat as they are against the Republicans.

This is just such nonsense.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/gloria-steinem-madeleine-albright-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders.html

Hillary Clinton’s older feminist supporters have a message for young women who are not backing her candidacy: Shame on you.

Women were expected to help power Mrs. Clinton to the Democratic nomination, but as she struggles to overcome a tough challenge from Senator Bernie Sanders, her support among them has been surprisingly shaky. Young women, in particular, have been drawn to the septuagenarian socialist from Vermont, and the dynamic has disappointed feminists who dreamed of Mrs. Clinton’s election as a capstone to the movement.

Oh just stop that. It’s complete bullshit. One, just being a woman is not enough, to put it mildly. Two, capstone to the movement my ass. Clinton is the one woman who does not get to treat her political standing as a feminist victory, because of the way her husband’s work helped her get there. I’m sorry but that’s the reality. She’s leveraging her family name to get power; she’s using her husband’s presidency as a jumping-off point. That’s not a feminist act. I’m not saying it’s an anti-feminist act, and I think she’s highly qualified for the job, but it’s just ludicrous to treat her candidacy as an inspiring feminist victory. If she’d done it without the husband-boost it would be, but she didn’t, so it isn’t.

Two feminist icons of Mrs. Clinton’s generation made their frustration known over the weekend, calling on young women who view Mr. Sanders as their candidate to essentially grow up and get with the program.

While introducing Mrs. Clinton at a rally in New Hampshire on Saturday, Madeleine Albright, the first female secretary of state, talked about the importance of electing the first female president. In a dig at the “revolution” that Mr. Sanders often speaks of, she said that the first female commander in chief would be a true revolution. And she scolded any woman who felt otherwise.

But that revolution would be weakened by the fact that she did it as a wife.

I would think that even if I were a passionate fan, which I’m not, because both Clintons are just way too corporate and conservative for me. I would wish someone other than a wife had done it no matter what Clinton was like.

One piece of good news from Algeria, although it’s not really good news so much as finally doing what should have been done long ago.

A new Algerian law came into effect this week punishing violence against women and sexual harassment, in a victory for feminist groups that had fought for years for the legislation.

The law, effective from Monday, had been blocked by the Senate for eight months amid resistance from conservative Muslims who view it as interference in family affairs.

And if a man wants to beat up his wife or daughter, or a brother wants to beat up his sister, how dare the state interfere? She’s their property, and she’s a whore who will soil their honor if they don’t beat the shit out of her whenever the mood strikes them.

It’s the fruit of a long struggle by feminist organizations in the North African country that have been fighting against a spike in attacks against women in recent years.

Anything to do with the spike in Islamism there also in recent years? No no, I’m sure that’s just a coincidence. What connection could there possibly be?

Meghan Murphy at Feminist Current a c0uple of weeks ago:

Pornhub, the biggest pornography site on the entire internet, recently announced they would be launching a clothing line to “support victims of domestic violence.” The company is partnering with porn star, Christy Mack, who went public about the extreme violence she faced at the hands of ex-boyfriend and MMA fighter, War Machine, in 2014.

“The exclusive clothing line will consist of a limited run of gear set to be sold on Pornhub’s newly created Pornhub Apparel e-commerce site, with 100 per cent of the profits to be donated to a yet unnamed domestic abuse charity of Mack’s choosing,” the site announced on Wednesday.

Corey Price, Vice President of Pornhub said, “Domestic violence impacts women, men and children across the United States each and every day. Nearly one in four women and one in seven men have suffered severe physical violence at the hands of an intimate partner. Here at Pornhub, we want to be part of the solution and help stop the cycle of domestic abuse.” He added, “We’re hoping our new partnership will raise necessary awareness around the issue and contribute to sparking meaningful discussions on the subject within our community.”

But…what about the violence in porn? I know the claim is that that’s fantasy, not reality, but I don’t buy the underlying assumption that those two things are sharply distinct and never mess with each other.

So, business as usual, I suppose. I mean, Pornhub quite literally sells violence against women. If you Google, “Pornhub domestic violence,” the first thing that comes up is a link to the endless videos on their site tagged “domestic violence,” the second is a link to their “sexual abuse” videos. The third, ironically, is a link to Pornhub’s announcement that the company “cares about ending domestic violence.” Oh yeah. They care so much they’re willing to sell it to men as masturbatory material.

But it’s fantasy. It’s kink. Anybody who doesn’t agree is a prude. Everybody hates prudes. We all know what they look like, right?

Of course we do. Nobody wants to be that. Bring on the sexual abuse videos!

Liberals and so-called “sex positive feminists” have called the line “an incredible, empowering collection,” apparently mixing up the words, “infinite levels of amazing,” with “disgusting, opportunistic, manipulative effort to capitalize on women’s suffering for their own gain.” The Frisky, renowned for its valiant efforts to sell violence against women as sexy and empowering, has also jumped on board, encouraging women to support this “important cause.”

Empower this.

Peter Walker reports there was a memorial service for LaVoy Finicum today, in the place where he tried to grab his gun while being arrested, and was shot and killed by an Oregon cop. He overheard comments that “This is the shot that will be heard around the country,” and “This isn’t the end it’s only the beginning.”

Peter Walker

Freedom from or to what, one wonders. Freedom to grab a publicly owned wildlife refuge in order to graze cattle on it for free? Freedom to steal public land at gunpoint for personal profit? Freedom to resist arrest by shooting cops and FBI agents? Freedom to make the US into a failed state like Somalia?

Updating to add another photo:

Peter Walker

Peter Walker says there were many guns, openly displayed.

North Korea is playing its funny games again.

North Korea launched a long-range rocket on Sunday carrying what it has said is a satellite, South Korea’s defense ministry said, in defiance of United Nations sanctions barring it from using ballistic missile technology.

The rocket was launched at 9:30 a.m. Sunday local time (7:30 p.m. ET), and South Korea was tacking it in flight, a South Korean military official said. “We have no information about any missile parts yet,” the official said.

A U.S. Defense official said the rocket was launched on a southern path over the Yellow Sea, and the trajectory indicated the rocket posed no threat to the U.S. or its allies. The launch vehicle appears to have reached space, the official said.

I know someone who’s underneath that path.

North Korea had notified U.N. agencies that it planned to launch a rocket carrying an Earth observation satellite, triggering opposition from governments that see it as a long-range missile test.

Intercontinental ballistic missiles designed to deliver nuclear warheads are launched into sub-orbital space to reach distant targets.

North Korea likes to throw things up in the air too you know. It’s totally unfair to tell it not to.

Updating to add the NHK report:

The Japanese government says North Korea launched what’s widely believed to be a long-range ballistic missile on Sunday morning.

Officials said they’ve confirmed that one projectile was fired from the North Korean western coast heading south at around 9:31 AM Japan time.

They said the object split into 5 parts. One part fell into the Yellow Sea, about 150 kilometers west of the Korean Peninsula. Two others landed in the East China Sea, about 250 kilometers southwest of the peninsula.

They estimate another part flew through Japanese airspace over Okinawa and dropped in the Pacific Ocean, about 2,000 kilometers south of Japan.

So that’s just great.

Here’s Shaista Gohir talking about the way Muslim women are shoved aside by men in the Labour party.

The Press Association via the Guardian:

A women’s rights organisation has written to Jeremy Corbyn calling for an inquiry into allegations female Muslims were discriminated against and blocked from seeking office by male Labour councillors.

Muslim Women’s Network UK (MWNUK) urged the Labour leader to investigate “systematic misogyny displayed by significant numbers of Muslim male local councillors”.

The organisation claimed that the problem had been an “open secret” within Labour and accused the party of being “complicit at the highest levels”.

The Tories are not great either, but there are more Muslim councillors in Labour.

In her letter to Corbyn, she wrote: “As this is an open secret and has been going on for decades, we can only assume that the Labour party has been complicit at the highest levels.

“How do men who do not want Muslim women to be empowered or have a voice remain in power unless the Labour party allows it?

“It appears that over decades senior Labour politicians have deliberately turned a blind eye to the treatment of Muslim women because votes have been more important to them than women’s rights.”

She claimed that “able, knowledgeable and independent-minded Muslim women have been undermined, sabotaged and blocked from becoming councillors”, with many selection “deals” stitched up behind closed doors.

Women are always expected to defer.

Muslim women told BBC2’s Newsnight of the obstacles they had faced trying to stand for office.

Optician Fozia Parveen claims her efforts to become a Labour councillor in Birmingham in 2007-8 were scuppered by men within the party: “At the time, I was aware of a smear campaign against me, they said that I was having an affair with one of the existing councillors. I was quite taken aback. People were turning up at my family home trying to intimidate my mum.”

She claimed Muslim men who were members of the local Labour party were behind the efforts to prevent her from standing.

No girls allowed.

In Dublin today:

Anti-Islam group Pegida launched its Irish branch at a rally outside the GPO today.

Pegida (Patriotic Europeans against the Islamisation of the West) is a broad European network of loosely linked groups opposed to what they call the “Islamisation of Europe”.

Meanwhile, the ‘anti-racist coalition’ also held a counter demonstration outside the GPO in protest of Pegida.

And the gardaí broke up the demonstrations.

Some action pics from a NoPegida participant:

Cllr Michael O’Brien ‏@cllrmobrien4 hours ago
A great crowd turned up for the Anti-racism day of action at the GPO today! #NoPegida

Members of Pegida stopped from marching & then hiding inside a shop on North Earl Street #NoPegida

Crowds gathered around @RuthCoppingerTD @AAA_IRE at Anti-racism day of action at the GPO in Dublin #NoPegida

Why there is such a low reporting rate for rape and other sexual abuse, reason #947,859.

Media outlets do not have the right to publish the bikini-clad photo of one of the complainants in Jian Ghomeshi’s sexual assault trial, even with the woman’s face blurred, the judge in the case has ruled.

A lawyer representing seven major news organizations — including the CBC — sought access to a photo that the woman sent to Ghomeshi more than a year after he allegedly assaulted her.

The photo was presented as evidence, but was not shown to spectators in the courtroom. It was described as a shot of the woman in a red bikini on a beach.

Well we want to loooooooooook at it. Let us seeeeeeeeeee it. How can we have our half-assed opinion about the slutty slut in the bikini if we don’t get to see her slutting in it?

The woman, whose identity is protected by a publication ban, testified under cross-examination that she sent the photo as “bait” to get Ghomeshi to contact her so she could ask him to explain why he had been violent with her.

Representing the media organizations, lawyer Iris Fischer argued the photo should be released, but with the woman’s face and any identifying marks blurred to keep her identity secret.

“There is a strong presumption that the public should see what you see,” Fischer told the judge. “It relates to the witness’s credibility.”

There is? Why? The public isn’t on the jury. How would the public’s leering at the photo of her in a bikini do anything to her credibility in court?

She said it would help the public assess the complainant’s testimony that she was trying to bait Ghomeshi.

But the public doesn’t need to do that. The jury does. The public doesn’t.

Crown attorney Michael Callaghan argued the damaging effect of releasing the photo would vastly outweigh the public benefit.

Knowing that a photo like this could be published during a trial would have a “chilling effect” on sexual assault victims, said Callaghan. “In fact, I’d suggest it would be a deep freeze” on the likelihood of complainants in other cases going to the police.

Ya think?

Fortunately the judge agreed.