CRAZY: Jagmeet Singh Says The Presumption Of Innocence Only Applies To Courts

Would he still have the same opinion if he was accused?

Jagmeet Singh has made a very disturbing statement regarding the presumption of innocence.

Here’s what he said when asked the question in the context of the recent accusations surrounding Patrick Brown and Kent Hehr:

“If you are asking me when I was a lawyer in a legal lens, there is a discussion or presumption of innocence — but that is strictly about the procedures in court.”

Added Singh, “When it comes to creating a just society, we need to look at the reality that we have to believe survivors if we want to tackle violence against women, if we want to shift a culture that for too long women have been silent about the ongoing violence that they experienced in their lives.”

The first part of Singh’s statement is crazy – despite his obvious efforts to say the most politically correct thing possible.

The problem is that taking his thought to its logical conclusion would mean that Singh would have to immediately resign if anyone made allegations against him – regardless of whether it was true or not.

If a woman were to say that Jagmeet Singh assaulted them, then by his logic that individual would immediately enter into the category of “survivor.”

Singh says all “survivors” should be believed, which would mean his accuser would have to be believed.

Then, since he believes the presumption of innocence doesn’t apply, he would have to accept that he is presumed guilty by everybody – even if there was no truth to it.

Then, by the logic he used in referencing Patrick Brown, Singh would have to step down immediately.

Obviously, that is a hypothetical scenario, but it’s important to consider because Singh is explicitly advocating for a society where the presumption of innocence is eliminated.

Of course, we know that Singh would carve out an exception for himself if he was ever accused. Surely, he would want the chance to defend his innocence and hold onto his job. Surely, he would want to be given the benefit of the doubt before his political career was destroyed.

Yet, he is arguing for a society where one accusation is all it would take for Singh to have his livelihood eviscerated.

Is that really what he wants?

Spencer Fernando

Photo – YouTube

20 comments Add yours
  1. If a woman were to consider unsatisfactory sex as a form of sexual harassment, then she could conceivably hold leverage over a person (or many) for a lifetime. Given Mr Singh’s age there could very well be a few women that have leverage on him. I suppose the #metoo moment needs to be chosen wisely.
    Sure wish somebody could come up with a special #metoo moment with PMJT.

  2. The insanity just never ends… Mr. Singh’s logic is that of a child’s. Did someone say he was a lawyer? Hahahaha…. If all survivors are to be instantly believed then I guess lawyers are no longer needed. It is an open and shut case. Did you say that man assaulted you? Well then lets just put him away for life cause he’s bad…. just glad you survived. There is not a victim in the world who would ever tell a lie I’m sure.

    1. scary guy is right, but he makes sense with this issue. of course, allegations don’t have to be all over the news outlets and media b/c of presumption of innocence. but he is talking about changing our culture. part of changing our culture is believing women… but yes, news media and such certainly shouldn’t broadcast b/c of presumption of innocence. that’s all singh is saying.

    2. i don’t like Singh but i understand what he is saying. he isn’t saying the news outlets and the media have to publish all these stories b/c of presumption of innocence. Singh is just saying that outside the courts, people should believe women. that is part of how we change our culture. plus, raise boys to understand the importance of consent. Singh has not said that all these issues should be broadcast by news outlets and the media. pretty bizarre that i agree with Singh on this issue.

  3. this is my opinion – allegations don’t have to be all over the media. the news outlets and the media choose to broadcast the allegations. after all, just because a woman (or man who is sexually harassed or sexually assaulted) posts something on social media, that doesn’t force the news and the media to report on the situation. the Patrick brown situation is different, because the PC were trying to get rid of him for months b/c of his, shall we, problems. however, even though the issues shouldn’t be all over the media b/c of presumption of innocence, we still need to believe women to change our culture. I understand what singh was saying–pretty surprising since i don’t like the guy.

  4. People, most of the time, judge far to the left or far to the right. Just because it has been brought out in the open and spoken in words, so everyone can hear, does not necessarily make it 100% true. What happened to common sense and being treated fairly, until proven guilty. The #metoo movement is gaining momentum and it seems far too many are getting on the band wagon. I am not saying that sexual harassment, etc. is acceptable. I strongly believe that women have rights and should not be raped or sexually assaulted or harassed but they must come forward at the time it happened, not years, or 10 years or 20 years later. Women could save other women from this same fate if they spoke up earlier in order to stop this. Not doing something about it “at the time”, basically gives these men the go ahead and permission to do it again and again as they take advantage of and destroy more women. Even if these men win their case, it will at least be on record for the next woman who is the victim and shows a pattern of behaviour from the perpetrator. As Singh states your guilty without knowledge on the circumstances, is wrong. That means a lot of innocent men out there will be condemned for something they may never have done. Singh states “we have to believe the survivor”. What no questions? No proof? No fair trial? Wow, that’s fair. Didn’t Trudeau elbow a woman in the chest in Parliament during his first month or so of being a PM? That could also, be considered sexual assault. Not much happened to him. And why all of a sudden 2 men in Parliament have resigned this week accused of sexual harassment, so close to election time? There are more questions than answers here.

  5. Rather than spend $Billions to bring in questionable refugees that, as we are seeing, may have problems integrating in Canada, why not give CANADIANS an incentive to have MORE children??? Is that too simple for Globalists to understand?

    1. 100 % agree.. If Canadian people could afford more children they would have more. Back in the old days parents had large families of 6 – 7 – or more but now most parents have a hard time affording more than 1..

  6. Unfortunately, Singh is right. The presumption of innocence only applies in a court of law. Ask Judge Jeanine Pirro or Vincent Bugliosi.

  7. A long time ago the term witchhunt was coined as ppl would round up other ppl for things they didn’t understand and couldn’t prove and destroyed them by hanging or burned them at the stake. Ppl thankfully evolved and these horrific practices vanished. But now in some weird political correct driven way, we’ve returned to destroying ppls lives without without proof or understanding. This frame of collective left thought is as sick as what it’s supposed to be fighting against. It’s evolution in reverse.

  8. This is Canada’s Justin Trudeau’s Parliament telephone number, please call and let him know when you disagree with something our government is doing(613) 992-4211

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *