The Strange Case Of Paul Callow

Why was a man who raped five women at knifepoint released after serving a mere twenty years? Strangely, no one seems to have asked that question.

By VennerRoad, 29th Sep 2016

Balcony Rapist Paul Callow

In spite of the hysteria generated about rape by legal dominance feminism, it is a serious crime that always warrants some sort of custodial sentence, but just as not all thefts are equal, neither are all sexual assaults. In 2002, an Ohio judge sentenced a former sheriff’s deputy to four years; Kirk Kash had raped a teenage girl. Although most people would regard that sentence as lenient, Kash was a married man and unquestionably considered at low risk of reoffending.

Can the same be said of a man who breaks into the homes of women on five separate occasions and rapes them at knifepoint? This is what Paul Callow did, for which he was sentenced to twenty years in prison, a sentence he served in full before being released. Granted his crimes were committed in Canada where the sentences for sex offences are not as Draconian as the United States, but a life sentence was surely warranted. Canada has a special provision for so-called dangerous offenders, which means and meant at the time of Callow’s conviction (1987) that he could have been detained indefinitely. Now here is the punchline, Callow had already been convicted of rape; in 1978 he received a four year sentence. In the UK, he would have been given a life sentence without that first conviction, and as far as sexual offences are concerned, the rule of law has been trashed in Canada to such an extent that a man can be convicted of rape or some lesser sexual offence on no credible evidence whatsoever, as is evinced by the recent case of Mustafa Ururyar. So what is going on here?

After Callow’s conviction, his last victim - who was known only as Jane Doe - sued Toronto Police for sexual discrimination, or as it was called in the judgment, gender discrimination. She argued that they had failed to warn women a serial rapist was at large in her community, and that this led to her rape. Clearly this argument has some merit, but there can be operational reasons for the police failing to give such warnings. For example, it has been known for them to stake out specific locations; there have even been cases of male police officers dressing up as women when doing this. Did they really want to alert this guy that they were onto him? But in the judgment, we are told that:

“Police having sexist and stereotypical belief that women would have hysterical response to warning and would scare off rapist who would escape apprehension” - is this not a reasonable belief, sexist or otherwise?

The entire judgment reads like a feminist propaganda document, for example, a so-called expert witness testified that (in the Court’s words): “Rape is not about sex; it is about anger, it is about power and it is about control”.

So while it is taboo to stereotype rape victims, it is perfectly okay to stereotype their victimisers?

Dr Jaffe’s evidence on so-called rape myths included:

“-- that women lie about being raped;
-- that women are not reliable reporters of events;
-- that women are prone to exaggerate;
-- that women falsely report having been raped to get attention.”

Real rape myths have been covered in a previous article, but a woman who reports being raped at knifepoint by a stranger in her own home is a very different creature from one who claims to have been violated on a crowded railway station (as in the Mark Pearson case) or to have been drugged and raped by a date two weeks previously (as did false accuser Eleanor de Freitas). Indeed, in Canada men are regularly arrested and prosecuted for rape on the most tenuous of evidence as in the February 2011 case of Jack Ekpakohak, James Ekpakohak and Allen Kanayok, which saw all three defendants rightly acquitted.

It is not though simply the judgment in Doe v. Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) Commissioners of Police, (1998) that drips with feminist propaganda, but incredibly Paul Callow himself. After his release, Callow was interviewed extensively by a Canadian TV station that treated him as though he had just beaten cancer or was even a minor celebrity. You can find the full footage on YouTube, but here is a snippet. The objectification of women is a staple of feminist propaganda; in the full interview, he talks about attending classes in prison to address his behaviour, all very well and good, in his case that should be limited to keeping his hands off women, and the best way to ensure he did that would be to keep him behind bars until he dies, or until he is able to walk only with a Zimmer frame.

Could it be that the Canadian justice system is now not only spouting feminist propaganda in its courts but to prisoners, and is willing to go soft on serial rapists if they admit the error of their ways by endorsing this sort of drivel? If you think that is an outrageous thing to say, think of the way Karla Homolka was given an even more lenient sentence for even more unspeakable crimes. The reality is that for all their incessant whining, feminists don’t really care about women at all, otherwise they would have put such pressure on the Canadian legal system that a monster like Callow would never have been allowed back on the streets.

To Wikinut Articles Page