Forum - View topic

INTEREST: Victims Speak Out After Canada's Anime Revolution Con Allows Serial Harasser, Convicted Se

harminia wrote:

CorneredAngel wrote: So, given the tone of the article, the solution that the authors would find satisfactory would be for anime conventions to prohibit "serial harassers" and convicted sex offenders from attending their events? Or at least, if they've banned someone from a con before for creeper behaviour, keep his ban instead of randomly overturning it without consulting people.

It is called fear of litigation.

As the gatekeeper on the ground at the event, it would have been their name, along with whatever org, inc, or person who was running the convention that would be at the top of any lawsuit. Whether the complainants would have won or not, the gatekeeper would be on the hook in any lawsuit. Having his time wasted and the loss of personal money to pay lawyer fees. It is quite easy to see why he was let in, no one wants to be sued.

Sounds like evil son, and mom were prepared for trouble, and had their reasons ready and their paperwork handy.

On that note, I feel it’s worth appreciating that Can’s statements to ANN come after extensive time refining and editing his thoughts. His original, now unshareable, response to these two individuals in a Facebook post from August 12th (the day after the convention) was this:

Quote:

My real job is being a new father and being an assistant at my wife's nursery school in Japan.

But yeah. Tip of the iceberg.

CorneredAngel wrote:

So, given the tone of the article, the solution that the authors would find satisfactory would be for anime conventions to prohibit "serial harassers" and convicted sex offenders from attending their events?

Well... yeah. Isn't that common sense? Cons have a duty to protect attendees, which means banning anyone who threatens the safety of others. If it were a guy who had a history of punching other attendees, this wouldn't even be up for discussion.

Conventions unfortunately cannot prevent harassers from attending iirc but if someone has a restraining order against a person, the convention safety team will work together with the local police to enforce the rules and remove a person from the premises.

It is called fear of litigation.

As the gatekeeper on the ground at the event, it would have been their name, along with whatever org, inc, or person who was running the convention that would be at the top of any lawsuit. Whether the complainants would have won or not, the gatekeeper would be on the hook in any lawsuit. Having his time wasted and the loss of personal money to pay lawyer fees. It is quite easy to see why he was let in, no one wants to be sued.

But this is all in America, Canada is a more liberal country and might allow sex offenders more freedom and rights than America does.

"I asked the then president why she didn't ban [Klieman] from events and she said she was threatened with a lawsuit by his mother."

Citation needed, please.

This guy may be autistic, but the reason he's treating these women this way isn't because of his autism, it's because he is an entitled creep. Heck, reading it you can even see where he was raised that way, with how his mom threatens to sue anyone who doesn't want to spend time around her son. .

Quote:

"I asked the then president why she didn't ban [Klieman] from events and she said she was threatened with a lawsuit by his mother."

The entire article made me ill. This quote, by itself, made me livid. I've heard of alcoholics and drug addicts having enablers, but this is an obscenity. I wonder if there's enough hard evidence of Mommy's behavior to file a civil suit under Canadian law.

I have a nephew on the spectrum, and have watched him grow since he was 4. I also know how much blood, sweat, and tears his single mother had to endure to make sure this kid grew up as straight and secure as he ended up being.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4939110/

15 out of 21 judges stated an individual’s diagnosis with an HFA would be an important factor in sentencing, describing it as an important factor because knowing that an offender has HFA can help judges, juries, or other criminal justice professionals understand if the condition potentially led to the committed criminal action. Further, twelve of these judges described HFA as either a mitigating or aggravating factor

Even some scholarly journals on the issue

https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6683&context=lawreview

The first category of crimes in which autism is a logical defense is minor sexual offenses. This is because an autistic individual may be susceptible to committing a minor sexual offense due to the characteristics of autism. An autistic individual's knowledge regarding sexuality and how to act in sexual scenarios is limited. But, despite being incorrectly viewed as sexually immature due to limited experience, autistic individuals are interested in their sexuality, romantic relationships, and marriage. Due to these limitations, an autistic individual has the potential to behave in an inappropriate sexual manner.

I already said it doesn't specifically apply to this guy.

But that doesn't mean there aren't legitimate cases out there. I assume you already know this but there's varying degrees of ASD, so peoples own anecdotes are pretty irrelevant to the public at large

Do you have any statistics for your specific claim that autistic people are more likely to commit sex crimes? Do you have anything from psychiatry or other medical journals, or journals in social work, or can you only find lawyers basically telling you it's a factor in sentencing -- as are many things that don't have a direct statistical correlation or medical link to whichever crime?

Unfortunately for you, I know enough legal speak to know that really only the second article supports anything you said

Do you have any statistics for your specific claim that autistic people are more likely to commit sex crimes?