https://t.co/bhkrFd5cbT
Neurologist accused of 48 counts of sexual assaults against 48 of his female patients has been acquitted recently by a male judge. 48!
In doing so, the judge dismissed the expert testimony of a female doctor and expert on whether vaginal and breast exams were part of the norm during neurological exams (They are not)
We are still a long way from addressing sexism and gender bias in the court systems. This all will serve to further undermine reporting. Victims legitimately ask "what is the point"
48 female patients came forward against Kitchener neurologist Jeffrey Sloka.
They alleged he performed unnecessary pelvic & breast exams.
The college took his license.
The crown pressed charges.
The male judge let him walk.
Kitchener judge Craig Parry needs to be investigated, because acquitting a doctor who's a serial sexual assaulter of all 48 charges despite credible evidence and expert witness testimony, is suspicious and I wouldn't be surprised if this is isn't the first time he's done this.
48 female patients came forward to testify to sexual assault by a male Neurologist in Canada.
Male judge discounts ALL of them AND the expert testimony of Dr. Vera Bril (a female doctor and expert) who told the court that it is not norm to do vaginal exams, breast exams or exams of other intimate areas during appointments for neurological concerns.
Canada. Nothing to do with the justice system makes sense to me anymore.
You’re a woman who’s having migraines and blackouts. You’re afraid, worried, and it’s taken months to get an appointment with the neurologist in whose office you’re sitting, Dr. Jeffrey “Scott” Sloka.
When Dr. Sloka comes in, the nurse leaves, which is weird, but you’re here for a neurology appointment, so you shrug it off. The doctor asks you some questions, and then he tells you he needs to do a vaginal exam and a breast exam.
You don’t understand why, and he doesn’t explain. You want to refuse, but what if you make him angry? What if he refuses to continue the appointment? This is Canada; you waited for five months for this appointment, and your symptoms are getting worse — so you consent, even though you still don’t understand why he wants to examine you in this way.
Once you’re undressed, Dr. Sloka begins the exam by telling you to remove your gown and stand completely naked with arms and legs spread. The nurse still hasn’t come back, but the doctor proceeds anyway. He says something about checking for lumps, but that doesn’t make any sense; he’s a neurologist, not an ob/gyn.
Then you notice that he isn’t wearing gloves.
During the breast exam, he touches you in ways that make you uncomfortable, and that are not a part of an ordinary breast exam. The vaginal exam is worse: the exam lasts an exceptionally long time, and the doctor inserts his ungloved fingers. The nurse still hasn’t returned.
After the appointment, you feel dirty, soiled. You know deep down that you were assaulted, so eventually you work up the courage to file a report.
It opens a floodgate.
By the time the trial starts, Dr. Sloka has already lost his license, having pled guilty in front of the licensing board. He is facing 48 separate charges for the sexual abuse of his patients.
Woman after woman testifies to this man’s inappropriate behavior. Multiple women testify that Dr. Sloka touched them inappropriately and intimately while not wearing gloves; they describe vaginal exams, rectal exams, and breast exams involving contact that had nothing to do with checking for lumps. An underage girl cries as she describes being pressured into a vaginal exam while her mother was banned from the room.
48 counts. 48 victims. 41 women and girls who took the stand to testify about the abuse they endured.
And one more woman: the Crown’s key expert, Toronto neurologist Dr. Vera Bril. She testified that vaginal, rectal, and breast exams are “far outside our standard of practice,” and “far, far outside” of what neurologists typically do. She stated that these intimate exams were “not necessary” for treating or diagnosing the neurological issues presented by the victims. When the judge retires to deliberate, a conviction seems certain.
Except that’s not what happens.
The judge - Justice Craig Perry - discounts the testimony of all 42 women. He singles out Dr. Bril’s testimony in particular as suffering from “profound frailties,” and accused her of displaying “bias.” He dismisses the victims’ testimonies as well, citing “inconsistencies,” even though none of said “inconsistencies” touched in any way on ex-Dr. Sloka’s guilt.
He accepts ex-Dr. Sloka’s claim that the assaults were medically necessary exams, even though Sloka admits to having performed many of them ungloved, and cannot explain what these exams had to do with any of his victims’ symptoms.
In the end, Justice Craig Perry acquits ex-Dr. Jeffrey “Scott” Sloka on all 48 counts, choosing to believe a (male) defendant who had already admitted his guilt in front of the licensing board over 41 (female) victims and an expert (female) neurologist.
And they say the patriarchy is dead.
A neurologist charged with 48 counts of sexual assault is acquitted, no prison time because the male judge believed that there were “valid medical reasons” for the assaults.
Keep on pandering to the worst people in Canada, Pierre. It's been a winning strategy so far. The vast majority of Canada doesn't think the trans "issue" is an issue at all, and would rather let a tiny percentage of people live their lives in peace.
So @EsteeLauder are endorsing the #Trump threat to Greenland.
These are the brands to #Boycott :
Clinique, MAC cosmetics, La Mer, Bobbi Brown, Aveda, Jo Malone London, Tom Ford Beauty, The Ordinary, Origins, Bumble and bumble, Darphin, Le Labo, Aramis, Killian Paris, Smashbox.
Danielle Smith can stand in front of a camera and pretend this is about “protecting kids,” but I’m a parent of a transgender child who actually took puberty blockers — and my kid is perfectly healthy, safe, and thriving.
So spare us the fearmongering. Puberty blockers are reversible. They’ve been used on cis kids for decades without a single political pearl-clutching moment.
She knew a year ago that these bills were unconstitutional — she literally said she’d use the notwithstanding clause to bulldoze over the Charter if people fought her. And now that doctors, the CMA, and every credible medical expert are calling this legislation dangerous, unethical, and discriminatory, she hides behind that clause to dodge accountability.
This isn’t leadership.
It’s targeting a tiny, vulnerable population because she can’t defend her bill with facts, evidence, or basic human decency.
And I’m done watching her smear an entire group of kids to score political points. These kids deserve protection, they deserve care, and they deserve a government that doesn’t treat them like a wedge issue.
#ableg
⬇️Read this today
Thank you, 60 Minutes. You will be around long after Trump is gone.
No need to add anything to this! For nine straight weeks, CBS’s “60 Minutes” has held the Trump administration’s feet to the fire, refusing to back down despite a barrage of legal threats and presidential tantrums. The most recent episode tackled Trump’s controversial policies on Ukraine—where correspondent Scott Pelley interviewed President Zelenskyy at a bombed site—and Greenland, highlighting local resistance to Trump’s annexation ambitions. These are just the latest in a series of hard-hitting segments: previous weeks have exposed the administration’s dismantling of USAID, the firing of government watchdogs, and the chilling effects of Trump’s executive orders on diversity and equity.
Trump’s response has been as predictable as it is alarming. He’s called “60 Minutes” a “dishonest Political Operative,” demanded the FCC strip CBS of its license, and is pursuing a $20 billion lawsuit over their coverage—especially an interview with Kamala Harris he claims was unfairly edited. He’s even pressed his own FCC appointee to punish CBS and other critical outlets, a move right out of the authoritarian playbook: using government power to silence dissent and intimidate journalists.
In an era when too many media organizations shy away from confronting power, “60 Minutes” is showing what real journalism looks like. As Lesley Stahl put it, the show is “fighting for our life” and standing up for the First Amendment. When the stakes are this high—when a sitting president is openly threatening the free press—media courage isn’t just admirable, it’s essential for democracy to survive. repost @other98
—
Help this information get to more voters. 📷 A well-informed electorate is a prerequisite to Democracy.—Thomas Jefferson
Hi @PierrePoilievre , Filipino Canadian here. Stop trying to capitalize on our community's tragedy for some votes. Have you no decency? And you wonder why so many Canadians hate you. #Never51#NeverPoliviere
Dear friends in Canada: I cannot stress this enough. Do not empower the right wing in Canada. Do not vote Conservative. It is a rapidly slippery slope to where America is now, and where America is now is AWFUL.
Thousands of pro-life supporters are actively working to elect pro-life Conservatives.
Poilievre can say whatever he wants — the fact is by allowing these candidates to run & push anti-abortion legislation, he's giving them the platform to roll back women's reproductive rights.