Talk:R v JA

Bias
"Elizabeth Sheehy, a law professor at the University of Ottawa who represented LEAF at the Supreme Court, said that the decision protects women who are vulnerable to sexual exploitation because they are asleep, medicated, have episodic disabilities, or are drunk. Sheehy noted that the decision upheld that "unconscious women are not sexually available."[1][3] Melanie Randall, who drafted some of the legal arguments for LEAF, said that the decision does not change the law and merely reaffirms the law that has been in place since 1983."

That's what she said, sure but it's not reality. the reality of the situation s that she fought fr women to be legally allowed to murder their husbands under the guise of a psychological illness that she made up.

This NEEDS to be added to the article, especially considering it's the damn critical review section, could you be any more obvious about your biases, Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblebritches57 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)