In Praise of Repeat Sex Offender Dr. Ismail Taher I give you Alberta provincial court Judge Greg Lepp

I honestly don't know what else to call Judge Greg Lepp's comments about convicted sexual assaulter Dr. Ismail Taher other than "praise".

This vile little pig believes woman should be grateful for his unwanted groping.  He certainly feels no sense of remorse for his actions and has no concept he's done anything wrong.

As offensive as vile Dr. Ismail Taher's actions are, however, his offensiveness pales in comparison to the offensiveness of Judge Greg Lepp's asinine comments at Dr. Taher's sentencing hearing and the sentence he handed down to this repeat sex offender.

"Dr. Taher has been blessed with all of life's advantages. He abused his position for selfish, prurient and unwholesome reasons.  He had no excuse. There is no remorse shown here."

No remorse, abuse of power, no excuses and yet this moron judge sentences Dr. Ismail Taher, convicted of sexual assault, to a whopping 30 days in jail to be followed by 2 years on probation.

It gets worse.  The doctor will serve those 30 days over the course of 15 weekends so his medical practice isn't interrupted.

It gets even worse.

This isn't his first conviction for sexual assault.

It gets even worse than that, if you can believe it.

The victim of his first sexual assault conviction?  A teenage patient.

Wow.

That 30-day sentence will really teach Dr. Ismail Taher a lesson, won't it?  I mean seriously, this guy didn't get the memo after his first sexual assault conviction so what on God's green earth makes Judge Greg Lepp believe this conviction will magically be different?

Beyond that, how does sentencing a repeat sexual offender to a slap on the wrist in any way deter others.  What does coddling this sexual offender teach him at all other than that you, Judge Greg Lepp, all but condone his actions?

Stupid people really annoy me.

This idiot judge actually had the audacity to say this sentence is reasonable and effective.

"I am imposing a short jail term because I know it will have a profound effect on Dr. Taher and his family."

Congratulations Judge.

You're pathetic.  You might as well have written Dr. Taher a letter of recommendation to Sexual Predators Anonymous for all the deterrent effect this sentence will accomplish.

Defence lawyer Eamon O'Keeffe actually complained to reporters of the hardship the sexual assault-happy doctor suffers.

"His reputation has taken a hit," O'Keeffe said, "and he's been humiliated.  It's on the internet, so it will basically be there forever."

His reputation has taken a hit?  It bloody well better!  He's a serial sexual assaulter for God's sake!   He ought to be humiliated!

Clearly the judge failed to do as defence council requested, namely to consider "who Dr. Taher is and what Dr. Taher means to the community."

Dr. Taher is a serial sexual offender who endangers the very community he claims to serve.  Had the judge actually taken that into account the sentence for this repeat sex offender would have been something vastly more appropriate than a pathetic 30-day prison term to be served on weekends.

Congratulations Judge Greg Lepp.  You managed to do what so many others have failed.  You've brought the system of justice into disrepute.  In fact you defecated all over it.

Job well done Sir!

When the pitiful and pathetic excuse for humanity known as Dr. Ismail Taher is back before you on his third charge of sexual assault (should be in about two years given his past rate of offences)  maybe you can find it in your heart to make him spent the whole 30 days in jail at once?

 

NOTE: You can read both of Dr. Ismail Taher's sexual assault convictions here but I warn you, it will likely piss you off as badly as they did me.

R v Taher, 2015 ABQB 260

[82]           Having considered all of the evidence which I accept, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of Dr. Taher’s guilt. I find that the Crown has proven all of the elements of the offence of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

[83]           Specifically, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Dr. Taher intentionally applied force to JM in circumstances of a sexual nature by touching her buttock and touching and massaging her breasts. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that JM did not consent to the force that Dr. Taher intentionally applied. I am also satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Dr. Taher knew JM did not consent, or at the very least he was reckless or willfully blind as to whether she consented. In the circumstances, he would have known very well that his conduct may result in criminal harm but he went ahead and acted anyway.

R. v. Taher, 2016 ABPC 127

[192]      The defence argues that even though I have concluded that the accused physically assaulted the complainants, no conviction should be entered because the conduct is so trivial that it does not warrant criminal sanction.  This idea is captured in the Latin, maxim de minimus non curat lex, or the law does not concern itself with trifles.  In essence the defence is saying that yes there is an assault but it is “not sufficiently serious that it should properly be stigmatized as criminal.” See R. v. Smale, 2016 ABPC 39 (CanLII) at para 40 quoting from R. v. Elek, [1994] Y.J. No.31 (Yukon T.C.) at para 24.

[193]      The actions are:

(a)   Grabbing hands and pulling M.N. towards him;

(b)   Grabbing A.G. by the hips; and

(c)   Grabbing A.G. by the arm with sufficient force to leave a mark.

[194]      None of these actions fall within the description used by the learned Trial Judge in Smale, supra as “contact made in the course of day-to-day interaction between two co-workers, momentary in duration, and caused no physical injuries”: R. v. Smale, supra at para 41.

[195]      These actions were intentional and cannot be dismissed as incidental conduct arising in the usual course of human interaction.  They occurred in the workplace and were perpetrated on staff by a person considered to hold a superior position.  Finally, these actions affected each complainant deeply.  See paragraphs 15, 24, 38 and 40 above.

[196]      I find this principle does not apply to the circumstances in the case at bar.

VERDICT

[197]      I find the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed two sexual assaults and one assault on M.N. on June 6 and June 29, 2013.

[198]      I also find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused physically assaulted A.G. two times on August 16, 2013.

Leave a Reply

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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

*