Barbara Kay: In a case with no witnesses, how can any judge be so sure?


Aileen Donnelly/National PostMustafa Ururyar leaves the Old City Hall Court in Toronto in 2015.



Last week York University PhD candidate Mustafa Ururyar was convicted of sexually assaulting grad student Mandi Gray. My curiosity piqued by reports of comments made during trial by Justice Marvin Zuker, I read the 179-page judgment.

The specifics of the incident — an evening of social drinking, a quarrel en route to Ururyar’s home, his break-up of their two-week casual “relationship,” followed by sex he says was consensual, she says wasn’t — can be found in the transcript. There were no witnesses and no injuries. This left us with a he-said, she-said story in a judge-alone trial.

In the end, Zuker found that Gray was “the credible witness” and there was “no uncertainty in this court. Ms Gray was raped by the accused.” In Zuker’s opinion, then, the defence failed to raise a “reasonable doubt,” which in criminal law, as he notes, “is not a far-fetched or frivolous doubt. It is not a doubt based on sympathy or prejudice. It is a doubt based on reason and common sense. It is a doubt that logically arises from the evidence, or the lack of evidence.”

Zuker’s absolute certainty puzzles me, for whatever the truth is, I – someone with “reason and common sense” — found Ururyar’s account no less (or more) credible than Gray’s. Now it is not unusual for two witnesses, one lying and one not, to produce credible stories. But to quell my own reasonable doubt as to an accused’s guilt, I would not only have to find the accuser’s story more credible, I’d have to find the defence implausible. Ururyar’s story may not be true, but it is indeed entirely plausible.

Yet Zuker proclaimed (seven times) that Ururyar’s version “never happened.” He went further, reading in an attitude that was neither enunciated by Ururyar or supported by objective evidence at trial: “power, power, power. (Ururyar) was the boss and he loved it.” How would he know? 

Perhaps Zuker inferred Ururyar’s lurid state of mind from his extensive reading of superannuated, radically feminist icons he references in the judgment, such as Susan Brownmiller, who saw all sex in terms of power imbalances, Catherine MacKinnnon, who said “penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent” and the methodologically discredited Lenore Walker, whose focus in any case was abuse in spousal relationships, which was not relevant to the witnesses’ brief sexual relationship. 

Faithful to feminist “rape myth” tenets, Zuker set aside Gray’s memory lapses and memory — “Asking (Ms Gray) to remember the details is ridiculous,” he wrote. He adduced precedents for “non-recording, incomplete recording and delay in reporting” as “common in cases of sexual abuse.” Gray’s further claim of “disassociation” to explain her “lack of verbal or physical resistance” and “lack of protest” are consistent with rape, Zuker wrote. Deleting all her flirty text messages to Ururyar; failing to tell police she invited him for “hot sex” on the night of the incident; failing to leave the scene after the incident even though free to do so; having no memory of what actually happened beyond a negative feeling (which could easily have been exacerbated by anger over the break-up); delaying reporting the incident because of concerns about her work status; all these we are asked to accept as consistent with “violent rape,” though the testimony shows that there was no physical force used during the assault.

Mandi Gray

I accept that there are many precedents for a variety of counter-intuitive responses to rape among victims. And it’s absolutely possible that a sexual assault was committed. But it is striking how solicitously Zuker defends Gray’s vague and ambiguous testimony, and how contemptuous he is of Ururyar’s relatively straightforward account, especially considering that there were no witnesses to corroborate either version. 

Examples: Ururyar said it bothered him that Gray fondled his inner thigh in public — and even after a rebuke, again — which he properly called “groping.” Zuker mockingly sneers, “Mr Ururyar gave evidence that Ms Gray personally assaulted him. Yes, assaulted, groped him, in fact….” (and later wrote it “never happened”). But if Ururyar had, uninvited, fondled Gray’s breast, or thigh, in public, would that not have been in legal terms assault? Zuker twice referred to Gray being Ururyar’s fifth sexual hook-up while in a steady relationship (acknowledged by all to be an “open” one), even though past sexual history is not supposed to count in trials. Zuker also found it “nothing short of incomprehensible” that Gray could have been the more “seductive” social partner. Why? Text message exchanges entered into evidence certainly suggest that Gray was pursuing Ururyar. 

My impression is that “sympathy or prejudice,” rather than evidence, governed Zuker’s decision. I believe he was more concerned with advancing a cultural climate in which uncritical acceptance of a woman’s story as “evidence” becomes the norm in court rather than to respect the right of one individual, Mustafa Ururyar, to the unbiased trial he was owed by the Criminal Code. I am therefore pleased that Ururyar’s lawyer intends to appeal the verdict.

National Post




Ottawa Mens Centre

As usual, Barbara  Kay cuts to the chase and calls it for how she sees it.

This article and that of Christie Blatchford, raise the question of how Marvin Zuker can ever be entrusted with a criminal trial again, or any trial or any decision regarding gender issues.

It's this incredible level of demonstrated bias that riddles the Ontario Judiciary.

Marvin Zuker is empowered to make these statements and these decisions because he is brain dead when it comes to objectivity and incapable of seeing anything other than what he has formed in his narrow minded conceited arrogant head.


The question on appeal could be. Would the Honourable Justice Marvin Zuker be brave enough to be alone in his chambers with Mandy Gray?

The question for Ontario males is, would you be brave enough to be alone with Mandy Gray? Very obviously, there are going to be stupid men with dirty ideas that have nothing to do with functional relationships just as there are stupid women with dirty ideas that have nothing to do with functional relationships.

Another question for Ontario Society is should there be such a thing as "rape winnings", that is a lottery amount of money being paid for successfully making rape allegations against a man only, that result in a guilty finding?

Another question is would any sane man single heterosexual male risk having a relationship with a woman in Ontario?

Ontario is riddled with dysfunctional man hating violence against men promoting judges who are becoming more and more brazen in their promotion of violence towards men by women.

While this happens we will have aggressive women turn create even further destruction of our legal system for what Mandy Gray calls "Rape Winnings".


Ottawa Mens Centre


Related stories

20160722 ‘I didn’t win the rape lottery,’ Toronto PhD student Mandi Gray says of rare guilty verdict in sex assault case

20160722 Full HTM decision Justice Marvin Zuker in R. v. Ururyar

20160722 Full PDF Decision Justice Marvin Zuker in R. v. Ururyar

20160722 Judge’s florid ruling seems an attempt to blow up so-called ‘rape myths’