A guy in Sweden was getting a BJ from his girlfriend. They were both underage. He took a picture of her blowing him, albeit without her knowledge. He then showed it to his teammates. She eventually found out and called the cops. He was arrested and had to pay a fine.

Now I am not sure what exactly was in the photo because the cops sealed the record, as both of the people involved were minors. It couldn’t have been all that bad though, because the only penalty was a fine. The charges were “Kränkande fotografering” (offensive photography constituting an invasion of privacy) and “Förtal” (defamation).

Flash forward a year, and the young man, now 18, is about to enter the NHL draft. The story of what happened hits the news, and thanks to cancel culture, he was forced to withdraw his name from the draft.

Since the records were sealed, how did this hit the news? The woman scorned decided to give an interview to the media because the young man didn’t apologize to her. So, for the crime of not being sufficiently contrite, she decides to activate her victim status and ruin his life. Note: when the young man told his friends what he did, the round heeled woman had her reputation irreparably damaged, but when SHE did it, well that makes her an innocent victim.

Who is the real victim here? The woman endured a short period of embarrassment for being a tramp. Now he must endure the destruction of his entire life’s goal of being an NHL player, even though he already paid the penalty for his crime.

Well, the Montreal Canadiens drafted him anyway. The left has gone apoplectic. The press is hammering them for daring to give this canceled pariah a job. Good for the Canadiens, and that little whore needs to just get over herself.

Categories: Cancel Culture

1 Comment

Anonymous · July 27, 2021 at 10:11 am

She wasn’t doing the BJ for money, so she’s not a whore. No presented evidence of promiscuity, so she wasn’t a tramp. Nor does a BJ for your boyfriend deserve a bad reputation. I think her criminal behavior started with giving the media interview, whose consequences are disproportional to the “offensive photography constituting an invasion of privacy” crime done to her. To put the burden for bad behavior on the criminal, there are considered to be no mistakes during the commission of a crime. What punishment does she deserve for her crime? What restitution to replace the income opportunity she’s taken from him?

Comments are closed.