[HN Gopher] Giving the finger is a 'God-given right', Canadian j...
___________________________________________________________________
Giving the finger is a 'God-given right', Canadian judge rules
Author : matbilodeau
Score : 224 points
Date : 2023-03-10 15:44 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (citoyens.soquij.qc.ca)
(TXT) w3m dump (citoyens.soquij.qc.ca)
| manv1 wrote:
| Hell, yes!
| DueDilligence wrote:
| [dead]
| dustfinger wrote:
| > according to the objective video evidence, they drive
| dangerously near the children as a way to protest their presence
| and express their discontent.
|
| They should countersue for that!
| hinata08 wrote:
| More like
|
| >[3] To most, this scene represents a blissful snapshot of a
| suburban utopia. Peaceful, friendly community life.
|
| [4] Yet, to the complainant and his family, this is an
| unbearable nuisance. An affront on many levels. So much so,
| that according to the objective video evidence, they drive
| dangerously near the children as a way to protest their
| presence and express their discontent.[..]
|
| it reminds me of South Park, the episode where they go to
| Canada.
|
| Everyone : " Welcomes friends to Canada Canada friends loves
| you "
|
| Scott : "What the hell is going on ?"
|
| Everyone (screaming and running away) : Scott ! It's Scott !
|
| When you reach this level of being ridiculed on worldwide news,
| you don't need to be sued. Counter-suing Scott would be like
| shooting at the ambulance !
| swader999 wrote:
| Trudeau senior gave some citizens the bird from his train window
| way back so it should be ok for others to return the salute.
| matbilodeau wrote:
| Court decision
|
| http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca/php/decision.php?ID=B4064956004...
| skeaker wrote:
| This was a much more entertaining read than the link the OP, in
| my opinion. I didn't realize official court documents could
| have such an attitude. The guy that wrote this fuckin hates the
| complainants and it shows, hahaha
| ColinCochrane wrote:
| That was a very entertaining read. Pulling no punches in the
| conclusion:
|
| > 'In the modern-day vernacular, people often refer to a
| criminal case "being thrown out". Obviously, this is little
| more than a figurative expression. Cases aren't actually thrown
| out, in the literal or physical sense. Nevertheless, in the
| specific circumstances of this case, the Court is inclined to
| actually take the file and throw it out the window, which is
| the only way to adequately express my bewilderment with the
| fact that Mr. Epstein was subjected to an arrest and a fulsome
| criminal prosecution. Alas, the courtrooms of the Montreal
| courthouse do not have windows.'
| [deleted]
| dang wrote:
| We've changed the URL to that from
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/10/giving-the-
| mid.... Thanks!
| belval wrote:
| If you look past the headline, this story is almost "basic
| sanity". The guy's neighbour didn't want the accused's kids
| playing in the street (in the suburbs) because they have a yard.
| To "prove" his point that it was dangerous he drove recklessly
| around the kids in the street.
|
| The accused flipped him off and (allegedly because he denies it)
| threatened him.
|
| Now frankly, I don't see why this would be hackernews-worthy, but
| it's still a basic triumph of common sense. If I had kids and
| they want to draw in chalk in a slow suburbs street, having a
| nosy neighbour calling the police after speeding next to them to
| illustrate his point would likely make my blood boil.
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| I would posit that common sense is the antithesis to
| government. Consider children whose parents are arrested for
| letting them walk to the park, or the woman arrested for
| silently praying, in her head, while standing in front of an
| abortion clinic.
|
| Prosecutorial abuse is equally, if not more of a crisis in the
| world, than police abusing their arrest powers.
| snozolli wrote:
| _or the woman arrested for silently praying, in her head,
| while standing in front of an abortion clinic._
|
| Hmm... Looks like this happened in the UK:
|
| _The video shows an officer asking Vaughan-Spruce if she was
| praying, to which she answers: "I might be praying in my
| head."_
|
| _She was charged Dec. 15 with four counts of breaking a
| Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) around the abortion
| facility. A PSPO is intended to stop antisocial behavior._
|
| Source: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/253187/woman-
| arreste...
|
| The Public Spaces Protection Order is here:
|
| https://www.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/Communities/PSPOs/Ophir-
| Road-a...
|
| Some background on the protective order:
|
| https://www.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/news-
| article.aspx?title=decisi...
|
| So, they had so many problems that the local council put an
| order in place, with overwhelming public support. The woman
| then violated the order and even indicated that she was
| violating the order, by choice, all so she can play the
| victim.
|
| Now it's being spun as "thought crime" so that they don't
| have to take responsibility for their abhorrent behavior and
| continue to pretend to be the ones who are victimized.
| nostromo wrote:
| > abhorrent behavior
|
| How can any sane person watch this video and say her
| behavior was "abhorrent?"
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6E105a58p8
|
| Videos like this make me so thankful for the US
| constitution.
| ck425 wrote:
| The behaviour in a vacuum might not be so bad but she was
| consciously trying to test how far she could go before
| they broke a law made specifically due to anti-abortion
| protesters like her intimidating woman to the point they
| wouldn't use the services.
| mywittyname wrote:
| I have a conflicting opinions on this post. On one hand, I
| loathe the use of "the government" as though it is some sort
| of monoblock. There are plenty of people who get into public
| service as a way to tangibly improve society and the lives of
| the people.
|
| OTOH, you are right that too many people get away with
| abusing their powers.
| [deleted]
| majormajor wrote:
| The "some abuses make it worth scrapping the whole thing"
| thesis is just pure folly.
|
| Two parallel possible spins on that:
|
| "Restrict the government since otherwise people will abuse
| government power."
|
| "Have a lot of rules and regulations since otherwise people
| will abuse individual liberties."
|
| Both of these make just as much sense on paper to me. On
| one hand you have examples of government harassment; on the
| other hand you have people literally being willing to sell
| other people poison to make a buck.
|
| The problem in both cases is the people, not the system.
|
| I've come to the thinking that you have to build societal
| values from the bottom up. You aren't gonna lawyer your way
| to a perfect system if you are still fostering an
| environment that encourages people to ignore that system,
| resist it, and take advantage of each other.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > I've come to the thinking that you have to build
| societal values from the bottom up.
|
| And one way to build those values is by writing some
| basic rules down, communicating them to everybody, and
| enforce them. You will never have every single person
| refraining from taking advantage of something.
| mnkv wrote:
| Did you read the whole report??? The complainant is essentially
| stalking his neighbour with surveillance footage, recording any
| time the neighbour so much as looks in his direction, and keeps
| a stalker-ish log book with insults. On top of that his wife
| and his father nearly hit the neighbour's 4 year olds with a
| car and then say they refuse to slow down. The report says the
| car was "inches away" from another person and that kid would
| have been run over!
|
| And then the complainant has the audacity to file criminal suit
| over his neighbour giving him middle finger after he does it
| first! This story is about basic insanity.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| > To "prove" his point that it was dangerous he drove
| recklessly around the kids in the street.
|
| It probably is dangerous [0] because people don't let their
| kids play in the street anymore so drivers aren't used to
| having them there.
|
| Not like when I was a kid where we would get ball games going
| and pause to let the cars pass. People expected kids to be
| playing in the street so didn't drive like complete lunatics.
|
| Can't even walk through parking lots anymore and everyone knows
| that there are going to be people walking around all over the
| place because that's what they are designed for.
|
| [0] Not advocating trying to scare the neighborhood kids
| majormajor wrote:
| There are a few different places within a few blocks of me
| where there are basketball hoops set up facing the street, so
| the street is the court. All on side streets, seems like it
| hasn't been a big problem. Some of them have been there for
| years at this point.
|
| Not even that far out in the burbs. Mixes of ~5ish story
| apartment buildings, commercial, and SFH homes for miles in
| all directions.
|
| Seems like "are people used to people being in the street" is
| very area-specific. If this was _all_ 5+ story mixed-use
| apartment developments, like a few miles north? Yeah, you don
| 't see it as much there. On the other hand, if it was even
| less developed, with basically no non-local through traffic?
| I've seen even more.
| cldellow wrote:
| From reading the decision and looking at Google Maps: the
| street is a short, narrow dead-end street in the suburbs.
| Most of the people who live there have young children who
| play together.
|
| It would be very difficult to accidentally find yourself on
| this street, driving quickly.
|
| Of course, it's dangerous in the sense that anything to do
| with cars is dangerous. But it seems pretty safe as far as
| these things go.
| ElfinTrousers wrote:
| I live in a much more built up area than this. Mostly small
| apartment buildings, duplexes and three-deckers. The odd
| single-family home, usually on the small side. People here
| still let their kids play in the streets. Not the youngest
| kids or the busiest streets, but it's not at all unusual to
| see some kids kicking a ball or playing hockey in the
| street, or just tooling around on bikes going nowhere.
| m_0x wrote:
| > It would be very difficult to accidentally find yourself
| on this street, driving quickly.
|
| As a parent of a 6 years old, I always assume all drivers
| are not paying attention to the road but rather to their
| phones when my kid is playing in the street (with
| supervision because I don't know if he will react quickly
| to a car coming his way)
|
| It sucks, because I used to play in the street without
| supervision (to my best knowledge). But today, cars are
| faster and drivers are more distracted.
| codetrotter wrote:
| > I used to play in the street without supervision (to my
| best knowledge)
|
| Bro, when I was a kid we went as far as to me
| intentionally walking into the street to slow cars down
| just to see what would happen ':)
|
| Kids are crazy. Myself in the past included.
| m_0x wrote:
| That's exactly why I'm sad of the precautions I take.
| Back then drivers had less distractions while driving. Of
| course there was the occasionally distracted driver but
| nowadays is more common than what it used to be thanks to
| the smartphone.
| wil421 wrote:
| Teach your kids to move out of the street and stand in
| the sidewalk or yard. My 3 year old is trained to do this
| and will do it on her own, still working on doing it 100%
| of the time.
|
| Neighborhoods have not gone up in speed limits it's 25 in
| residential streets unless you live directly off a main
| road.
| chitowneats wrote:
| If you vacate the space, you're responsible for the
| consequences.
| blendergeek wrote:
| > Not like when I was a kid where we would get ball games
| going and pause to let the cars pass. People expected kids to
| be playing in the street so didn't drive like complete
| lunatics.
|
| In my neighborhood kids play in the street all the time.
| There are basketball goals up and down my street and the kids
| pause the ball games to let the cars pass.
|
| Are you sure that you don't just live in a different place
| now?
| unixgoddess wrote:
| doesn't the noise from basketballs hitting concrete/asphalt
| drive you guys nuts?
| jakear wrote:
| It's not nearly as bad as the sound of children laughing.
| arcanemachiner wrote:
| The absolute horror.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Saw kids playing on my last walk around. It still exists in
| some places.
| wil421 wrote:
| My kids 3 and under play in the street multiple times a week
| during the summer. Our neighbors kids will come out if they
| see and vice versa.
|
| There's kids that throw footballs and baseballs most weekends
| during the warm months in the road. They move over.
|
| What kind of place are you living?
| JohnFen wrote:
| > people don't let their kids play in the street anymore so
| drivers aren't used to having them there.
|
| This must depend on where you are, because kids around here
| play in the street all the time, in residential areas.
| namuol wrote:
| There is no more-self-entitled group of jerks in the US than
| drivers like these. They expect pedestrians to be second class
| citizens. They expect acres upon acres of land to be dedicated
| to plopping their vehicle down so they don't have to walk more
| than a block. The cherry on top is that they expect everyone -
| not just car owners - to pay for their monumentally wasteful
| infrastructure and stand in the way of anything that they
| believe may threaten this frankly depressing way of life.
| setgree wrote:
| This particular case took place in Canada :)
| [deleted]
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| There are drivers like that -- a surprising lot of them, even
| -- but it's quite a leap to.say drivers are like that.
| entropicgravity wrote:
| Yes it's a God-given right until someone flips it in this judge's
| court room and points it at him. Judge 1 God 0.
| ilrwbwrkhv wrote:
| [flagged]
| burnished wrote:
| [flagged]
| freetime2 wrote:
| Here's the specific "God-given right" passage from the ruling. So
| satisfying:
|
| [168] To be abundantly clear, it is not a crime to give someone
| the finger. Flipping the proverbial bird is a God-given, Charter
| enshrined right that belongs to every red-blooded Canadian. It
| may not be civil, it may not be polite, it may not be
| gentlemanly.
|
| [169] Nevertheless, it does not trigger criminal liability.
| Offending someone is not a crime. It is an integral component of
| one's freedom of expression. Citizens are to be thicker-skinned,
| especially when they behave in ways that are highly likely to
| trigger such profanity - like driving too fast on a street where
| innocent kids are playing. Being told to "fuck off" should not
| prompt a call to 9-1-1.
| [deleted]
| rossdavidh wrote:
| I admit, it's long. But the ending was brilliant.
|
| "In the modern-day vernacular, people often refer to a criminal
| case "being thrown out". Obviously, this is little more than a
| figurative expression. Cases aren't actually thrown out, in the
| literal or physical sense. Nevertheless, in the specific
| circumstances of this case, the Court is inclined to actually
| take the file and throw it out the window, which is the only way
| to adequately express my bewilderment with the fact that Mr.
| Epstein was subjected to an arrest and a fulsome criminal
| prosecution. Alas, the courtrooms of the Montreal courthouse do
| not have windows.
|
| A mere verdict of acquittal will have to suffice."
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| Wow that's colorful for court documents.
|
| I don't see how it could have turned out any other way.
|
| I'm just surprised he was actually arrested for something
| that's obviously covered by the first amendment. This reeks
| incompetence from the district attorney, trying to intimidate
| the man out of his rights like that.
| barbazoo wrote:
| > I'm just surprised he was actually arrested for something
| that's obviously covered by the first amendment
|
| FYI, This is in Canada
| talideon wrote:
| How can you tell me that you're American without actually
| saying it? Oh, here's a way!
| tjohns wrote:
| The first amendment to the US constitution does not apply to
| Canada. Unless you believe US law is globally binding.
|
| (That said, Canada does have their own freedom of speech,
| under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.)
| SllX wrote:
| So actually it is, but not in the way that it applies to
| other countries.
|
| The First Amendment is a a flat limitation of Congressional
| power, not a rights grant. So in that way, it is globally
| binding as it applies to laws that the United States
| Congress may make as they pertain to e.g. US citizens
| residing in Canada, or really even Canadians at home or in
| the US.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > That said, Canada does have their own freedom of speech,
| under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
|
| So basically the same amendment, covering the same rights
| and inspired by the same document (pretty sure the US
| constitution came first) just under a different name.
| version_five wrote:
| Canada's charter of rights and freedoms isn't worth the
| paper it's printed on, especially in Quebec where the
| government actively pre-empts it (it has a clause that
| allows this, explaining why it's worthless) when it doesn't
| line up with their ideology.
| acover wrote:
| We grant you this right, not withstanding any desire we
| have to take it away.
| bawolff wrote:
| Its not a perfect utopia, but its not nearly as dire as
| you suggest.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > I'm just surprised he was actually arrested for something
| that's obviously covered by the first amendment
|
| >> [...] _Canadian_ Judge rules
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Americans are harassed and arrested _ALL THE TIME_ for
| obvious 1A protected speech. This is why Courts of nations
| with true free speech are very eager to push back when police
| abuse their power. This prose is just that. An absolute
| scolding.
| thfuran wrote:
| Judicial opinions are often colorful.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Read the whole thing. It's very digestible. The judge is
| absolutely _livid_ with the complainant.
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.ph/SWoUz
| ggambetta wrote:
| [flagged]
| dang wrote:
| " _Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents._ "
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| Especially please don't take HN threads into religious flamewar
| --it's easily avoidable and particularly poisonous.
| cf100clunk wrote:
| Colloquialisms abound, and they are not to be taken literally
| or we'd have actors with broken femurs everywhere in the
| English-speaking world. Understandably, colloquialisms can be
| very problematic for those learning a new language. Is that the
| situation in your case?
| [deleted]
| stametseater wrote:
| I'm an atheist but when people sneeze I still sometimes say
| "God bless." It's just a phrase at this point, nobody believes
| that Canada is a genuine theocracy.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > "Osiris bless Egypt",
|
| What is there to "feel?" Is there some reason we shouldn't let
| our basic human tolerance apply here as well?
|
| > God-given, huh.
|
| Typically, when used by governments, it's meant to mean rights
| that aren't endowed upon you by the state and thus aren't
| within the purview of the state to police or remove.
| glonq wrote:
| George Carlin has a great classic bit on "God-given" rights.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Except when I say it's God-given and the state disagrees,
| then I don't get the right. When states do it, they do it so
| that they don't become the object of frustration when they
| don't grant the right. Anyone believing it (god given, or
| natural, or universal human) is willingly letting the state
| dupe them into this arrangement at their expense and the
| benefit of the government.
| marcellus23 wrote:
| Not really following. Are you saying you have a problem with
| the idiom "God-given"?
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| If @ggambetta believes that there are people with influence
| in society who take the idiom literally then it would be
| reasonable for @ggambetta to be concerned and to have a
| problem with the idiom.
|
| Perhaps the judge could have used a more precise legal
| formula to avoid just this kind of concern.
| josefx wrote:
| > If @ggambetta believes that there are people with
| influence in society who take the idiom literally then it
| would be reasonable for @ggambetta to be concerned and to
| have a problem with the idiom.
|
| Can't the same be said for people who believe the world is
| flat? After all they believe it, so their concern about the
| round world conspiracy has to be reasonable, right?
|
| I think there might be a tiny gap in your reasoning.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| The flat earthers don't use their beliefs as a means to
| force their world view on the rest of us, plenty of god
| botherers do.
| jenadine wrote:
| I do have a problem. It's like the sexist language or the N
| word. Their just words so nothing to be offended by, right?
| But they just perpetuate and normalise the concepts. In this
| case non-sensical religious things.
| marcellus23 wrote:
| There's a pretty big gulf between this and the N word.
| cldellow wrote:
| I mean, the judge also said it was a "Charter-enshrined" right,
| but that's less punchy, so didn't make the headline.
| soperj wrote:
| I agree with the separation of Church & State.
| mirpetri wrote:
| praise the Lord
| colpabar wrote:
| I know saying "fuck the police" is an overused cliche at this
| point but how the fuck can anyone have any respect for the police
| as a whole when this is the shit they do? In canada they arrest
| you for a hand gesture and in america they arrest you for letting
| your children walk outside. How could any sane member of society
| go to a person's house and arrest them for these things? And they
| still have the nerve to complain that people don't respect them!
| Do cops in canada have discretion like american cops do?
|
| I am not completely anti-police and I do think that it's a tough
| job and is ultimately necessary for a society. But I really think
| we need to completely start over because our current
| implementation of policing is completely fucked.
| cldellow wrote:
| TBH, I think the conduct of the cops is fine here. If someone
| alleges that the other party is making death threats, I want
| them to investigate. It's not alleged that the cops mistreated
| Mr. Epstein. Obviously being arrested is traumatic, but the
| fault here lies with the unhinged neighbour, who will hopefully
| be prosecuted.
|
| What's beyond the pale for me is that the Crown prosecutor
| brought the lawsuit at all. She's even a 16-year veteran. I'd
| be interested in reporting about how this case made it to trial
| once they had collected all the evidence.
| SkeuomorphicBee wrote:
| If all the police did was investigate, then their conduct
| would have been fine. But they arrested him, and that is not
| adequate conduct.
| cldellow wrote:
| On the one hand, knowing what we know now, I certainly
| agree it would be preferable if he wasn't arrested.
|
| On the other hand, the neighbour had made at least 4
| reports to the police about harassment and death threats. I
| believe the neighbour's brother and parents had also spoken
| to the police in support of these claims. On the day of the
| arrest, the neighbour had _just_ made the most serious
| claim yet--about death threats.
|
| Given that context, I can understand why the police legally
| have the right to arrest, and would be willing to arrest.
| Rumudiez wrote:
| The kind of person it takes to make 4(!) official
| complaints and have the local police office in their
| contact list is exactly the same person to exaggerate
| dramatically, play the victim, and ultimately be the true
| source of anti-social behavior. I don't believe there's
| any veracity behind their claims, and the police
| department should have forwarded their calls to a
| therapist instead.
| vkou wrote:
| A friend[1] of mine (and his neighbours) have made a lot
| more than 4 official complaints about an absolutely
| deranged lunatic[2] on his street.
|
| It took _years_ of complaints and police calls, for the
| guy to get a court date (For harassing the neighbors and
| vandalizing their cars.)
|
| Unless you actually go through many of the steps of
| investigating, you have no idea if the person making the
| complaints is the anti-social shithead, or if the person
| being complained about is. '4 official calls = complainer
| is full of shit' is a terrible heuristic.
|
| [1] Who I trust and respect very much. I doubt that he's
| full of crap.
|
| [2] Who, from all accounts, wouldn't benefit from a fine
| or prison sentence - he needs _therapy_.
| standardUser wrote:
| "I certainly agree it would be preferable if he wasn't
| arrested."
|
| We should actually be completely fucking outraged that
| any citizen can be forcibly detained on the whim of the
| police for non-violent behavior. Yet you seem to think
| it's just fine to deny a person every basic human right
| on the whim of some cop?
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Hum... No, it's not ok for the police to arrest somebody
| only due to claims. It doesn't matter how often the
| claims are repeated.
|
| Maybe the police should have investigated it earlier, but
| lack of that earlier investigation is not cause for
| arresting him.
| duxup wrote:
| The cops weren't involved simply because of someone giving
| someone the finger.
|
| The person was accused for making death threats and that's what
| the arrest was about.
| alephxyz wrote:
| Looks like the cops did the right thing there :
|
| >In his testimony, Naccache simply says that the police treated
| it like a neighbourly dispute and accordingly declined to press
| the matter further. They were "not keen of processing a
| harassment complaint".[11] However, he conveniently omits
| mentioning what he noted in his written log.
|
| >The log reveals that, to his dismay, the police officer
| informed him that his brother Ari could have been charged with
| assault and his father Frank could have been ticketed for
| driving dangerously. In his notes, Naccache took the officer's
| warning as a "threat". He also complained that the officers did
| nothing about Mr. Epstein not wearing a COVID mask... outdoors.
| standardUser wrote:
| Hard to imagine "the right thing" ever involves using force
| to detain a citizen who poses no urgent threat and has not
| engaged in violent behavior. That detainment may be
| temporary, but it is a complete and utter denial of all basic
| human rights to the person being detained.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-10 23:00 UTC)