[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 : 507 points
Date : 2023-03-10 15:44 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (citoyens.soquij.qc.ca)
(TXT) w3m dump (citoyens.soquij.qc.ca)
| manv1 wrote:
| [flagged]
| 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.
| brailsafe wrote:
| It's the most Canadian response you can give, before choking
| someone out that is
| 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
| digitallyfree wrote:
| Yeah I was surprised that they wrote an official court
| document like that, with plenty of sarcasm and snark. I
| actually _wanted_ to keep reading it all the way to the end.
| 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!
| jfb wrote:
| I have never been prouder to have become a Canadian citizen.
| anonymousDan wrote:
| I hope the accused was awarded costs. What a bloody waste of time
| and money.
| eyelidlessness wrote:
| > He even claimed that "dipshit" is not really an insult. It is
| merely a nickname like any other; an innocuous form of slang
|
| What an amazing self own. Especially when you could very
| plausibly say you had a heated reaction and accept it with very
| minimal consequences for judgement. But by all means double down!
| klyrs wrote:
| Reminds me of the time a cop hassled me on a _really_ bad day and
| I gave him the finger as I walked away. "You're lucky I can't
| arrest you for that!" I didn't look back. Thanks, Canada, for
| being a bit better than your shithole neighbor.
| 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.
| erenyeager wrote:
| Still shows what a police state the UK is, this lady is
| arrested and she was not causing any disturbance. Do we
| really want to live in a society where people who did not
| commit a crime are locked up?
| justinclift wrote:
| > ... she was not causing any disturbance.
|
| Sounds like she was definitely disturbing the clients of
| the abortion clinic.
|
| Intimidation is a thing after all, thus the protection
| order, which she knowingly violated.
| erenyeager wrote:
| How is standing there causing disturbance? The real
| disturbance is apparent in what the police did to her.
|
| I really want you and people who hold these views to
| reflect on what the implications are if someone standing
| quietly by themselves on a street corner constitutes
| intimidation. She said she was not part of a protest.
| ck425 wrote:
| She said she wasn't but she was clearly linked. The anti-
| abortion protests that lead to the law in the first place
| commonly claimed to be "prayer vigils" and she went into
| the buffer zone, outside an abortion clinic to pray.
|
| I can see where you're coming from but at the same time
| it was a clear attempt to get as close as possible to
| protesting without breaking the law.
| snozolli wrote:
| _How can any sane person watch this video and say her
| behavior was "abhorrent?"_
|
| I'm talking about the behavior that led to the protection
| order.
|
| She's trying to play the "thought crime" angle in order
| to get the protection order repealed and pretend that
| they're being victimized. It's disingenuous.
| flextheruler wrote:
| Arresting someone for "playing the thought crime angle"
| appears no different to me than arresting someone for a
| thought crime
| 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.
| hackernewds wrote:
| It's newsworthy because Canada has taken a stance as being the
| arbiter of free speech in other regards, such as misgendering
| pronouns
|
| https://www.them.us/story/canadian-court-rules-misgendering-...
| eyelidlessness wrote:
| That seems irrelevant but consistent. In both scenarios
| they've affirmed that people have a right to just exist
| without duress against their existence. Seems obvious to me,
| but I'm just a he/them who doesn't want to be hit by asshole
| drivers being assholes and who freely gives them the finger
| when they're dangerous.
| hughw wrote:
| With respect to "sanity", I feel sure the complainant has poor
| mental health, perhaps a classifiable illness. IANAP.
| Natsu wrote:
| Can we really conclude that just because he films his
| neighbors and tries to run down their kids in the street by
| never slowing for small children playing and keeps a diary
| about them and tells the judge the neighbor is out to murder
| them?
|
| Yes, yes we can.
| brailsafe wrote:
| The suburbs are ironically, but not so surprisingly filled with
| crazy assholes that feel like the world belongs to them, or
| otherwise have some absurd levels of entitlement. They feel
| like they own the sidewalks, or if there's no sidewalks, they
| own the street and everything on it or not on it in front of
| their house, they feel like they should control whether or not
| a marginally higher density building should be built down the
| street or whether a neighbor can paint their house a different
| colour. When there's no land left, they want more cul-de-sacs
| built for them because it's the suburban dream and fuck
| wetlands anyway, and when there's no social services left, they
| want new ones built for them at everyone else's expense and
| they don't really want to be part of a community; they want to
| be by themselves, on their fat asses, in front of their fucking
| TV, the only quality of which they understand is how big it is.
|
| I absolutely loath that world and never want to return.
| 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.
| belval wrote:
| I think we are in agreement here, the "basic sanity" is
| throwing this case out the window. There is nothing sane
| about the neighbour's behaviour.
| Gigachad wrote:
| Guy should lose his license for life for threatening to
| murder a child with a vehicle.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "If you look past the headline, this story is almost "basic
| sanity""
|
| Actually, I think "basic sanity" would have been, if the
| accuser would have been charged with something - as clearly
| they were the aggressors and actually intentionally endangering
| children.
|
| And the judge seems to think so as well, but it seems all he
| could do in his position, was to metaphorical throw the case
| out of the non existing window. (if I am ever charged with
| something, I hope I am to be judged by someone like him)
| olliej wrote:
| > And the judge seems to think so as well, but it seems all
| he could do in his position, was to metaphorical throw the
| case out of the non existing window.
|
| Judges aren't prosecutors, by design they cannot bring
| charges against people. Otherwise the prosecutor/judge
| separation would be a nonsense.
|
| > if I am ever charged with something, I hope I am to be
| judged by someone like him
|
| Unless you're a crazed and/or paranoid nightmare neighbour :D
| 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?
| justinclift wrote:
| Turn up your music so you can't hear it? :)
| unixgoddess wrote:
| people who dislike noise usually dislike music too
| justinclift wrote:
| Interesting. Not sure how common that really is.
|
| For me, I personally have times where I don't like some
| noises (annoying, etc). My solution at those times is
| generally to find some music I'm ok listening to (through
| headphones) and drown out the noise that way.
|
| As you mention though, if it's "any noise at all", then
| that's going to be tough.
| blendergeek wrote:
| Nope! The only noise in my neighborhood that sometimes
| annoys me is loud music, but I like people to be able to
| enjoy themselves.
| unixgoddess wrote:
| for many people enjoying themselves means being able to
| enjoy their own home without being forced to listen to
| other people excessive noise even through closed windows.
| jakear wrote:
| It's not nearly as bad as the sound of children laughing.
| unixgoddess wrote:
| for many people there's nothing beautiful in a child's
| laughter, especially if they don't have children of their
| own, so they are only getting the annoyance of noise
| without the good parts.
|
| moreover, in my experience, when children play, 80% of
| their interactions is ugly insult-throwing, not laughter.
|
| Also, why should the wishes of a group (children) be more
| important than those of another (those who wish to enjoy
| some quiet in their own home)?
|
| In this case, it would be easy to reach a compromise. You
| want to play basketball? go to a proper public park. You
| want to sing your lungs off? go to a proper karaoke
| place. And so on.
|
| Also, what's the beauty of a laughter achieved at the
| expense of others' pain?
| barry-cotter wrote:
| If you don't want to be exposed to other people live
| somewhere you can't see your nearest neighbour.
| arcanemachiner wrote:
| The absolute horror.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Way better than listening to traffic.
| blendergeek wrote:
| My old place was on a Stroad with cars flying by at 40+
| mph. I hated the car noise with a passion. I'll take
| children having good time over traffic noise any day.
| 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?
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| > people don't let their kids play in the street anymore
|
| Careful not to generalise here. This will vary wildly from
| place to place and street to street. Here in the Netherlands
| with limitations on cars I see the streets busy with children
| year round.
|
| I can't speak for Canada, not having been there, but I read
| favorable coverage on urban design channels different
| localities there who have committed to pedestrian friendly
| designs. It wouldn't surprise me if the street was quiet and
| designed with safety of children and other vulnerable users
| in mind.
| Beldin wrote:
| Caveat: i read in another comment that the speed limit was
| 25 mph. That's over 40 km/hr. In .nl, speeds on roads in
| residential areas are typically limited to 30 km/hr (18
| mph). And in woonerven, streets designed to enable kids
| playing on them, speed is limited to walking speed - by
| judicial ruling, 15km/hr (9 mph).
| 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.
| [deleted]
| throwawaaarrgh wrote:
| > I don't see why this would be hackernews-worthy
|
| Garbage is submitted literally constantly, but some stuff is
| just upvote-bait, and the mods are pretty lax about pushing
| anything off the front page unless it particularly irks them
| namuol wrote:
| [flagged]
| setgree wrote:
| This particular case took place in Canada :)
| dang wrote:
| Ok, but please don't fulminate on HN. We're trying for
| something else here, as
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html explains.
| [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.
| namuol wrote:
| All that matters is that _enough_ of them are like this.
| 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.
| eqvinox wrote:
| [78] At the time of the events, his daughters were 2 and 4 years
| old. [...]
|
| [80] At trial, there is no evidence before me suggesting these
| young children form a criminal or terrorist organization.
| aleister_777 wrote:
| But honking will get your bank accounts seized and have you
| declared a terrorist.
| ilrwbwrkhv wrote:
| [flagged]
| burnished wrote:
| [flagged]
| djha-skin wrote:
| No one should get arrested for expressing their opinion.
|
| That being said, just because you _can_ give someone the finger,
| doesn 't mean you _should_.
| olliej wrote:
| You should read the ruling. If anyone deserves the finger it
| would be this dude and his family. After one of them assaulted
| the victim, multiple threatened to hit their kids, they
| accusing his flipping the bird at them as being a death threat
| with a "throat slitting" gesture.
| ChoGGi wrote:
| He first gave the finger, then I'm guessing gave him a two
| fingered chin flick. At least when they had the jack hammer
| confrontation.
| 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.
| hackernewds wrote:
| > Offending someone is not a crime
|
| except when in Canada, you do not acquiesce to calling someone
| by their chosen gender pronoun
|
| https://www.them.us/story/canadian-court-rules-misgendering-...
| matbatt38 wrote:
| Are you done complaining about other people's rights? Why
| would you bring that up?
| cleanchit wrote:
| Not using proper pronouns is putting mental strain on a
| mentally ill person. Imagine blowing smoke in the face of an
| asthma patient.
| barry-cotter wrote:
| You think all transgender people are mentally ill?
| gameman144 wrote:
| Just to be clear, is this your actual position? In other
| words, it should be illegal to cause mental strain on a
| mentally ill person?
| cleanchit wrote:
| It should be illegal to finger someone's wound
| gameman144 wrote:
| But like... this isn't a wound?
|
| The fact that something causes me anguish isn't the only
| factor in whether other people should be _allowed_ to do
| that thing.
|
| E.g. maybe I've had traumatic experiences around being
| called stupid, and whenever I perceive others as thinking
| I'm dumb, I remove those experiences. Should it be
| illegal for people to call me an idiot in such cases?
| aprilnya wrote:
| notice how this case (OP) is not in a workplace, and happened
| once, meanwhile the pronoun case is _in a workplace, and a
| repeated pattern of behavior_
|
| there's a difference between telling your neighbor to fuck
| off and your manager intentionally constantly harassing you
| at work then firing you for it
| joseph_grobbles wrote:
| [dead]
| klyrs wrote:
| That's a human rights tribunal, which is basically a lawsuit
| in a fancy hat. Not a crime.
| jakeogh wrote:
| Incrementalism. Its exceptionally effective. Before we know
| it, a comedian will train his dog to show us.
| klyrs wrote:
| Lol you yanks have an actual fascist movement underway
| passing laws against books and education and free
| expression and here you are repeating their talking
| points concern-trolling like free speech is under attack
| in Canada. Get your own house in order.
| freetime2 wrote:
| There's no rule that says you can't be critical of
| another country's policies just because your own country
| also has problems. After all, there are 330 million
| people living in the US and you can't hold the parent
| responsible for all of them.
| klyrs wrote:
| Did I, with any authority, say GP _can 't_ repeat
| Republican FUD? Or did I merely have a critical response?
|
| Republicans _love_ to point to other countries as
| boogeymen, "they're coming for your freeeeedoms" all the
| while: through fear and scapegoat and boogeymen and
| "religious conviction" they fight tooth and claw to take
| freedoms away.
| freetime2 wrote:
| You also seem to be assuming the parent is a Republican,
| and holds a certain set of beliefs and political opinions
| beyond what they have stated above.
| klyrs wrote:
| I assume nothing of the sort. Their profile identifies
| them as a resident of the US, so I called 'em a Yankee.
| That they're spreading Republican FUD doesn't make them
| Republican. _Anybody_ can repeat Fox "News" talking
| points. Hell, I'm sure I have at some time or another.
| Doesn't mean they necessarily agree with every single
| thing that comes out of Fibbin' Tucker's lying mouth.
| freetime2 wrote:
| Why do you assume they were influenced by Republican FUD
| for warning about the dangers of Incrementalism? I have
| heard many such "slippery-slope" arguments from people of
| all political persuasions (even though it is considered a
| logical fallacy).
|
| Saying they are "repeating talking points" also implies
| they have not thought deeply on the issue and considered
| multiple points of view before arriving at this
| conclusion - or simply arrived at this position from
| their own judgment - which of course we have no way of
| knowing based on what they said.
| hn_throwaway_69 wrote:
| Australian here. I find the excessive emotive flair throughout
| the judgment as pressing the boundaries on occasion. A court is
| supposed to act impartially and emotions kept in check. This kind
| of language could be appealable in Australia, see for instance,
| this news report from yesterday:
|
| https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-10/dismissal-of-assault-...
|
| Maybe it's just more common in Canada for judges to be more
| forthright with their opinions.
| procavia wrote:
| This is in a very different vein than the language in that
| story and not equivalent
| charles_f wrote:
| > A court is supposed to act impartially and emotions kept in
| check
|
| What are you talking about? The whole point of a court is, by
| very definition, to judge
| WeylandYutani wrote:
| God should be written out of the Constitution.
| unhammer wrote:
| Reminds me of https://www-dagsavisen-
| no.translate.goog/nyheter/innenriks/2... where swearing at a
| police officer in Norway was "ok in this instance since they're
| both northeners and that's just how they talk up there", while in
| other cases people have been given fines.
| [deleted]
| eth0up wrote:
| Digitus impudicus - the middle finger and the law:
|
| https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/03/middl...
| rektide wrote:
| I feel this. I'm late to the party. But... I want to counter
| ask... how do folks feel about honking? Is honking a god-given
| right? Does this vary from giving the finger? How and why?
|
| I don't have great answers for all the above. But I seriously
| wholeheartedly embrace the idea of giving people the finger, and
| I seriously am fed up with all the honking shit and don't think
| people are entitled to >50% of it (and should be punished for
| it). And I don't really see or get how to navigate these two
| "protests", what maxims to apply, how to see these cases which I
| think have different judgements as actually different.
|
| Maybe it's just the social cost: a personal insult of a middle
| finger versus a civically-disturbing loud horn blow. And that
| kind of checks out. This decision feels right on to me (which I
| understand countries like Germany _highly_ disagree on atm): you
| 're free to express that. Maybe the social cost is that, once you
| start using a very loud system of alert as a way to indicate
| anger, you dilute the exigency of this alert system, become a
| cause of false-alarm that creates a real risk that real-alarm
| goes unnoted. Maybe that's a good enough case against letting
| drivers honk, a check.
|
| But to go back to the general: this decision is about not
| limiting, but what are the limits? What are problematic
| displeasures? What lines shouldn't we accept? If someone flips
| the bird, how much counter-permission do you have to be a terror?
| This case suggests flipping the bird back might be a counter-God-
| given-right, but can we scream our head off back? Can we honk for
| the next 5 minutes after seeing someone flip a bird at us? Can we
| drive aggressively?
| denton-scratch wrote:
| In the UK, the Highway Code is clear that the horn may be used
| only to alert another driver of your presence. It is preferable
| to flash your lights, especially late at night. It is not
| permissible to use the horn to celebrate a sports victory, to
| signal sympathy with a striker's picket, to demand that another
| driver get out of your way, or for any other purpose than to
| signal your presence.
|
| The Highway Code isn't law, but you are required to be familiar
| with it to get a driving licence, and failure to comply will
| predispose courts to find you guilty if you are charged with
| harrassment, obstruction, intimidation and so on.
|
| Dunno how it works in Canada.
| Beldin wrote:
| Dunno about your jurisdiction; around here there are nuisance
| laws and traffic laws pertaining to honking that a honker would
| quickly run afoul of.
| gerdesj wrote:
| I have no idea what a UK version of this transcript would look
| like but I rather enjoyed this one from Canada.
|
| The Decision is spelt out with exquisite precision throughout the
| entire document. King Charles III's Justice is quite clearly very
| well dispensed in Canada.
| raattgift wrote:
| tl;dr: <https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-
| content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Ju...> (wiki overview
| <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_joke_trial#cite_ref-
| Hi...>), which summarizes the very different first-instance
| trial (in England & Wales) of _Chambers_ from this first-
| instance trial of _Epstein_ (in Canada). In particular,
| Chambers was accused of threatening to blow up an airport,
| which is rather different than giving someone a finger. The
| finger was meant seriously, whereas the "threat" was clearly
| not meant seriously, and the conviction of Chambers is widely
| considered a miscarriage of justice that was only belatedly
| corrected. I am fairly sure that to the extent the Canadian
| acquittal becomes widely know, it will be considered a correct
| and just outcome.
|
| The UK has at least three different criminal jurisdictions. The
| most readily comparable one is that of England & Wales ("E&W").
| Most criminal law in modern times flows from legislation in the
| various parliaments based at Westminster in London
| ("Westminster" for short), however in Scotland and Northern
| Ireland there is law that is variously old enough to predate
| Westminster's legislative control; there is also old law in
| England and Wales together and separately; and finally there is
| new law legislated by the devolved assemblies in Wales,
| Scotland and Northern Ireland.
|
| In terms of criminal law, there has been a sort of quasi-
| federalism in the UK and its predecessor kingdoms for
| centuries.
|
| In Canada there is only one criminal law, and it is exclusively
| controlled by the federal parliament.
|
| In England & Wales the criminal law is generally not codified;
| one finds criminal offences were (and continue to be) created
| in topical legislation, for instance there are new criminal
| offences throughout the Landlord Tenant Act, 1985, a topical
| act rebalancing landlord-tenant responsibilities and
| liabilities. In _Chambers_ , the topical Communications Act,
| 2003, created the relevant criminal offence.
|
| The Criminal Code of Canada is (practically) the only place
| where criminal offences can be itemized, and the creation of
| new offences require an amendment to the Criminal Code. These
| amendments are usually done in standalone Acts of Parliament,
| however from time to time a topical Act may amend the Criminal
| Code. When that happens, the Code is where one looks to
| understand the criminal law, not the Act which amended it.
|
| The Code is meant to be uniformly applied and interpreted in
| every province and territory. However, as in most systems in
| which criminal law is _codified_ , the code is not especially
| verbose nor exhaustive of possibilites (the law is not a
| computer program), and first-instance courts (and appellate
| courts) can resolve a prosecution with a particular set of
| facts differently from one another. Sometimes differences in
| the highest appellate courts in provinces are dealt with by
| modifications to the Criminal Code by the federal parliament;
| sometimes the matters are resolved by the Supreme Court of
| Canada; sometimes the differents are just left different, and
| typically those are situations which will require such unusual
| circumstances that they will never be comparable to
| prosecutions (for the same criminal code offence) brought
| elsewhere in Canada.
|
| In _Epstein_ the judgment makes reference to various paragraphs
| of the _Criminal Code_. The Court did not see the need to make
| explicit reference to paragraphs in the _Charter of Rights and
| Freedoms_ , which is part of the Canadian constitution.
|
| In _Chambers_ the judgment makes explicit reference to the (UK)
| Human Rights Act, 1998, ( "UKHRA") and articles of the European
| Convention on Human Rights (which UKHRA imported into the laws
| of England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, etc.). It also
| looks to other sources of law to consider what was meant by the
| wording of the Communications Act, by referenes to other
| legislation (e.g. the Malicious Communications Act, 1988) and
| case law (DPP v Collins (2006)).
|
| Epstein was acquitted at trial. Chambers was convicted, but
| ultimately the High Court (in the chain of appeals against the
| initial conviction) quashed the conviction.
|
| The judgments share some features, namely the use of long
| numbered paragraphs, and a detailed itemization of the law and
| evidence considered by the two Courts. Some court systems using
| codified criminal law tend to have very short judgments, and an
| acquittal might be memoralized in a single short paragraph
| which might take the form of, "the conditions for the
| conviction of the accused were not met so he is not convicted".
| This is fairly common in systems which descend from 19th
| century French law (Quebec is not an example; it lost legal
| ties to France before then) or which have been highly
| influenced by it in the 20th and 21st centuries.
|
| Finally, King Charles III of Canada is not really involved in
| matters of Canadian criminal law. The Constitution of Canada
| obliges him to delegate legislative, executive, prosecutorial,
| and judicial authority to Canadian institutions. The (less
| consolidated but very much written) constitution of the United
| Kingdom likewise ousts its monarch from a significant role in
| shaping and enforcing the criminal laws in the various UK
| jurisdictions; those powers are exercised by Parliament (or the
| national legislatures), various executive bodies and various
| courts. Nobody would take the expression "King Charles III's
| Justice" seriously in either country, although in some contexts
| one would hear pretty much exactly that formalism being uttered
| as an essentially empty tradition.
| lxe wrote:
| This is a great read! Never thought a judgment can be this fun,
| Why is the King prosecuting this?
| ttul wrote:
| It is indeed shocking that this poor man was arrested, charged,
| and taken through a full prosecution despite the obviously flawed
| evidence. The crown prosecutor erred so greatly in taking this
| case on that it strains belief. In Canada, the crown turns down
| all sorts of cases if they aren't highly confident they can win.
| This one? Prosecutors are appointed, not elected. They have
| nothing to gain from such legal tourism and whomever brought this
| case forward will have a black mark on their credentials for some
| time.
| EntrePrescott wrote:
| leaving aside the show of incompetence of that specific "crown
| prosecutor", what I find even far more shocking is that in 2023
| there still is such a thing as a "crown prosecutor". I'd say
| it's high time to gain full independence and throw the English
| "crown" out of Canada.
| JeremyBanks wrote:
| [dead]
| zemnmez wrote:
| "the crown" is an idea stemming from english constitutional
| law representing "the state", i.e. the legal entity
| constituting the country. It doesn't have a lot to do with
| the physical monarch except in metaphor. It looks like, based
| on some Googling, that Jamaica, which is a republic (canada
| is not) still uses the term "crown" in this sense:
| https://www.mof.gov.jm/careers/crown-counsel-mlss-legal-
| serv...
| mod50ack wrote:
| Jamaica, like Canada, is not a republic.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| "English constitutional law" is any English law that
| pertains to something you consider to be "constitution".
|
| The term "Crown" used to mean the prosecution in criminal
| cases derives from the actions of Henry I and particularly
| Henry II, in despatching teams of royal justices around the
| country, to hear cases in the provinces. Previously, such
| cases were heard mainly in baronial courts. In that sense,
| these kings made the English law more uniform, and more
| accessible.
|
| One of the customary requirements of kings was that they
| should dispense justice. One of the classes of court in the
| UK is Crown Courts, which hear criminal cases in front of
| juries (and appeals from magistrates courts). They are not
| controlled by The Crown, and the judges are not appointed
| by The Crown.
|
| In theory, the government here governs by the grace of The
| Crown; everything is by grace of The Crown. In practice,
| it's nonsense.
| peeters wrote:
| I don't know who exactly made the decision to let the case get
| this far, but it's worth noting the judge explicitly credits
| crown counsel with suggesting an acquittal:
|
| > [7] After Mr. Epstein testified in chief, in a tremendous
| display of professionalism and objectivity, Crown counsel
| declined to cross-examine him since, in her view, it was not in
| the public interest to do so. Instead, she humbly invited the
| Court to enter an acquittal. Having heard the evidence, I can
| unreservedly confirm that she made the right call. Counsel's
| integrity was commendable.
|
| One thing that I found in reading the judgement was that
| French/English tensions came into play (the accused was
| Anglophone, the complainant had taken exception to him speaking
| English) which is a political hot topic in Quebec right now.
| It's possible there were some political motivations in play.
| mihaaly wrote:
| Mrs Smith sues his neighbour for calling her cow publicly all the
| time and wins the case. On the end of the ruling the neighbour
| asks the judge: - Does this mean I cannot call Mrs Smith
| cow from now on? - That is right. - But can I still
| call a cow Mrs Smith? - Yes, that you can do. The
| neighbour turns to Mrs Smith with a big sarcastic smile: -
| See you later Mrs Smith!
| phkahler wrote:
| Another great nugget:
|
| >> This deplorable Laval reference is worthy of an eye roll that
| could sever both optical nerves.
|
| When a Karen presses charges...
| kl4m wrote:
| For those wondering, the Laval reference is this:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laval_daycare_bus_crash
| ttul wrote:
| For those who don't know Montreal, Laval is a suburb of the
| city. It's mostly white, French-speaking majority has been in
| decline for years relative to newcomers who speak other
| languages - including anglophone Canadian. The complainants in
| the case are definitely Quebecois and emblematic of the
| resentment toward newcomers expressed by many.
| aga98mtl wrote:
| Michael, Ari and Frank Naccache are not typical Quebecois
| names. I would guess they are either Mizrahi jewish or
| Lebanese.
| simonlc wrote:
| Laval is its own city.
| iisan7 wrote:
| This whole episode recalls _A Confederacy of Dunces_ vividly with
| Naccache as Reilly.
| 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
| tonyarkles wrote:
| To be fair, despite being Canada, the judge agrees with
| you. At the start:
|
| > [5] To the complainants, the presence of young families
| outside it is a source of scorn and vivid resentment that
| ultimately spilled over into a criminal complaint against
| their neighbour. A school teacher. A caring father of two
| young daughters who committed no crime whatsoever. A man
| who has somehow been subjected to criminal charges for
| almost two years.
|
| > [6] This injustice ends today.
|
| And at the end:
|
| > [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.
|
| > [170] On that topic, the evidence in the case at bar
| established that even after the accused's arrest, therefore
| after the period covered by these charges, Michael Naccache
| called the police again to report that Mr. Epstein's wife
| had given them the finger while walking on the street.[55]
|
| > [171] This needs to stop. The complainants are free to
| clutch their pearls in the face of such an insult. However,
| the police department and the 9-1-1 dispatching service
| have more important priorities to address.
| rhaway84773 wrote:
| What a great judge.
|
| They have crystallized all the issues with this bullshit
| in a really straightforward, yet persuasive and hilarious
| way.
| [deleted]
| jwalton wrote:
| Yes, but there's no first amendment in Canada. There's
| the Charter of Rights and Freedoms at the federal level,
| and the Charte des droits et libertes de la personne at
| the provincial level.
| barry-cotter wrote:
| The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is meaningless given
| the notwithstanding clause. The government can violate
| the "rights" in the Charter as long as they're willing to
| pass legislation to do so every five years.
|
| https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/notwith
| sta...
| tonyarkles wrote:
| Section 1 doesn't even require the every-five-years bit,
| the violation just needs to be "demonstrably justified in
| a free and democratic society". Drinking and driving laws
| and traffic checkstops, for example, fall under this;
| there's no evidence that a crime as been committed or any
| probable cause at all at the moment you're being
| temporarily detained, and it's a crime to refuse to
| provide a road-side breath sample. Both of these have
| been assessed by the SCC and determined to, yes, be
| charter violations, and yes, perfectly ok because they're
| justified in a free and democratic society.
| karaterobot wrote:
| God help you, you made an honest mistake, and now everybody
| gets to jump down your throat about it. Here's an upvote from
| one of the few people on HN who occasionally commits and
| error and can sympathize.
| Beldin wrote:
| Moreover, GP's got a point: it cannot be good for your
| career as a prosecutor to have such a verdict on your
| record.
|
| Every second point is the judge tearing the case to
| shreds... your boss would wonder why you didn't catch that
| yourself.
| tharkun__ wrote:
| Looking at this he made no mistake at all and is rightfully
| being voted into oblivion.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35102169
| 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.
| bawolff wrote:
| Its not the first amendment to the canadian constitution
| (hello manitoba) and the specifics of the rights granted
| and their limitations are different [sometimes very
| different than usa. E.g. gay marriage and abortion].
|
| Additionally prior to the charter canada had some limited
| freedom of speech from the implied bill of rights, so its
| not like it introduced it.
| SonicScrub wrote:
| The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was inspired
| by documents such as the 1948 United Nations Universal
| Declaration of Human Rights. Other international
| influences included the 1950 European Convention for the
| Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and
| the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political
| Rights. The concept of individual freedoms existed in
| Canada long before the Charter was put pen to paper, as
| it inherited its culture from European origins, where
| elightenment ideals had been evolving since the 17th
| century. So the Charter and the US Constitution are
| similar (but do differ in a few important areas) because
| they are derived from the same set of values.
| mannerheim wrote:
| Not really freedom of speech if the legislature can just
| decide not to care about it.
| 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.
| FpUser wrote:
| Got nothing to do with Quebec in particular. Every
| Canadian province and feds can invoke Not Withstanding
| Clause which is basically fuck you and your rights.
| bawolff wrote:
| I think the point is that quebec has a longer history of
| invoking the notwithstanding clause, where in other
| provinces it is slightly more taboo. And even when
| invoked in other provinces, it often ends up not really
| being used (either turns out not to be needed, law not
| brought into force, or law declared unconstitutional
| despite notwithstanding clause).
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Violating the Charter was one of the core arguments in
| this decision.
|
| So... no.
| version_five wrote:
| Sounds like you've got a clear understanding of the
| situation
| Waterluvian wrote:
| No more clear than simply reading the decision including
| the parts where the judge states that it would violate
| Charter rights.
|
| "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."
| mannerheim wrote:
| Part of the Charter is that the legislature can write
| that they're going to violate it and it'll be OK
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Oh well then throw it all out. Completely useless.
| mannerheim wrote:
| I'm just saying, you don't really have freedom of speech
| if the government can decide to violate it if they feel
| like it.
|
| Edit: I'm apparently rate-limited. Anyway, if words on
| paper don't mean anything, then bringing up the Charter
| as evidence that Canadians have free speech is completely
| irrelevant.
|
| Second, the notwithstanding clause isn't a theoretical
| possibility.
|
| > I find my American friends sometimes freak out over the
| "but they could take your freedoms away!" when they read
| about stuff like that. Well, yeah they could do anything.
| Like make secret courts that ignore constitutional
| freedoms.
|
| This is a cute way of pretending the clause is never
| used.
| krapp wrote:
| The government can decide to violate any freedom you
| think you have at any time for any reason regardless of
| what any law may or may not say. Freedoms are social
| constructs, nothing more. They exist to the degree that
| people believe in them.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| It's also written somewhere that I'm subject to a king,
| so I'm not really free anyways.
|
| Also I don't actually own any land. It all belongs to my
| king. That's written down too.
|
| This is actually a really fascinating subject but not for
| a Friday night. Long story short: what's written, and
| what actually is, are often quite different. I find my
| American friends sometimes freak out over the "but they
| _could_ take your freedoms away!" when they read about
| stuff like that. Well, yeah they could do anything. Like
| make secret courts that ignore constitutional freedoms.
|
| I think it's healthier to be aware that it's all a social
| construct that demands political activism.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > I find my American friends sometimes freak out over the
| "but they could take your freedoms away!" when they read
| about stuff like that
|
| But did they?
|
| > It's also written somewhere that I'm subject to a king,
| so I'm not really free anyways. Also I don't actually own
| any land. It all belongs to my king. That's written down
| too.
|
| Is it something that people are proud of? A big part of
| the culture?
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Nobody here really cares about the monarchy beyond the
| novelty. But we don't feel threatened by the fact that
| technically the monarchy has sweeping powers to dissolve
| government and walk away with our freedoms. Heck we
| aren't even accumulating weapons just in case!
| bawolff wrote:
| > But we don't feel threatened by the fact that
| technically the monarchy has sweeping powers to dissolve
| government and walk away with our freedoms.
|
| FWIW, technically they do not have that power. In a
| constitutional monarchy the monarch is subject to the
| constitution. The king can't technically abolish canadian
| parliment anymore than the us president would be able to
| technically abolish congress.
|
| Of course there is a certain truth to the idea that its
| all a social construct, and anyone can abolish the
| government if they are backed by a large enough number of
| people with guns.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > But we don't feel threatened by the fact that
| technically the monarchy has sweeping powers to dissolve
| government and walk away with our freedoms.
|
| > Heck we aren't even accumulating weapons just in case!
|
| Not like you could do anything about it, seeing as the
| monarch took the guns!
| [deleted]
| foldr wrote:
| >Not like you could do anything about it, seeing as the
| monarch took the guns!
|
| This is silly. Canada is free to legislate however it
| wants on gun ownership. King Charles has nothing to do
| with it.
| frenchy wrote:
| > Canada's charter of rights and freedoms isn't worth the
| paper it's printed on
|
| While this is certainly technically true, the charter is
| something of a representation of the social contract that
| already existed between Canadians and their government,
| and given that we are a country of common law, that does
| mean something.
| SECProto wrote:
| > and given that we are a country of common law,
|
| technically, Quebec has civil law [1] for a portion of
| their legal system. If we're being pedantic :)
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_law
| acover wrote:
| We grant you this right, not withstanding any desire we
| have to take it away.
| refurb wrote:
| No to mention the rather flippant suspension of Charter
| Rights during the Trucker Convoy.
| rhaway84773 wrote:
| Blockades are not fundamental rights. Honking is not a
| fundamental right. Situating massive private objects on
| public property is not a fundamental right.
|
| Also, the government declared a state of emergency, the
| whole point of which is to create a temporary environment
| where certain rights may be ignored.
|
| I don't see the government of Quebec declaring an
| emergency because of an epidemic of people flipping the
| bird before proceeding with legal proceedings against
| this guy.
|
| There's literally no comparison between the 2 situations.
|
| You may disagree with declaration of emergency, and there
| are ways for the people to protest that. Doesn't seem
| like the vast majority of Canadians were interested.
|
| There may have been issues with the response to the
| trucker blockade. But an illegal suppression of
| fundamental rights wasn't one of them.
| refurb wrote:
| How about donating to a cause?
|
| _So-called "Freedom Convoy" protesters were ultimately
| responsible if banks froze their accounts under the
| Emergencies Act last winter, but the government was not
| trying to "punish" those who took part, senior
| bureaucrats said Thursday._
|
| The government set a precedent that donating to causes
| deemed "threatening" is worthy of an emergency freeze on
| your bank account.
|
| Well done. Canada.
| labster wrote:
| I know, what about our Charter rights to fund terrorists?
|
| Seriously, there is a line between civil disobedience and
| uncivil disobedience, and they crossed it.
| refurb wrote:
| This comment is exactly why we need Charter Rights the
| government can't easily suspend. The utter lack of
| understanding of why these protections are needed is
| astounding. I wonder what they are teaching the kids in
| school.
|
| The government (and voters) won't hesitate to call the
| opposition "terrorists" and claim donating $5 to a cause
| is "supporting terrorism" and freeze your bank account so
| you can't pay rent or buy food.
|
| It's really scary. This time it's the other side, next
| time it's you.
| bawolff wrote:
| From what i understand, a significant portion of those
| people would have had their bank accounts frozen from
| civil lawsuits anyways. So even without the emergencies
| act it was likely to happen anyways.
|
| > This time it's the other side, next time it's you.
|
| First they came for the violent criminals, and i did not
| speak up because i wasn't a violent criminal... oh wait
| i'm actually totally ok with that.
| unmole wrote:
| Blowing horns is a violent crime? No, wait. Donating to
| people blowing horns is a violent crime?
| bawolff wrote:
| If the horns are loud enough to cause permenent hearing
| loss, than yes (these weren't just car horns). Allegedly
| they were significantly above that threshold, even from
| inside buildings.
|
| There's also mental torture aspect of doing it 24/7
| (literally a tactic used in war to break troops).
|
| Additionally people living in the area reported
| experiencing significant harrasment from protestors.
| refurb wrote:
| A donation to a cause is now a "violent crime"?
| bawolff wrote:
| It doesn't seem like anybody who donated had anything
| happen to them.
|
| However, generally speaking people who give money to
| someone in order to further a criminal act are comitting
| a criminal act. This is hardly a new concept.
| unmole wrote:
| > terrorists
|
| Right, honking horns and blocking roads is pretty much
| the same as setting off bombs and murdering people for
| political ends.
| IncRnd wrote:
| If people don't educate themselves on why the government
| acts against others, then when the government acts
| against them, who will listen to their cries?
| Nursie wrote:
| That doesn't say donor accounts were frozen.
|
| There appears to be little evidence that donors had their
| accounts frozen. Accounts receiving those donations were.
| refurb wrote:
| _"Just to be clear, a financial contribution either
| through a crowdsourced platform or directly, could result
| in their bank account being frozen?" Conservative MP
| Philip Lawrence asked Department of Finance Assistant
| Deputy Minister Isabelle Jacques.
|
| "Yes," she replied._
|
| https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/even-small-
| donation-t...
| defrost wrote:
| Followed by:
|
| _Such action, she said, would only be taken on donations
| made after Feb. 15's emergency declaration and isn't
| retroactive -- adding such a case would be "very
| unlikely," but definitely possible._
|
| The main solid takeaway from that article is that 206
| accounts were definitely frozen .. accounts that very
| probably donations were flowing into.
|
| The rest of the article is weasel phrased, there are
| allegations of _donors_ having their accounts frozen but
| no corroboration and then later details on how some of
| those stories don 't add up.
|
| A solid reference would be the actual public records that
| were requested to be kept: The
| committee gave unanimous consent to a motion tabled by
| Chambers compelling government departments and agencies
| to report weekly to the committee on how many accounts
| they'd recommended frozen, who owned them and the reasons
| thereof.
| refurb wrote:
| Who cares if it was "only after the emergency
| declaration"? Who cares if it wasn't "retroactive"? Who
| care if the government is sending updates on who they
| freeze?
|
| Those sound like a lot of attempts to say "oh, seizing
| people's assets without trial for the crime of a small
| donation only happened to a few people, so no big deal".
|
| Some blue collar guy trying to make ends meets hears
| about the protest after the emergency and says "yeah, I
| think the government is overstepping, I'm going to send
| $10 in support". Never stepped foot in Ottawa, never
| blocked any bridges, never honked any horns. Now his bank
| account is frozen and he can't pay the rent.
|
| How in _any way_ is that acceptable in a country that
| claims to respect person freedoms? These are the tactics
| you 'd expect from authoritarian systems. I used to laugh
| at the irony when Vietnam would charge some protestor for
| "abusing democratic freedoms", but hey, that's kinda what
| Canada did.
|
| People should be _really pissed off_ that it happens at
| all. But you know what, I 'm ok if people aren't that
| pissed off. What's more maddening are people who saying
| "yeah, that should have happened. In fact, I'm glad it
| happened".
|
| Jesus Christ Canada. I don't know what it is with
| Commonwealth countries but you see places like New
| Zealand and Australia doing the same. "The right of the
| state supersede the rights of the individual".
| maximilianburke wrote:
| Commonwealth countries follow the principle of "peace,
| order, and good government," rather than "life, liberty,
| and the pursuit of happiness".
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace,_order,_and_good_gove
| rnm...
| defrost wrote:
| > Some blue collar guy trying to make ends meets hears
| about the protest ..
|
| > Now his bank account is frozen and he can't pay the
| rent.
|
| Where does your linked article say that happened though?
|
| The article does not say that the frozen accounts were
| donor accounts ( ie accounts of blue collar workers ).
|
| The part you highlighted was in response to a question
| about whether that _might_ happen .. and the response was
| it 's technically _possible_ .. but pretty unlikely.
| tonyarkles wrote:
| One of the most frustrating things about that whole
| situation with the Emergencies Act is the people
| simultaneously shouting "they have to use it, it's the
| only way for them to have the power to shut it down!" and
| "no one's rights are being violated!"
|
| I found the final report on the whole EA invocation to be
| reasonable. It found that the use of the EA was
| warranted, but also made it crystal clear that a) other
| people could look at the same facts and come to a
| different conclusion, and b) that the only reason it got
| to the point where it needed to be invoked was due to
| government incompetence at the municipal, provincial, and
| federal level.
| rhaway84773 wrote:
| While I agree with most of your comment, I don't think
| the application of emergency necessarily contradicts
| fundamental rights.
|
| For example, a truck may be allowed to park on a road for
| a while. They are allowed to honk occasionally as needed
| while driving. This is completely legal. However, that
| doesn't mean they have a fundamental right to park
| private objects in public space and disturb the peace by
| honking unnecessarily for extended periods of time.
|
| Laws allow people to do a lot more than just what
| fundamental rights allow. Often those laws will never
| consider scenarios that are not fundamental rights but
| are possibly hurting the fundamental rights of others,
| and then for practical reasons, an emergency would be the
| only way to resolve the situation in a reasonable amount
| of time.
|
| If the emergency was abused to suspend fundamental rights
| that can be opposed in courts and at the ballot box.
| Emergencies don't give the government carte blanche to
| abuse citizens' rights. They give government a reprieve
| to act quickly, and let the legal system get involved
| later.
|
| In most jurisdictions (I don't know if this is true in
| Canada, but it's certainly true in the US, where courts
| required governments to overturn emergency laws during
| the pandemic), people can still petition the courts that
| their rights were suspended illegally.
|
| Emergency laws don't eliminate rights. They suspend them
| and courts absolutely have the ability (at least in the
| US) to get involved and penalize the government if it
| finds the suspension of rights are unwarranted.
|
| I don't believe any Canadian court has found that to be
| the case in the truckers blockade, which probably
| reflects that fundamental rights were not suppressed.
| tonyarkles wrote:
| > Emergency laws don't eliminate rights. They suspend
| them and courts absolutely have the ability (at least in
| the US) to get involved and penalize the government if it
| finds the suspension of rights are unwarranted.
|
| One of the key differences between the Canadian Charter
| of Rights and Freedoms and the US Constitution is that
| the charter was an escape hatch right in section 1:
|
| > The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees
| the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to
| such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be
| demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
|
| When there's an allegation that someone's charter rights
| have been violated by the government, there's a 3 part
| test known as the Oakes test that the courts use to
| determine whether or not the violation is appropriate per
| section 1. When an action by the government makes it to
| court and fails the Oakes test, the courts come up with a
| remedy.
|
| > I don't believe any Canadian court has found that to be
| the case in the truckers blockade, which probably
| reflects that fundamental rights were not suppressed.
|
| I believe you are correct, but with a bit of nuance. From
| what I can tell, the convoy lawyers are somewhat
| incompetent. I don't personally have much of a horse in
| this race, but as a citizen it would have been a really
| nice outcome for me to have seen some clarity and
| consistency come out of the Canadian courts on what
| exactly is or is not acceptable and when one side is
| doing a terrible job of arguing their case you end up
| with weak precedent.
|
| Beyond the trucker convoy, in the past couple of years we
| have also had several rail lines and an oil refinery
| blockaded for many weeks. National, provincial, and
| municipal police forces have handled these situations
| very differently, the courts have handled them
| differently, and the current legislative and precedent
| situation is very very hazy.
| Pxtl wrote:
| I agree with all of this except the last bit: I don't
| think the federal government was incompetent, they simply
| don't have the tools to deal with that kind of policing
| crisis and rely on the lower tiers to provide policing,
| and have very few tools to deal with such a thing if they
| don't do it.
|
| Honestly I generally think Canadian federalism doesn't
| work anymore, at least in English Canada. Our media and
| voter landscape stubbornly refuses to understand and
| respect the separation of powers, so all it does is creat
| messes of misdirected blame and perverse incentives.
| tonyarkles wrote:
| > I don't think the federal government was incompetent,
| they simply don't have the tools to deal with that kind
| of policing crisis
|
| It's not just about policing. For anyone who is looking
| for the document, see here: https://publicorderemergencyc
| ommission.ca/files/documents/Fi...
|
| Section 25.2 says this in the context of the "fringe
| minority" comments made by the Prime Minister early in
| the protests:
|
| > I expect that the Prime Minister was intending to refer
| to the small number of people who were expressing racist,
| extremist, or otherwise reprehensible views, rather than
| to all Freedom Convoy participants. It may well be that
| his comments were taken out of context, including by some
| media. However, in my view more of an effort should have
| been made by government leaders at all levels during the
| protests to acknowledge that the majority of protesters
| were exercising their fundamental democratic rights.
|
| And further in 25.3:
|
| > Had there been greater collaboration at the political
| level from the start, it could well have assisted in
| ironing out the communication, jurisdictional, and
| resourcing issues that plagued the early response to the
| protests.
|
| All in all I found it to be a really well written
| document that does a really good job of breaking down the
| timeline, the various players, the affected legislation,
| etc. The media headlines lost so much of the nuance of
| this report and I was pretty disappointed by the general
| reception of it.
| jpambrun wrote:
| This charter and the constitution was imposed
| unilaterally, and adopted at night without the presence
| of Quebec representatives. So.. can't really blame us for
| not being in love with it..
| rhaway84773 wrote:
| An alternative way of stating this is that the Quebec
| government was unilaterally required to give its citizens
| rights.
|
| The people of Quebec may be unhappy with the mechanism
| but surely the principle of protecting people from
| government overreach should not be in dispute.
| jpambrun wrote:
| The Quebec gouvernement is limiting some individual right
| to protect the culture and language. It probably hard to
| understand form outside when you are not seeing your
| culture completely swallowed by Canada and America.
| version_five wrote:
| Can't blame Quebec for disagreeing that people are
| entitled to basic freedoms?
|
| (I'd encourage people to read the charter and Quebec's
| concerns, Quebec objects to it because it doesn't allow
| them to discriminate against foreigners, there's not some
| legitimate concern)
|
| Some background https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2
| 021/05/28/quebec-ca...
| rhaway84773 wrote:
| Unfortunately people agreeing to sacrifice their own
| rights in favor of more government overreach as long as
| it's marketed as hating on the other (usually immigrants,
| but also, for example, black people in the US) is not
| unique to Quebec, and is distressingly popular across the
| world.
| jpambrun wrote:
| Unbound rights means french will disappear along with a
| culture. For long and still today, french speaking
| citizens in Quebec earn less than the English minority.
| The plan was always to assimilate us, and it's mostly
| working, but you can't blame us for pushing back.
| bawolff wrote:
| It was adopted without quebec, but its not like it was
| done in secret. Quebec was present for the negotiations.
| jpambrun wrote:
| In secret, during the night, when the Quebec
| representatives were sleeping.
|
| https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuit_des_Longs_Couteaux_(
| Qu%...
| PhasmaFelis wrote:
| I don't know the full story behind this; but if, as you
| say, the national government had to go behind Quebec's
| back to enact basic civil liberties, that says more about
| Quebec than the government. Using it as a defense does
| more harm than good to your case.
| bbarnett wrote:
| Sadly, other political bodies do this as well, and it is
| becoming more common.
|
| That clause, I agree, was a mistake.
|
| Still, the charter has at least been beneficial in many
| court cases, and caused many laws to be turfed (many of
| which, are just dropped forever).
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| >> especially in Quebec where the government actively
| pre-empts it
|
| It would make sense for Quebec to ignore it since, well,
| they didn't sign it. Just like the US constitution
| doesn't apply since, well, Canada didn't sign it.
|
| > Sadly, other political bodies do this as well, and it
| is becoming more common.
|
| What makes no sense is the federal government can
| apparently decide to "suspend the constitution" as it
| pleases (and did so for peaceful freedom of speech
| demonstrations by truckers recently).
| bawolff wrote:
| > It would make sense for Quebec to ignore it since,
| well, they didn't sign it. Just like the US constitution
| doesn't apply since, well, Canada didn't sign it.
|
| I mean, if we're going to make this analogy, the thing
| that was signed was Treaty of Paris of 1763.
|
| The usa only requires 3/4 of state legislators to agree
| before it becomes binding on all of them. In canada, the
| rule depends on the thing, but generally its 7 provinces
| containing >50% of population. Quebec was the only
| province not to agree to the charter.
|
| If we're making a comparison to the usa, it works
| basically the same way.
|
| > What makes no sense is the federal government can
| apparently decide to "suspend the constitution" as it
| pleases (and did so for peaceful freedom of speech
| demonstrations by truckers recently).
|
| This is incorrect. The emergencies act did not suspend
| the constitution.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > and did so for peaceful freedom of speech
| demonstrations by truckers recently
|
| Ahh yes, the "speech" of 160dB ship horns for 22 hours a
| day for 3 weeks in residential neighborhoods.
| nucleardog wrote:
| Yep. If you don't live in Ottawa, please stop trying to
| tell us how peaceful and reasonable the attempt at
| overthrowing our democratically elected government,
| attended by nazis flying swastikas on our monuments and
| involving people trying to burn down buildings, was.
| version_five wrote:
| Lol
|
| (Just to be clear, is case anyone doesn't know about
| this, the above is either an absolutely insane or
| absurdly dishonest characterization, it's easy to do your
| own research)
| FireBeyond wrote:
| https://www.npr.org/2022/02/10/1079842220/ottawa-trucker-
| con...
|
| Ah yes, the confederate flag, that ubiquitous symbol of
| Canadian freedom.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| I wonder how a civil war refugee would react seeing this
| [0] [1] labelled as an attempt to overthrow a
| democratically elected government.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P74pbbhCZng
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hzfwaSVIvoA
| version_five wrote:
| People in Ottawa used to get about as upset about
| Bluesfest when it was held downtown, because there was
| some music from a summer festival for a few nights.
| They're not really a good measuring stick for how
| disruptive something is, more like a bunch of entitled
| civil servants that don't want to be disturbed while they
| cross off the days until their pensions arrive.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Oh come on.
|
| Comparing truck and ship horns with closed circuits for
| 22 hours or more a day to "music from a summer festival"
| might not be the MOST disingenuous comparison I've heard,
| but it's pretty close, if not.
| SonicScrub wrote:
| I did my own research on the subject when I attempted to
| skate down the canal (a usually enjoyable winter
| activity) during that time period. The above
| characterization is mostly correct. However they forgot
| to mention the racial slurs. They also forgot to mention
| the constant harassment of medical staff at city
| hospitals just trying to get to and from work.
| version_five wrote:
| A bit ironic to get upset because your canal skate was
| disturbed by people peacefully protesting a government
| that was forcing everybody in the country to comply with
| all sorts of absurd measures.
| SonicScrub wrote:
| [dead]
| alfor wrote:
| oh yeah the well known nazi truckers of Canada...
|
| Don't forget the farmers nazi, the nurses nazi, the
| little kids nazi, the immigrant dark skin nazi.
|
| The oppression clearly came from the government, it's
| high time to wake up.
|
| At this point I don't know if this is a parody position
| or you really believe it.
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| Outside the specifically legislated scopes where those
| overrides are in use, or for the parts of the Charter
| that aren't subject to the override, courts can and
| routinely do enforce the charter by invalidating actions
| or laws. It's very far from worthless, even if you and I
| both would rather the override clause didn't exist.
|
| At least, the overrides expire after 5 years if not re-
| legislated for a new 5 years, so politicians can't enact
| them once and then permanently flee accountability.
| fsckboy wrote:
| is there any merit to the complaint that some recent
| legislation in Canada has turned purview of some free
| speech matters over to "human rights tribunals" which,
| the complaint alleges, do not accord the same robust due
| process rights defendants have in courts?
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| I don't know what particular complaint you're referring
| to, but I've seen decisions by Canadian human rights
| tribunals get challenged in courts, and none of the laws
| governing Canadian human rights tribunals invoke the
| legislative option to override to Charter free speech
| rights, so I think whoever filed that complaint is
| misunderstanding the reality of the situation.
| bawolff wrote:
| Its not a perfect utopia, but its not nearly as dire as
| you suggest.
| brailsafe wrote:
| True, but we also have the UN charter, which is also
| worth fuck all
| sangnoir wrote:
| > I'm just surprised he was actually arrested for something
| that's obviously covered by the first amendment
|
| >> [...] _Canadian_ Judge rules
| fmdragon wrote:
| The right to recognize Manitoba as a province?
| 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.
| ChickenNugger wrote:
| If you enjoy this kind of thing I highly recommend the substack
| HN introduced me to by Yessine Meskhout:
| https://ymeskhout.substack.com/
|
| This is the one that got me hooked:
| https://ymeskhout.substack.com/p/eleven-magic-words-unlocked
|
| And another hilarious read:
| https://ymeskhout.substack.com/p/i-am-here-because-of-blind-...
| rpmisms wrote:
| I love humorous legal writing. Some of the best writing and
| humor come together to make something great.
| vorticalbox wrote:
| Thank you for this.
| sheepscreek wrote:
| There's more:
|
| > For reasons explained below, the Court is resoundingly
| acquitting the accused. Since I'm hesitant to draft an entire
| decision in bold and caps-lock characters, I offer the
| following observations instead.
| walrus01 wrote:
| If you like well written Canadian legal decisions, check out
| the decision in Meads. v. Meads on sovereign citizens.
| sheepscreek wrote:
| Thanks for the reference. I am Canadian and only just
| discovering this!
|
| If anyone else wants to read Meads vs. Meads: https://www.c
| anlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012a...
| matbilodeau wrote:
| Thanks for the amazing read.
| eqvinox wrote:
| btw: Don't stop at the footnotes. They're pretty amazing too.
| (2, 15, 43, 49)
| iosystem wrote:
| Montreal police are some of the worst police in Canada and the
| Montreal prosecutors always take any arrests by police before a
| Judge even if there are glaring mistakes at play. I know of a
| cancer patient that wanted medical assistance in dying. The
| hospital didn't want to provide it to her and lied to the
| police about her threatening to take a life of a doctor. She in
| fact was explaining to the doctor she would be able to take
| someone else's life if the roles were reversed and if someone
| needed to die from medical assistance in dying; which is legal
| here in Canada but doctors are hesitant to treat young adults
| in her case with the same respect as the older generations.
| politician wrote:
| Too bad she wasn't a veteran.
|
| (Context: Canadian VA was caught pushing MAID on its
| veterans.)
| rpastuszak wrote:
| Care to explain what VA and MAID stand for?
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| Veterans Affairs and medical assistance in dying
| (euthanasia).
| rpastuszak wrote:
| Thanks!
| Natsu wrote:
| In this case, they apparently ignored several prior
| complaints until the guy videotaped this guy giving the man
| (who tried to run over his kids on several occasions) the
| finger and making a gesture (wrongly) described as "throat
| slashing."
|
| Of course, this nutjob is absolutely paranoid and was
| constantly driving in a reckless manner around small children
| who wanted to play in their neighborhood, some of whom he
| videotaped running away from his car which he did not attempt
| to slow down according to his own videos.
|
| So once the prosecution heard all this, they actually told
| the judge to throw out the case. I grant he shouldn't have
| even been there to begin with based on what we saw, but
| sometimes it's hard to tell that until after the evidence is
| seen.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| > _this nutjob is absolutely paranoid_
|
| If COVID's social experiment (especially masks, on both
| sides, as some bizarre litmus for "Are you crazy or sane?")
| taught us anything, it's that we should remember to measure
| ourselves by our communities.
|
| If 9/10 of my neighbors think I'm a paranoid asshole, then
| I'm probably a paranoid asshole.
|
| I should then spend some time reflecting on why they think
| that, rather than rationalizing and conspiring with my
| immediate family about how the rest of the world is out to
| get us by tagging the street with chalk drawings.
| [deleted]
| surfingdino wrote:
| This is glorious. I smell a book deal for the judge. The writing
| is beautiful.
| raydiatian wrote:
| "God gave me ten fingers, and said 'arrange them as you see fit'
| and I said holy f* you're actually God why are you operating the
| drive thru window, anyway thanks for the chicken fingers your
| holiness"
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Read the whole thing. It's very digestible. The judge is
| absolutely _livid_ with the complainant.
| error418s wrote:
| > [149] On what basis did he fear that Mr. Epstein was a
| potential murderer? The fact that he went for quiet walks with
| his kids? The fact that he socialized with the other young
| parents on the street? If that is the standard, we should all
| fear that our neighbours are killers in waiting. Hide your
| kids, hide your wives. We are all in mortal danger.
|
| The judge's writing is amazing.
| p-e-w wrote:
| > [6] This injustice ends today.
|
| No it doesn't. Unless such actions have consequences for the
| police and prosecutors beyond their case being thrown out, this
| injustice persists. To claim otherwise is like saying the
| injustice of a robbery has been rectified because the robber was
| not allowed to keep the stolen goods. That's not what "justice"
| means.
|
| What the judge is really telling police and prosecutors is: You
| failed this time, but by all means keep trying.
| olliej wrote:
| I am really unsure what was going on here - it seems the crown
| made no attempt to find the victim guilty, and the police had
| formally rejected charges (and as the ruling says literally
| told the complainant that if anyone had committed crimes it was
| them).
|
| The judge also seems to believe that this is what the crown was
| wanting, so is there some reason that they could have been
| required to bring the case?
| retr0nerd wrote:
| Which god? Humans have invented several thousands of them over
| the years.
| jenadine wrote:
| The one who is allowed to give rights according the the
| constitution of Canada
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_Canadian_Chart...
| jawns wrote:
| In the U.S., however, First Amendment protection for flipping the
| bird is not considered "clearly established" law in some portions
| of the country, and police officers can be protected by qualified
| immunity if they arrest you in retaliation for displaying the
| middle finger.
|
| The U.S. Courts of Appeal for the 2nd Circuit and 6th Circuit
| have held that flipping the bird is protected speech. (See Swartz
| v. Insogna, 2013, and Ellis v. Davidson, 2004.)
|
| But as far as I've been able to determine, the 3rd Circuit, which
| governs my own part of the country, has not made any definitive
| rulings on it.
|
| That means that a case like Guessford v. Douglas et al, which was
| recently filed by a Delaware man, might end up with the police
| involved protected from punishment.
|
| (Guessford held up a handmade "RADAR AHEAD" sign while standing
| near a speed trap, and the police ripped up the sign, then later
| pulled him over and cited him in retaliation for flipping them
| the bird.)
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >(Guessford held up a handmade "RADAR AHEAD" sign while
| standing near a speed trap, and the police ripped up the sign,
| then later pulled him over and cited him in retaliation for
| flipping them the bird.)
|
| The police can have fun fighting the likes of Google and Apple,
| since their map programs feature speed trap warnings.
| jakeogh wrote:
| Any SC that would rule against that hand signal as anything but
| speech would be clearly making new law. There are strong forces
| that would like to do this, but at the moment the SC majority+
| is not. Sign language is language.
|
| To the other side... it may be worth attempting to rewrite the
| sign dictionary such that dissent is assult. Billions of $
| already are spent on it monthly.
|
| It's a long road to the SC. I think that is a feature.
|
| Fire*3 might need another look https://youtu.be/4Z2uzEM0ugY
| 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.
| ggambetta wrote:
| Fair enough. I apologize.
| 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.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| The prosecutor eventually _asked_ the judge to acquit. For
| which the judge gave her credit. But I don 't understand why
| she prerssed charges in the first place; was she so
| unfamiliar with the evidence that she was going to have to
| present, that she didn't realize it was full of holes until
| it came to court?
|
| There's a missing backstory here. I wonder whether the case
| was prepared by a junior, and this prosecutor barged in and
| decided to take over at the last minute, for the sake of
| personal glory. I can't see why she deserves the judge's
| approval.
| Natsu wrote:
| That's actually addressed in the article if you read deep
| enough. The judge praises the prosecutor for cutting the case
| off halfway and asking it thrown out after they heard from
| the defendant.
|
| They did have a video of a guy giving both middle fingers and
| making a motion that could ambiguously look like throat
| slashing. Now it wasn't that and the guy had a credible
| explanation of why and his neighbor is both a bad driver and
| a paranoid nutjob, most of which was proven by the paranoid
| guy's own videos wherein he (but not his innocent neighbor)
| can be seen doing all manner of things that might credibly be
| offenses like driving over the limit, driving dangerously and
| not slowing around kids, etc.
|
| So it's not too clear to me what the prosecutor knew and
| when, beyond that video, but at least when the evidence did
| come out, they folded immediately, which makes me believe
| they must not have known that earlier.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| > which makes me believe they must not have known that
| earlier.
|
| But why not? The evidence that was presented to the court
| was _the complainant 's_ evidence. The case failed on the
| prosecution evidence. The prosecutor should have known it
| wouldn't stand up.
| Natsu wrote:
| I mean, you're right that there's a good case that they
| should have known if they'd done things more thoroughly,
| but the fact that they simply did fold tells me they
| probably didn't actually know (even if they really should
| have!) because otherwise, why embarrass yourself in court
| like that?
| 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.
| batch12 wrote:
| I assumed that they were shown the video of 'the finger'
| and arm waving and thought the accusation had enough meat
| on it.
| ChickenNugger wrote:
| Sometimes they're ordered to and it's not their call.
|
| I'm not saying this is the case here, but here's a
| hilariously well documented instance:
| https://ymeskhout.substack.com/p/sorry-for-arresting-you
|
| Yes, yes I know "just following orders" shouldn't be an
| excuse.
| 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.
| Arch485 wrote:
| The police didn't use force; it says in the court documents
| that, when arrested, the accused complied completely with
| the police.
| pdonis wrote:
| Protip: Don't make accusations against someone that can easily be
| refuted by looking at video evidence _from your own cameras_.
|
| (Special Darwin Award extra credit if the video evidence also
| shows _you_ doing things that are at least questionable.)
| joseftexas wrote:
| [flagged]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-11 23:02 UTC)