[rickc]

Tricks Tricks:

rickc rickc:

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

i think getting arrested was the safest outcome for him; he'll be fined instead of comatose

free speech is also a mixed bag discussion for me. people seem to think it means a right to a platform from strangers, and i completely disagree. free speech is not a shield

as far as rights, a force that "gives" them can take them away; few in my class can afford the time and hassle of fighting for our rights in legal battle, never mind win such a thing

Is it the governments job to protect people from themselves? Does the government get to violate this mans rights to "save him"? I say no.

If people beat the shit out of him, should they be arrested?

Absolutely!!!

[Public_Domain]

rickc rickc:

Is it the governments job to protect people from themselves? Does the government get to violate this mans rights to "save him"? I say no.

i don't think they arrested him to specifically save him, i think they arrested him for trying to start a fight where there was peace

whatever is right in the end depends how much you obsess about order, i feel. if you want things to be peaceful and for folks to not get hurt, then arresting him was right. if you feel some mayhem should occur as a consequence of starting mayhem, then arresting him was wrong.

honestly i am tired and i'm glad toronto went relatively peacefully as far as i've heard. i'm glad the cops aren't going all g20 on them. so, in an ends justify means kind of way, i'm glad they de-escalated the situation and "kept the peace" instead of letting it devolve and then start gassing the protestors. though i do think perhaps canada and many other countries around the world deserve their fair share of mayhem - it seems up to the cops if it goes that way

[Winnipegger]

Wearing makeup is in bad taste, but is not against the law. Police have committed a serious offence. Protest of any sort is guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Even if his choice is stupid. If police didn't charge him with anything, then police are guilty of unlawful confinement. If they did, they have to prove it. If they can't prove it, then police are guilty of false arrest.

[Tricks]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Wearing makeup is in bad taste, but is not against the law. Police have committed a serious offence. Protest of any sort is guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Even if his choice is stupid. If police didn't charge him with anything, then police are guilty of unlawful confinement. If they did, they have to prove it. If they can't prove it, then police are guilty of false arrest.

Should read the article. Says they charged him with breaching the peace.

Based on precedent, I'm not sure it will stand though.

[Thanos]

It will if they can prove his really dumb troll-job was aimed at starting a riot. On the surface this looks as close as it can get to deliberately yelling out "fire!" in a crowded room just to see people get trampled in the rush to escape. "But officer, I was only doing it for the lulz!". Jesus Christ, what kind of genuine fucktards has the internet spawned in such numbers as to be legion?

[uwish]

let it all burn!

[Zipperfish]

Thanos Thanos:

I have to admit a big bit of petty joy in this happening in Toronto. I quit Twitter for good yesterday, after I got into it with some stuck-up self-righteous types in Vancouver and Toronto who were tweeting crap like "I hope Alberta doesn't embarrass us at the protests". I got swarmed when I pointed out the worst racist attacks recently have actually occurred in Vancouver, where Asian people have been sucker punched and sworn at on buses and in stores by idiots blaming them for COVID. I also pointed out that the real rotten kinds of rednecks are everywhere in this country, including Vancouver/Toronto/Montreal, and aren't the exclusive property of the western provinces. The anti-Alberta haters, and I call them that because that's exactly what they are, a bunch of left-wing haters as vicious as their right-wing counterparts, didn't enjoy hearing facts like that so they gang-attacked me. I didn't like it so I basically gave Twitter the big fuck-you. But that's what it's like to live in Alberta too often. Some Nazi and Klan c**ksuckers have a cross-burning thirty years ago and in the eyes of this "fair" land anyone living here is perpetually guilty for the rest of forever for it. Whatever. Can't be superior without someone to look down on, even if it means demonizing an entire region of this country.

So, yes, I'm not happy that some nitwit showed up in blackface at the rally in Toronto - the fucking moron is lucky to be alive for doing something that mean-spirited and outright stupid in a crowd that size, where the already under-pressure police certainly wouldn't go out of their way to rescue him if he'd been boot-fucked for it because it would make things that much worse and maybe even trigger a riot. But I do feel some spiteful joy in that of all the places for something like that to happen that it did in Toronto. Any place that perpetually sneering and stuck-up and openly contemptuous of us "racists" in Alberta deserves to sit on a tack every once in a while and have their self-righteous "there's no one like that here, only in Alberta" fucking attitude blow up in their faces.

And here's hoping the Toronto PD throw the fucking book at the blackface idiot and hit him up for hate-crimes as well as disturbing the peace. Probably one of Ezra Levant's fucking idiots who fully follows all that toxic swill that gets posted on The Rebel. "The Rebel", my ass.

I'm always reminded of that old phrase "When you look into the Abyss, the Abyss looks into you" when I think of Twitter. It's fascinating, there's something wild about, wild in the way maggots writhe in the corpse of a rabbit. And you think, man that's ugly and disgusting, but also, that's what we are and that rabbit is what we'll end up being.

[Thanos]

Or Twitter is more like setting up a chair next to a broken sewer pipe to see what kind of poop goes floating by. It's meant strictly for spectating over what bizarre and horrid things can be seen. Ooh, look, that guy had corn with dinner yesterday!

[BartSimpson]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

yes.

Holy fuck. I have to give you + rep twice in the same day!!!

[Freakinoldguy]

I'm pretty sure that I saw on the news the other night that this man has mental health issues and actually thought he was supporting the black community by going all Al Jolson on them.

Unfortunately, I can't find the story anywhere so, it might have just been conjecture on the part of the anchors. But, if it isn't just conjecture it would go along way in explaining in why someone would do something so stupid and insensitive especially since that action has a likely outcome of you being stomped into the curb and left in a large pool of blood, bone and brains.

[rickc]

Tricks Tricks:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Wearing makeup is in bad taste, but is not against the law. Police have committed a serious offence. Protest of any sort is guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Even if his choice is stupid. If police didn't charge him with anything, then police are guilty of unlawful confinement. If they did, they have to prove it. If they can't prove it, then police are guilty of false arrest.

Should read the article. Says they charged him with breaching the peace.

Based on precedent, I'm not sure it will stand though.

It shouldn't seeing as how the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on a case just like this last year.
https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/ ... 87-eng.pdf
A First Nations group had occupied some land. Mr. Fleming showed up to a counter protest waving a large Canadian flag. The police arrested Mr. Fleming for breach of peace. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the police cannot arrest someone acting lawfully just because they think that it will stop others from breaching the peace. Wearing black face is in very poor taste, but it is not illegal. The people that are threatening violence are the ones breaching the peace, not the people that are exercising their rights, however distasteful that exercise may be.

[Tricks]

rickc rickc:

Tricks Tricks:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Wearing makeup is in bad taste, but is not against the law. Police have committed a serious offence. Protest of any sort is guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Even if his choice is stupid. If police didn't charge him with anything, then police are guilty of unlawful confinement. If they did, they have to prove it. If they can't prove it, then police are guilty of false arrest.

Should read the article. Says they charged him with breaching the peace.

Based on precedent, I'm not sure it will stand though.

It shouldn't seeing as how the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on a case just like this last year.
https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/ ... 87-eng.pdf
A First Nations group had occupied some land. Mr. Fleming showed up to a counter protest waving a large Canadian flag. The police arrested Mr. Fleming for breach of peace. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the police cannot arrest someone acting lawfully just because they think that it will stop others from breaching the peace. Wearing black face is in very poor taste, but it is not illegal. The people that are threatening violence are the ones breaching the peace, not the people that are exercising their rights, however distasteful that exercise may be.

Exactly the precedent I was talking about.

[Thanos]

Blackface falls too close to being a hate crime. Waving the national flag while on Canadian soil can't be considered anything similar.

[rickc]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Wearing makeup is in bad taste, but is not against the law. Police have committed a serious offence. Protest of any sort is guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Even if his choice is stupid. If police didn't charge him with anything, then police are guilty of unlawful confinement. If they did, they have to prove it. If they can't prove it, then police are guilty of false arrest.

This is another problem with police departments in North America, they do not keep up with court decisions. Every time a court makes a ruling that affects a specific area, the police need to be trained on the ruling and how it affects the way the police interact with people. The Supreme Court ruled on Fleming vs. Ontario last year. Ontario being the key word. The case came from Ontario. How can any police department in Ontario NOT know about this case? Now the tax payers will be footing the bill for the big payday for Mr. black face (whoever he may be) because the police are to lazy to do their homework on court rulings.

I think a bill should be proposed that any future payouts for police actions that run counter to court decisions should come out of police pension funds. Let them pay for their own mistakes in life like the rest of us have to do. If their poor actions start affecting their own paychecks, than they might work a little harder on due diligence. What are we talking here......15 minutes at roll call going over new court rulings? Its not rocket science. Court rulings are public record. Its getting where the average joe on the street knows the law better than the cops enforcing the laws.

[rickc]

Thanos Thanos:

Blackface falls too close to being a hate crime. Waving the national flag while on Canadian soil can't be considered anything similar.

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. The laws on hate crime are very well defined in Canada. Which section is wearing black face violating? Section 318 advocating genocide? Nope. Section 319(1) publicly inciting hatred? Nope. Section 319(1) makes it an offense to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. No one is going to see someone wearing black face and say: "lets go kill us some negros!!!". Wearing black face in public only incites hatred against people wearing blackface. People wearing blackface are not an identifiable group.

Section 319(2) promoting hatred against an identifiable group by making public statements. What statement was made? He was not carrying a sign saying kill all the negros. He was not handing out flyers saying that blacks are inferior. He did not burn a cross. He did hang up a noose. Those actions have court rulings against them as they are designed to incite violence against blacks. No ruling (that I can find) has been made against wearing blackface. Like I said the only violence that is incited by wearing black face is against the people wearing black face, no one else.