Yonge-Dundas smackdown Toronto or Riiyadh?

[avxl1003]

I've been reading Babypowder, Mr. Messi, and Lord_Rambures go back and forth and the thing that strikes me as sad is, when did we get all focused on what we have the "right" to do?

Do you have the "right" to take somebody's picture in public?
Do you have the "right to NOT have your picture taken in public?

You know what?? Who gives a shit.. Both people in this situation were likely morons. If the story happened as it sounds, then the woman was unnecessarily phsyically aggressive and probably should have received some sorta slap on the wrist.. But why was this guys immediate reaction to the lady's weird request to start whining about his "right" to photograph anybody he wants to when they're in public?

I'm all for the rights of people. But they have to be rights that matter (Free speech, fair and equal treatment, right to demonstration, etc.,.) Having your picture taken (or not), or taking somebody's picture(or not) is not a right worth fighting over...

 

[Babypowder]

I'm all for the rights of people. But they have to be rights that matter (Free speech, fair and equal treatment, right to demonstration, etc.,.) Having your picture taken (or not), or taking somebody's picture(or not) is not a right worth fighting over...

all rights are worth fighting over. but im glad that most Canadians arent so quick to give up their rights like you would.

Photography is part of our fundamental freedoms stated in the charter


2b
freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression,
including freedom of the press and other media of
communication;

http://media.ambientlight.ca/wp-content/uploads/Ontario-Photography-Laws-V1.0.pdf

 

[avxl1003]

all rights are worth fighting over. but im glad that most Canadians arent so quick to give up their rights like you would.

Photography is part of our fundamental freedoms stated in the charter


2b
freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression,
including freedom of the press and other media of
communication;

http://media.ambientlight.ca/wp-content/uploads/Ontario-Photography-Laws-V1.0.pdf

So you missed my point then?

The photographer was not exercising his "freedom of expression" or "freedom of communication". Or, I should say, his freedom's were violated in a technical sense only. He was not trying to create "art". He wasn't "reporting" on an incident that was being covered up.. He was admittedly taking a photograph of some "neon shrine"... I'm assuming he thought it looked neat.. That's all.

Sure, the woman in question had no "reasonable expectation of privacy".. But what's the big deal, douche bag (not you, the author of the rant).. Be a nice guy and show her you didn't get her in the shot, or delete it and take another one.. Ohh.. Boo hoo.. Your precious rights to take a photograph and not have to delete it have been violated.. Kids are starving all over the world, families are having to live without food and shelter, actual human rights abuses are taking place in countries all over the world, but the fact that you had to delete a photograph you took at Yonge & Dundas is supposed to register with me as a violation of your rights? Grow a pair, will you?

 

[Babypowder]

i said it was part of our fundamental freedoms stated in the charter and clearly the later part of 2b applies. Regardlless if you think his rights were violated technically or actually is irrelevant he still has his right to photograph. and yes both could have handed the situation alot better with a little courtesy. if u want to compare this to other countries in a handful of states they are trying to charge citizens for recording the police on duty while out in public. Bottomline any rights we have we got to be diligent in protecting because of people like you who would be ok giving certian rights up and/or don't know what their rights are.

 

[Mervyn]

On the issue of courtesy , an this is something I don't think we will ever know for sure as we only have the article point of view. but i have to ask.

What courtesy did this women use when she objected to the pictures being taken ?

I know if I was the photographer and she explained to me, excuse me sir, please don't take our picture.. and If I hadn't taken her picture I would calmly reply that I wasn't photographing her, I was taking a picture of something else.

But if she ran up to me yelling at me angrily and physically tried to stop me from taking pictures ? then she does not deserve any courtesy whatsoever.

 

[FAST]

What he said

On the issue of courtesy , an this is something I don't think we will ever know for sure as we only have the article point of view. but i have to ask.

What courtesy did this women use when she objected to the pictures being taken ?

I know if I was the photographer and she explained to me, excuse me sir, please don't take our picture.. and If I hadn't taken her picture I would calmly reply that I wasn't photographing her, I was taking a picture of something else.

But if she ran up to me yelling at me angrily and physically tried to stop me from taking pictures ? then she does not deserve any courtesy whatsoever.

It really comes down to attitude, doesn’t it.
Really that simple.

FAST

 

[rabiosa]

She wasn't wearing a "black ghost suit", you could clearly see her face.

Whoever took this photo is asking for trouble.

Firstly because there was no need to take that picture, unless you are specifically targetting that group because otherwise there was nothing else to take a picture off , except that family.

So if you got punched at for taking that pic, bravo to the lady who did that.
If you thought of punching her back and didnt just becasuse he may be arrested, you are not a MAN. Men do not raise their hands on women.

Thirdly, there was nothing in that background to take a picture of. Like i said, it seems that the person who got hit actually just took a picture just to mock them or make fun of them .

We are in Canada. Canada gives Muslim women to the right to cover the face. So be it. Respect Canada's laws and dont try to take laws into your own hands.

The day canada ban's the face covering, thats the day when we call the police if we see a woman do that.

Until then, as someone mentioned, dont go cry if you go to jane and finch and dont get looted.

 

[avxl1003]

i said it was part of our fundamental freedoms stated in the charter and clearly the later part of 2b applies. Regardlless if you think his rights were violated technically or actually is irrelevant he still has his right to photograph. and yes both could have handed the situation alot better with a little courtesy. if u want to compare this to other countries in a handful of states they are trying to charge citizens for recording the police on duty while out in public. Bottomline any rights we have we got to be diligent in protecting because of people like you who would be ok giving certian rights up and/or don't know what their rights are.

You and I will have to agree to disagree then.

I am of the opinion that our rights should be protected, but whining about irrelevant things (under the guise of your rights being violated) is pathetic and wrong.

It seems you are more than fine using the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a tool to be a douche bag (taking photographs of strangers in public for no apparent fucking reason other than to irritate them).

I seriously doubt the gentlemen who drew up the Charter of Rights and Freedoms were very much worried about your right to photograph anybody you wish in public, just for fun.

 

[sleazure]

Of course the story came from the Sun. They love stories about immigrants behaving badly, especially if they happen to be of the "other" sort: non-white, non-Xtian, non-English, wearing funny clothing.

Anything to rouse the rabble! This is the kind of story that gets people's attention and provokes a reaction.

It sounds like a freaky incident, but no harm, no foul. If this had been drunk white chick in a bar screaming at him and trying to grab his camera, all the Internet toughguys would be calling the complaint a nutless pansy bitch for trying to file an assault case against a girl.

Don't forget that the victim is a member of the press. I'm sure that he can always use the publicity.

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

Whoever took this photo is asking for trouble.

Firstly because there was no need to take that picture, unless you are specifically targetting that group because otherwise there was nothing else to take a picture off , except that family.

So if you got punched at for taking that pic, bravo to the lady who did that.
If you thought of punching her back and didnt just becasuse he may be arrested, you are not a MAN. Men do not raise their hands on women.

Thirdly, there was nothing in that background to take a picture of. Like i said, it seems that the person who got hit actually just took a picture just to mock them or make fun of them .

We are in Canada. Canada gives Muslim women to the right to cover the face. So be it. Respect Canada's laws and dont try to take laws into your own hands.

The day canada ban's the face covering, thats the day when we call the police if we see a woman do that.

Until then, as someone mentioned, dont go cry if you go to jane and finch and dont get looted.

There is nothing wrong with the picture. I don't agree with all the punch back, and don't cover your face crap in this thread or anywhere for that matter, but public place, perfectly acceptable to take a picture, even one like that. You have no idea why the pic was taken. I have taken many pictures in Toronto on the streets and caught many people on film. Taking a pic of a outside patio of people dining in the city of Toronto can make for a great pic.

You think that is asking for "trouble" that is your opinion. I disagree. I don't think it deserves any type of physical contact in the form of assault, and I think the police did not do their job and I would take it as far as I could personally via the JoP.

Rights are rights. They have the right to wear their Hijab, I have the right to take pics in public. Don't take one away and stand up for the other. As you said

Respect Canada's laws and dont try to take laws into your own hands.

That is clearly what that woman did!

 

[richaceg]

If the husband was around, and tell him she's sexy. Husband will do the rest...

 

[Babypowder]

I seriously doubt the gentlemen who drew up the Charter of Rights and Freedoms were very much worried about your right to photograph anybody you wish in public, just for fun.

if you think the folks who made the Charter wouldnt stand up for the white guy in this situation you're definitely not using your critical thinking skills

 

[Quiettype]

If you are in a public space you can have your picture taken. You may not like it, you may even be offended, but in a public space you are fair game. There are limits on this, no upskirt shots, no peeking in windows etc. Yes it is possible to have people take pictures that are intrusive and annoying (think papparazzi), but that is the price you pay for having a free and open society. It is also the freedom (currently under attack in both Canada and United States) to photograph people behaving badly and getting police action taken. Rodney King video, police brutality videos. Some police forces are trying to use wiretap laws to prevent the audio recording of officers to protect their fellow officers.

One person's religious belief is not sufficient to dictate to other people what they are legally allowed to do. She may not want her picture taken, and even claim it is a religious issue, but her religious beliefs are not the law of the land. She committed a crime (of battery if I can remember the proper term), and should be punished. I think the police failed to do their jobs.


If you want to see the ignorance of people try putting "photographers rights", or photographer vs police in you tube. just watch the blood pressure. some of the videos show a level of ignorance on both sides of the camera that is frustrating to watch.

The website Photography is not a crime links to Carlos Miller's site, a photographer who has had many run ins with people while taking pictures.

 

[rld]

Generally speaking you are free to take pictures in a public place in Ontario. The law is different in Quebec, and new privacy legislation and regulations may mean the law is in flux in Ontario as well as we have not seen any test cases yet.

On a gut level I think the photographer may have a bit of an agenda and is a bit of a sissy running to a cop after being confronted by an angry woman.

 

[Mervyn]

It does not matter if taking the photo was legal or not , she had no legal right to take the law into her own hands by assaulting him.

" Menzies filed freedom of information requests for the officer’s notes and any video recordings of the incident before approaching a Justice of the peace "

So I think we'll find out soon enough what actually happened.

 

[gladheateher]

Saw Menzies yesterday on sun TV, civil action would seem a possibility