I think your post is the most stupid, nonsensical post I've seen on FB. You don't address what I said and you ramble on with nonsense. I get it. You can't do what I asked.
Ontario Judge acquits Muslim man who strangled a 7 year old girl
- Thread starter greensquare
- Start date
Especially white school teacher Nicholas Mills who was responsible for Jeremiah Perry’s drowning. If he had any remorse for bypassing swim test procedures (even withholding the results from Perry’s parents to allow Perry on the trip), he would’ve pled guilty to criminal negligence and accepted life in prison
So your news source was an alt-right outlet? That does help answer some of my earlier questions about your views and how you interpret these issues.
The subscription pop-up featured Charlie Kirk, which gives a fairly clear indication of the audience they're targeting and the perspective they're promoting.
I have a hard time believing the same outlet would run a similarly framed story if the accused were a white Christian man shouting "Jesus." The selective framing seems to be part of the story itself.
When I searched for the case, the first result was a National Post article. The headline was still somewhat sensationalized, but at least the article provided more context and substantially more detail than the source you shared.
I highly doubt that, in the tragedy involving the Clancy children, the family's Catholic faith was ever a central part of the reporting.
The focus was on the facts of the case and the individuals involved, not their religion.
That's why I find it noteworthy when someone's religion is emphasized in cases where it appears to have little or no relevance to the underlying facts.
If religion is not relevant in one case, it should not suddenly become relevant in another simply because it fits a preferred narrative.
The standard should be the same for everyone: judge people by their actions and the facts of the case, not by their religion, ethnicity, or background.
The news outlet I used I don't check if it's right or left. I don't got time for all that. I do verify it's not some false news if needed or AI generated thing. I didn't even read the ads that pop up. My mistake clicking a news article link that's alt ring. My main news sources are The Star, CNN, CP24 and ABC News. I don't know who owns these network and if they are left or right. I don't research or keep up with all that little detail. Other news articles pop up on my feeds so I at times may look into it more to post.
When did I say that same outlet would run a "Jesus" story??? I'm referring to any other news outlet could have. Some probably have. I don't know. Once again research and post if so. I don't have time to see all the headlines for similar stories. Good grief man....lmfao....holy....
"If religion is not relevant in one case, it should not suddenly become relevant in another simply because it fits a preferred narrative." Why are you not venting to The National for mentioning he's Muslim and saying "Allah" in their article? Go take time out of your day to vent to news outlets globally who mention religion in a crime, or in your case it's a lot worse in the headlines.
I see the point you're making. If you're that concerned as your making it out to seem then you need to go after news medias who do it. People do write formal compliant letters. Perhaps it can become a hobby for you or something?
I'm glad you consume a variety of media sources, but you shared this article without applying much critical thought to where it came from and where that outlet sits on the political spectrum.
Why am I not focusing on the outlet itself? Because our discussion is about your decision to share it, not theirs. For the record, I don't agree with how the National Post framed the story either.
I never said they did. I said they probably wouldn't cover a similar case involving a white Christian man in the same way. That's a different point entirely.
I'm less interested in debating the National Post or the source article and more interested in understanding why you chose to share it in the first place. What was it about this story that you felt was important enough to post?
That's the part that interests me. News outlets will do what news outlets do. The question is why this particular story resonated with you enough to amplify it.
No, a white Chrstian guy in this situation would have been acquitted too.
As the ruling states, the verdict was due to expert psychiatric evidence presented.
It did not.
However, it was a big part of why this thread was created in the first place.
" but you shared this article without applying much critical thought to where it came from and where that outlet sits on the political spectrum. "
It came up on my feed. I checked to see if it was real not fake. That's the first time that news outlet I've gone to. I don't have time nor care if it's some left or right. Sorry I don't think like you when it comes to certain news stories. The chance of me seeing that news outlet to read other stories is slim. Probably less than 1% because I never heard of them. Perhaps you have.
"I said they probably wouldn't cover a similar case involving a white Christian man in the same way. That's a different point entirely."
How so? Sorry I don't know much about The National and who owns it. If the story was about a Christian man who shouted Jesus it would be brought it on mostly all news articles. I can't see why not???
"more interested in understanding why you chose to share it in the first place. What was it about this story that you felt was important enough to post?
That's the part that interests me. News outlets will do what news outlets do. The question is why this particular story resonated with you enough to amplify it."
I put it up for discussion. If you go back and read some of the questions I have that's what I'm discussing and questioning.
Post 1 besides the fact I forgot to put quotations I ended in a question to discuss.
See post 10
See post 14's third last sentence
See post 20 last line
BTW, most of your questions I've laughed a lot once reading it. Your thought process about me is interesting. I find how you pick little things interesting. It's almost like you're trying to find something...For the record it's not in this topic nor the thought crossed my mind. You're talking with someone who has friends from high school since early 2000s that are diff races, cultures and religions. We crack the odd racist dark humour jokes and poke fun of religion at times, but we don't get all hatred.
Once again for the last time find me a news article about this case where his religion and "Allah" isn't mentioned. Post links. You should already know why I posted based on the questions I asked afterwards if you read the thread accordingly...lol...
It came up on my feed. I checked to see if it was real not fake. That's the first time that news outlet I've gone to. I don't have time nor care if it's some left or right. Sorry I don't think like you when it comes to certain news stories. The chance of me seeing that news outlet to read other stories is slim. Probably less than 1% because I never heard of them. Perhaps you have.
"I said they probably wouldn't cover a similar case involving a white Christian man in the same way. That's a different point entirely."
How so? Sorry I don't know much about The National and who owns it. If the story was about a Christian man who shouted Jesus it would be brought it on mostly all news articles. I can't see why not???
"more interested in understanding why you chose to share it in the first place. What was it about this story that you felt was important enough to post?
That's the part that interests me. News outlets will do what news outlets do. The question is why this particular story resonated with you enough to amplify it."
I put it up for discussion. If you go back and read some of the questions I have that's what I'm discussing and questioning.
Post 1 besides the fact I forgot to put quotations I ended in a question to discuss.
See post 10
See post 14's third last sentence
See post 20 last line
BTW, most of your questions I've laughed a lot once reading it. Your thought process about me is interesting. I find how you pick little things interesting. It's almost like you're trying to find something...For the record it's not in this topic nor the thought crossed my mind. You're talking with someone who has friends from high school since early 2000s that are diff races, cultures and religions. We crack the odd racist dark humour jokes and poke fun of religion at times, but we don't get all hatred.
Once again for the last time find me a news article about this case where his religion and "Allah" isn't mentioned. Post links. You should already know why I posted based on the questions I asked afterwards if you read the thread accordingly...lol...
Last edited:
Most serious news outlets don't lead with a person's religion unless it is directly relevant to the story. In this case, why highlight his faith at all? You could just as easily mention that he's apparently a fan of Neil Patrick Harris. For the facts of the case, it would be about as relevant.
The National Post is one of Canada's largest newspapers and is generally viewed as being on the conservative side of the political spectrum. It has also faced criticism over the years for aspects of its coverage relating to Islam and immigration. That context matters when evaluating how a story is framed.
Part of the privilege many of us have is that we are rarely judged by our religion before we're judged as individuals. Not everyone gets that same benefit.
So when you posted the article, you genuinely didn't notice that the word "Muslim" was placed front and center in the headline and framing of the story?
And please don't fall back on the "I have a Black friend" argument. I think you're more intelligent than that. Knowing or interacting with people from a particular group does not, by itself, answer questions about bias, assumptions, or why a story resonated with someone enough to share it.
That's what I'm trying to understand. Not whether the accused was Muslim, but why that detail appeared to be important to the story in the first place, and why it was important enough for you to share it.
But to answer your question about my thought process: it's become clear to me that you have a tendency to gravitate toward controversy.
Quite often, the positions you share or amplify seem to sit right on the line of being misogynistic, xenophobic, or, in this case, anti-Muslim.
I'm trying to understand why this is your worldview.
Might have been weed laced with PCP. You never know what they put in this shit these days.
Wilfully doing drugs and being acquitted of a crime resulting from that is a bit ridiculous.
Perhaps I should get high enough to believe I'm a bank robber.
Who wouldn’t hate Muslims out of envy? They have this luxury of being able to reject pork without anyone intruding on their diet. But if a vegan refuses to eat pork, suddenly the narrative changes to the person being malnourished and lacking vitamin B12.
" So when you posted the article, you genuinely didn't notice that the word "Muslim" was placed front and center in the headline and framing of the story? "
The word "Muslim" or "Christian", "African American" and "Bisexual" etc. wouldn't effect the reason for me to post. It's in the story along with a lot more. I posted as how I see fit. If all news media is reporting religion/race within the story then me doing the same is based on how I read things on the article I came across first typically. In this case a headline reading Muslim. I shrug it. The body in text in the first post mentions Allah. Some news media articles could mention "Allah" in the first opening paragraph, mid-way through the article or at the end. Fact is that it's mentioned. That's where your personal beef lies lol...A guy like me shrugs it and posts how I see fit.
You bring up me clicking some alt right news outlet when I stated why and how I clicked it randomly showing up on my feed. The fact that's it an alt right or The National is right isn't something I constantly looking into or keep in mind. I might have known what side CP24, The Star, CNN, etc. is on but it slips my mind and I don't care enough to keep track.
And for the record lol since you bring certain things like alt right up I heavily for the majority of the time vote left. There's some things about the left I don't agree with and a few things about the right I agree with. So me clicking some right wing newspaper being a left wing voter makes no sense when I don't care about that.
"I'm trying to understand why this is your worldview." - Read the above lines started with "And..."
The word "Muslim" or "Christian", "African American" and "Bisexual" etc. wouldn't effect the reason for me to post. It's in the story along with a lot more. I posted as how I see fit. If all news media is reporting religion/race within the story then me doing the same is based on how I read things on the article I came across first typically. In this case a headline reading Muslim. I shrug it. The body in text in the first post mentions Allah. Some news media articles could mention "Allah" in the first opening paragraph, mid-way through the article or at the end. Fact is that it's mentioned. That's where your personal beef lies lol...A guy like me shrugs it and posts how I see fit.
You bring up me clicking some alt right news outlet when I stated why and how I clicked it randomly showing up on my feed. The fact that's it an alt right or The National is right isn't something I constantly looking into or keep in mind. I might have known what side CP24, The Star, CNN, etc. is on but it slips my mind and I don't care enough to keep track.
And for the record lol since you bring certain things like alt right up I heavily for the majority of the time vote left. There's some things about the left I don't agree with and a few things about the right I agree with. So me clicking some right wing newspaper being a left wing voter makes no sense when I don't care about that.
"I'm trying to understand why this is your worldview." - Read the above lines started with "And..."
Feel free to address this too since I brought it up and you ignored it:
Post 1 besides the fact I forgot to put quotations I ended in a question to discuss.
See post 10
See post 14's third last sentence
See post 20 last line
You'll notice in the topic at hand some other users bring up something very similar to question.
Post 1 besides the fact I forgot to put quotations I ended in a question to discuss.
See post 10
See post 14's third last sentence
See post 20 last line
You'll notice in the topic at hand some other users bring up something very similar to question.
Post 10- Yes R v Brown had Alcohol as one of the main contributere to the episde
Post 14 - And i agree with that point, except the Muslim reference part
Post 20 - Automatism is a legal defense where a person claims their actions were involuntary because they had no conscious control over their body or actions at the time. Classic examples include:
- Sleepwalking
- Certain seizures
- Some severe medical conditions
- Rare neurological episodes
The automatism defence has been around for well over a century. I realize the OP and his buddies seize on anything to express their racist hate of Muslims, but this thread is pretty dumb.
en.wikipedia.org
In criminal law, automatism is a rarely used criminal defence. It is one of the mental condition defences that relate to the mental state of the defendant. Automatism can be seen variously as lack of voluntariness, lack of culpability (unconsciousness) or excuse. Automatism means that the defendant was not aware of their actions when making the particular movements that constituted the illegal act.
For example, in 1859, Esther Griggs threw her child out of a first floor window believing that the house was on fire, while having a sleep terror.[1] In 2002, Peter Buck, lead guitarist of the band R.E.M., was cleared of several charges, including assault, which resulted from automatism brought on by a bad interaction between alcohol and sleeping pills. In a 2009 case in Aberporth in west Wales, Brian Thomas strangled his wife in their camper van, also during a sleep terror, when he mistook his wife for an intruder.[2] The defence of automatism is denying that the person was acting in the sense that the criminal law demands. As such it is really a denial-of-proof – the defendant is asserting that the offence is not made out. The prosecution does not have to disprove the defence as is sometimes erroneously reported; the prosecution has to prove all the elements of the offence including the voluntary act requirement. Automatism is a defence even against strict liability crimes like dangerous driving, where no intent is necessary.
There are several limitations to the defence of automatism in English law. Prior fault generally excludes automatism. Intoxication generally excludes automatism, even when involuntary. Any defence that rests on insanity comes under the M'Naghten rules. Under English law internal causes of automatism are generally judged to be insane automatism and so result in the special verdict (not guilty by reason of insanity) rather than simple acquittal.
Automatism (law) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
In criminal law, automatism is a rarely used criminal defence. It is one of the mental condition defences that relate to the mental state of the defendant. Automatism can be seen variously as lack of voluntariness, lack of culpability (unconsciousness) or excuse. Automatism means that the defendant was not aware of their actions when making the particular movements that constituted the illegal act.
For example, in 1859, Esther Griggs threw her child out of a first floor window believing that the house was on fire, while having a sleep terror.[1] In 2002, Peter Buck, lead guitarist of the band R.E.M., was cleared of several charges, including assault, which resulted from automatism brought on by a bad interaction between alcohol and sleeping pills. In a 2009 case in Aberporth in west Wales, Brian Thomas strangled his wife in their camper van, also during a sleep terror, when he mistook his wife for an intruder.[2] The defence of automatism is denying that the person was acting in the sense that the criminal law demands. As such it is really a denial-of-proof – the defendant is asserting that the offence is not made out. The prosecution does not have to disprove the defence as is sometimes erroneously reported; the prosecution has to prove all the elements of the offence including the voluntary act requirement. Automatism is a defence even against strict liability crimes like dangerous driving, where no intent is necessary.
There are several limitations to the defence of automatism in English law. Prior fault generally excludes automatism. Intoxication generally excludes automatism, even when involuntary. Any defence that rests on insanity comes under the M'Naghten rules. Under English law internal causes of automatism are generally judged to be insane automatism and so result in the special verdict (not guilty by reason of insanity) rather than simple acquittal.
The article in The National said this: "A psychiatrist and sleep expert testified that Baig “was either suffering from cannabis induced psychosis, sleepwalking or a combination of the two.”" Key word "OR" and "EITHER"
The article also said this: "The second psychiatrist determined that Baig “did not qualify for an NCR defence because he did not have disease of the mind. While Mr. Baig had a history of feeling anxious, he did not have an anxiety disorder, nor did he suffer form any other kind of mental illness." It was his opinion that, during the attack, Baig “was in a psychotic state that was different from mere intoxication.”"
So lets say some guy has sleep walking. We don't know his race or religion. He randomly bumps into you and attacks you. Either hurting you extremely bad or worse case killing you. Maybe even gets into his vehicle and does it.
Then during trial the guy claims his sleepwalking, sleep deprived and a new weed strain. Or perhaps alcohol. So he claims automatism. Judge says of course acquitted.
Now let's go to your last line:
"The key point is that the accused's actions were not voluntary, Impaired driving, i assume, Voluntary consumption of Alcohol getting behind the wheel while being under the influence"
Not voluntary? Did he not buy the weed at the store? Could have bought alcohol too no? If memory serves me correct he bought it at a potshop most likely a legal/licensed one.
Did he voluntary smoke the weed? How much THC and CBD was in this strain? What was different about it than the rest of the weed he smoked for over 20 years? What if instead of weed he switched from beer to whiskey and drank a 1/4 of a bottle voluntary. Do we know how many tokes he took of his weed? Was it a spliff? A blunt?
Where do you deem his smoking weed isn't voluntary?
The article also said this: "The second psychiatrist determined that Baig “did not qualify for an NCR defence because he did not have disease of the mind. While Mr. Baig had a history of feeling anxious, he did not have an anxiety disorder, nor did he suffer form any other kind of mental illness." It was his opinion that, during the attack, Baig “was in a psychotic state that was different from mere intoxication.”"
So lets say some guy has sleep walking. We don't know his race or religion. He randomly bumps into you and attacks you. Either hurting you extremely bad or worse case killing you. Maybe even gets into his vehicle and does it.
Then during trial the guy claims his sleepwalking, sleep deprived and a new weed strain. Or perhaps alcohol. So he claims automatism. Judge says of course acquitted.
Now let's go to your last line:
"The key point is that the accused's actions were not voluntary, Impaired driving, i assume, Voluntary consumption of Alcohol getting behind the wheel while being under the influence"
Not voluntary? Did he not buy the weed at the store? Could have bought alcohol too no? If memory serves me correct he bought it at a potshop most likely a legal/licensed one.
Did he voluntary smoke the weed? How much THC and CBD was in this strain? What was different about it than the rest of the weed he smoked for over 20 years? What if instead of weed he switched from beer to whiskey and drank a 1/4 of a bottle voluntary. Do we know how many tokes he took of his weed? Was it a spliff? A blunt?
Where do you deem his smoking weed isn't voluntary?
" which resulted from automatism brought on by a bad interaction between alcohol and sleeping pills "
What were the warnings for the sleeping pills? Does it mention not to take with alcohol and other substances?
The article mentions sleep walking not sleep terror. 2 different things.
What were the warnings for the sleeping pills? Does it mention not to take with alcohol and other substances?
The article mentions sleep walking not sleep terror. 2 different things.
