Double standards

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,478
12
38
Probably the most sound response.

Upon first seeing the video, it does seem like peaceful protester / mob mentality results in assault.

Its said the protestor had been a constant presence at the site, and involved in multiple confrontations.

But too many questions unanswered.

If there have been multiple confrontations, were they provoked by the protester, or instigated by people with a counter view?

Ethically, a memorial isn't the kindest place to protest, but obviously the man is passionate against extremist Islam.

Some think that his sign is hate speech/inciting hate. I honestly don't know about Canadian laws anymore. I'd think free speech protects him, but maybe criticism of other religions has become protected.

Either way, I think the police should have been more involved here. If his sign was a criminal offense, then remove it. If he is unlawfully allowed to protest at a memorial, remove him.
But if he is legally allowed to do both in Canada, police need to protect him. No matter what though, it shouldn't end up in violence, and nobody had the right to assault another.

The police can clearly been seen in the video watching the incident. If the protester was in the wrong, they needed to act.
So assuming he was allowed to be there, an arrest should be made for assaulting him. He could have been badly hurt.
Just a note on free speech itself: The right of free speech is a protection against the government controlling what you can or cannot say. That has never meant that anyone can say what they want, when and where they choose, and everyone else must respectfully allow them to.

Besides speech-related laws such as libel, slander, hate-speech, inciting riot, there are all the ordinary criminal punishments if speech provokes disturbance, assault, or some other crime. Nor is there any specific offence to punish someone who just disagrees, or dislikes what you said and tries to interfere with you or stop you from saying it. For that you'd have to rely on assault charges and other such stuff. Either way, if you're a cop you can't do very much until someone has already done something that's against the law.

It's easy to sit at our keyboards and criticize. Imagine yourself and two friends in yellow bike cop jackets and helmets and tell us how you personally would have kept the peace at that fountain, when you first saw Bozo take out his sign and stick it in people's faces.

More to the larger issue of the community we want, how would it do anyone any good to give Shover and the SignStupid lifetime criminal records for something no worse than horseplay at the ol' swimmin' hole? IMHO making both parties cool down and go away wet and thinking is a whole lot smarter.
 

apoptygma

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2017
3,042
100
48
She didn't attempt to steal it. Come on now. Don't be silly.

I couldn't tell if she touched him at all and was just thinking along the lines of assaults only. If she didn't touch him while grabbing at it, then warning what could have happened legally if she had touched him.

I am sure there is some other type of charge that could be laid. I was only thinking in terms assault or no assault.
She was attempting to remove it from his possession, depriving him of access to something that he owns.
 

HEYHEY

Well-known member
Nov 25, 2005
2,614
784
113
Probably the most sound response.

Upon first seeing the video, it does seem like peaceful protester / mob mentality results in assault.

Its said the protestor had been a constant presence at the site, and involved in multiple confrontations.

But too many questions unanswered.

If there have been multiple confrontations, were they provoked by the protester, or instigated by people with a counter view?

Ethically, a memorial isn't the kindest place to protest, but obviously the man is passionate against extremist Islam.

Some think that his sign is hate speech/inciting hate. I honestly don't know about Canadian laws anymore. I'd think free speech protects him, but maybe criticism of other religions has become protected.

Either way, I think the police should have been more involved here. If his sign was a criminal offense, then remove it. If he is unlawfully allowed to protest at a memorial, remove him.
But if he is legally allowed to do both in Canada, police need to protect him. No matter what though, it shouldn't end up in violence, and nobody had the right to assault another.

The police can clearly been seen in the video watching the incident. If the protester was in the wrong, they needed to act.
So assuming he was allowed to be there, an arrest should be made for assaulting him. He could have been badly hurt.
If criticism of another religion is hate speech then we as a society are in trouble
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,478
12
38
If criticism of another religion is hate speech then we as a society are in trouble
Good thing it isn't. On the other hand being deliberately provocative or insulting is a long way from innocent criticism.

Unless you imagine SignGuy was a drama critic with a bug about CBC history, there's no way displaying his sign at that spot was anything but deliberately hateful and provocative. Nonetheless the authorities present in no way interfered with his right of free speech.

Apparently they ushered him away to a less contentious place, but only after he'd succeeded in provoking a disturbance that clearly endangered others and himself.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,478
12
38
Glad to see even an extraneous thread merits our customary high level of courteous and mutually respectful byplay.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,749
3
0
No, Canada has laws against hate speech.
That's more valued then total freedom of speech here.

So the hate speech is a crime here.
But who is it that gets to determine what is hate speech?

In the words of USSC Justice Louis Brandeis (Whitney v. California) "the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
 

curr3n_c1000

I do all my own stunts
Dec 20, 2014
4,024
2,174
113
Look like one white man tried to take a sign away from another white man. Then a mixture of losing his balance and getting pushed made the protester fall into the fountain.

Not much of an assault. Don't know how far this would go in court.
 

HEYHEY

Well-known member
Nov 25, 2005
2,614
784
113
If I was an officer on site, I would put myself between the protestor and the group. Allowing them to physically interact is not wise.

If you dislike the protester, then the outcome makes fine sense. But taking an impartial view of the protestor, feel the outcome is not the best course.

When a man cannot peaceful protest, without being physically interacted with, then what good is having a 'peace' officer? Their job is keeping the peace, and this is a fail.

I don't expect criminal charges to stick to the man who assaulted, but you do need to discipline at some level. ( at the very least detain and take information) . It sucks to hell for the people who don't agree with that sign, but you just cannot touch another person physically, no exceptions.
The man who pushed him obviously can't 'turn the cheek', and refrain from physical interaction. To do nothing to him, is not wise. That indicates to me, that he did nothing wrong, which is not the case at all.

If the protester shoved and knocked into the fountain of the people approaching him, would this conversation be the same? Would the police still be idle?
Finally someone with some common sense
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,630
7,076
113
But who is it that gets to determine what is hate speech? ...
The obvious answer is the government and the courts.

And the police (in Canada and the US) have consistently minimized the 'free-speech' rights of protesters if they thought their intent was to incite.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,478
12
38
If I was an officer on site, I would put myself between the protestor and the group. Allowing them to physically interact is not wise.

If you dislike the protester, then the outcome makes fine sense. But taking an impartial view of the protestor, feel the outcome is not the best course.

When a man cannot peaceful protest, without being physically interacted with, then what good is having a 'peace' officer? Their job is keeping the peace, and this is a fail.

I don't expect criminal charges to stick to the man who assaulted, but you do need to discipline at some level. ( at the very least detain and take information) . It sucks to hell for the people who don't agree with that sign, but you just cannot touch another person physically, no exceptions.
The man who pushed him obviously can't 'turn the cheek', and refrain from physical interaction. To do nothing to him, is not wise. That indicates to me, that he did nothing wrong, which is not the case at all.

If the protester shoved and knocked into the fountain of the people approaching him, would this conversation be the same? Would the police still be idle?
Thanks. Fine in hindsight when you know how it will turn out. But you're a cop somewhere on the other side of a crowded square, full of flowers and people chatting, praying and taking pix, when you — and other folks — first see SignBozo, and you don't have any reason to interfere with anyone or do anything until someone gets out of line. By then you've gotta get through the crowd and step into the middle of an scrum where you can't tell who is pushing who, and who needs protection from who else. Not at all as easy or straightforward as you set it out, and I'm sure the cops attending were disappointed they didn't manage to get between the disputants in time to stop even the minor scuffle we saw.

Nor is it straightforward that he was the simple peaceful protester. From the history in the OP he must have been aware his sign was resented and provoking, in fact it angered more folks than those whose religion he was 'protesting' (at a memorial for two victims who sound about as WASP as they come) and many read it as hate-speech. He may have been non-violent, but no one who goes looking for trouble can properly be called peaceful.

All things considered, the best outcome of the guy's protest was pretty much what occurred; the disputing parties were separated — if a little too late — and what might have been truly violent, injurious and incitement for much worse, was almost comic in the end.

We shall see if anyone learned anything from it.
 

LT56

Banned
Feb 16, 2013
1,604
2
0
It does feel good I will admit...however, so much of the alt-right is about provoking this exact sort of incident in order tp play into their persecution narrative. If you ask any ex-Aryan supremacist or ex-klansman they reported people assaulting or harassing them just further reinforced and hardened their beliefs. It was everyday people from the class of people they hate who show them kindness and dignity that cause them to re-think their racist beliefs.
You are probably right. Maybe a peaceful response to Sign Bozo would have been better than throwing him in a fountain.
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,664
21
38
If his protest is illegal, let the police deal with it. They'll tell him to move, or arrest him, or whatever the appropriate legal response should be. People that disagreed with the man should be allowed to chant, yell, mock, and berate him but physical assault should not be tolerated. This is what separates our society from so many across the world - the freedom to protest. This man would literally have his head cut off with a dull knife by vigilante defenders of Islam in many countries for his protest. Shades of that same animalistic instinct are apparent among many posters here, and without the long arm of the Western law, they would happily engage in similar horrors.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,558
6,763
113
Noise, noise, and more noise! What do we know about Faisal Hussain? Really, what do we know for sure?
 

sempel

Banned
Feb 23, 2017
3,645
29
0
I'm pretty sure everyone involved with this could be fined/charged/jailed with something if prosecuted to the fullest extent. For sure the protest was in bad taste and I think one could be found guilty of promoting hate. Touching the guys sign is not allowed - might be assault/harassment. And throwing the guy into the fountain is assault, even though he deserved it. But there's definitely a double standard here as others doing the same thing for a good cause would not be treated the same and probably everyone would be calling for the guys head (the one who pushed him into the fountain).
 

Jasmine Raine

Well-known member
Jul 28, 2014
4,027
52
48
Actually, it's not the same. A majority is 50% + 1 pf the votes cast/ Mob rule is a group, not necessarily a majority nor even a large minority, but the group is always based on a single issue without regard for rules, laws or any structure outside it's own goal. It's more like a non-benevolent dictatorship.
No majority doesn't work that way. Look at US voting. I mean didn't Hillary win the majority of all votes????? Lol

NVM sweetie - I am just being a pain in the ass for shits and giggles.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts