Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules

citoyens.soquij.qc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 318 posts

Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules

#261

Post by barry-cotter »

jwalton wrote: post #185
tonyarkles wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

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 libertés de la personne at the provincial level.

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/notwithsta...

Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules

#263

Post by barry-cotter »

unixgoddess wrote: post #233
jakear wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not nearly as bad as the sound of children laughing.

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 so…

If you don’t want to be exposed to other people live somewhere you can’t see your nearest neighbour.

Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules

#264

Post by barry-cotter »

cleanchit wrote: post #221
hackernewds wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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-...

Not using proper pronouns is putting mental strain on a mentally ill person. Imagine blowing smoke in the face of an asthma patient.

You think all transgender people are mentally ill?

Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules

#265

Post by Pxtl »

tonyarkles wrote: post #150
refurb wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No to mention the rather flippant suspension of Charter Rights during the Trucker Convoy.

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…

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.

Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules

#266

Post by sheepscreek »

walrus01 wrote: post #168
sheepscreek wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you like well written Canadian legal decisions, check out the decision in Meads. v. Meads on sovereign citizens.

Thanks for the reference. I am Canadian and only just discovering this!

If anyone else wants to read Meads vs. Meads: https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012a...

Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules

#267

Post by tonyarkles »

Pxtl wrote: post #265
tonyarkles wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 landscap…

> 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://publicorderemergencycommission.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.

Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules

#268

Post by denton-scratch »

zemnmez wrote: post #169
EntrePrescott wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

“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...

"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.

Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules

#269

Post by [deleted] »

tonyarkles wrote: post #147
barbazoo wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm just surprised he was actually arrested for something that's obviously covered by the first amendment FYI, This is in Canada

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 a…

[deleted]

Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules

#270

Post by denton-scratch »

rektide wrote: post #200

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…

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.

Post reply on HN