[HN Gopher] Giving the finger is a 'God-given right', Canadian j... ___________________________________________________________________ Giving the finger is a 'God-given right', Canadian judge rules Author : matbilodeau Score : 224 points Date : 2023-03-10 15:44 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (citoyens.soquij.qc.ca) (TXT) w3m dump (citoyens.soquij.qc.ca) | manv1 wrote: | Hell, yes! | DueDilligence wrote: | [dead] | dustfinger wrote: | > according to the objective video evidence, they drive | dangerously near the children as a way to protest their presence | and express their discontent. | | They should countersue for that! | hinata08 wrote: | More like | | >[3] To most, this scene represents a blissful snapshot of a | suburban utopia. Peaceful, friendly community life. | | [4] Yet, to the complainant and his family, this is an | unbearable nuisance. An affront on many levels. So much so, | that according to the objective video evidence, they drive | dangerously near the children as a way to protest their | presence and express their discontent.[..] | | it reminds me of South Park, the episode where they go to | Canada. | | Everyone : " Welcomes friends to Canada Canada friends loves | you " | | Scott : "What the hell is going on ?" | | Everyone (screaming and running away) : Scott ! It's Scott ! | | When you reach this level of being ridiculed on worldwide news, | you don't need to be sued. Counter-suing Scott would be like | shooting at the ambulance ! | swader999 wrote: | Trudeau senior gave some citizens the bird from his train window | way back so it should be ok for others to return the salute. | matbilodeau wrote: | Court decision | | http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca/php/decision.php?ID=B4064956004... | skeaker wrote: | This was a much more entertaining read than the link the OP, in | my opinion. I didn't realize official court documents could | have such an attitude. The guy that wrote this fuckin hates the | complainants and it shows, hahaha | ColinCochrane wrote: | That was a very entertaining read. Pulling no punches in the | conclusion: | | > 'In the modern-day vernacular, people often refer to a | criminal case "being thrown out". Obviously, this is little | more than a figurative expression. Cases aren't actually thrown | out, in the literal or physical sense. Nevertheless, in the | specific circumstances of this case, the Court is inclined to | actually take the file and throw it out the window, which is | the only way to adequately express my bewilderment with the | fact that Mr. Epstein was subjected to an arrest and a fulsome | criminal prosecution. Alas, the courtrooms of the Montreal | courthouse do not have windows.' | [deleted] | dang wrote: | We've changed the URL to that from | https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/10/giving-the- | mid.... Thanks! | belval wrote: | If you look past the headline, this story is almost "basic | sanity". The guy's neighbour didn't want the accused's kids | playing in the street (in the suburbs) because they have a yard. | To "prove" his point that it was dangerous he drove recklessly | around the kids in the street. | | The accused flipped him off and (allegedly because he denies it) | threatened him. | | Now frankly, I don't see why this would be hackernews-worthy, but | it's still a basic triumph of common sense. If I had kids and | they want to draw in chalk in a slow suburbs street, having a | nosy neighbour calling the police after speeding next to them to | illustrate his point would likely make my blood boil. | Overtonwindow wrote: | I would posit that common sense is the antithesis to | government. Consider children whose parents are arrested for | letting them walk to the park, or the woman arrested for | silently praying, in her head, while standing in front of an | abortion clinic. | | Prosecutorial abuse is equally, if not more of a crisis in the | world, than police abusing their arrest powers. | snozolli wrote: | _or the woman arrested for silently praying, in her head, | while standing in front of an abortion clinic._ | | Hmm... Looks like this happened in the UK: | | _The video shows an officer asking Vaughan-Spruce if she was | praying, to which she answers: "I might be praying in my | head."_ | | _She was charged Dec. 15 with four counts of breaking a | Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) around the abortion | facility. A PSPO is intended to stop antisocial behavior._ | | Source: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/253187/woman- | arreste... | | The Public Spaces Protection Order is here: | | https://www.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/Communities/PSPOs/Ophir- | Road-a... | | Some background on the protective order: | | https://www.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/news- | article.aspx?title=decisi... | | So, they had so many problems that the local council put an | order in place, with overwhelming public support. The woman | then violated the order and even indicated that she was | violating the order, by choice, all so she can play the | victim. | | Now it's being spun as "thought crime" so that they don't | have to take responsibility for their abhorrent behavior and | continue to pretend to be the ones who are victimized. | nostromo wrote: | > abhorrent behavior | | How can any sane person watch this video and say her | behavior was "abhorrent?" | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6E105a58p8 | | Videos like this make me so thankful for the US | constitution. | ck425 wrote: | The behaviour in a vacuum might not be so bad but she was | consciously trying to test how far she could go before | they broke a law made specifically due to anti-abortion | protesters like her intimidating woman to the point they | wouldn't use the services. | mywittyname wrote: | I have a conflicting opinions on this post. On one hand, I | loathe the use of "the government" as though it is some sort | of monoblock. There are plenty of people who get into public | service as a way to tangibly improve society and the lives of | the people. | | OTOH, you are right that too many people get away with | abusing their powers. | [deleted] | majormajor wrote: | The "some abuses make it worth scrapping the whole thing" | thesis is just pure folly. | | Two parallel possible spins on that: | | "Restrict the government since otherwise people will abuse | government power." | | "Have a lot of rules and regulations since otherwise people | will abuse individual liberties." | | Both of these make just as much sense on paper to me. On | one hand you have examples of government harassment; on the | other hand you have people literally being willing to sell | other people poison to make a buck. | | The problem in both cases is the people, not the system. | | I've come to the thinking that you have to build societal | values from the bottom up. You aren't gonna lawyer your way | to a perfect system if you are still fostering an | environment that encourages people to ignore that system, | resist it, and take advantage of each other. | marcosdumay wrote: | > I've come to the thinking that you have to build | societal values from the bottom up. | | And one way to build those values is by writing some | basic rules down, communicating them to everybody, and | enforce them. You will never have every single person | refraining from taking advantage of something. | mnkv wrote: | Did you read the whole report??? The complainant is essentially | stalking his neighbour with surveillance footage, recording any | time the neighbour so much as looks in his direction, and keeps | a stalker-ish log book with insults. On top of that his wife | and his father nearly hit the neighbour's 4 year olds with a | car and then say they refuse to slow down. The report says the | car was "inches away" from another person and that kid would | have been run over! | | And then the complainant has the audacity to file criminal suit | over his neighbour giving him middle finger after he does it | first! This story is about basic insanity. | UncleEntity wrote: | > To "prove" his point that it was dangerous he drove | recklessly around the kids in the street. | | It probably is dangerous [0] because people don't let their | kids play in the street anymore so drivers aren't used to | having them there. | | Not like when I was a kid where we would get ball games going | and pause to let the cars pass. People expected kids to be | playing in the street so didn't drive like complete lunatics. | | Can't even walk through parking lots anymore and everyone knows | that there are going to be people walking around all over the | place because that's what they are designed for. | | [0] Not advocating trying to scare the neighborhood kids | majormajor wrote: | There are a few different places within a few blocks of me | where there are basketball hoops set up facing the street, so | the street is the court. All on side streets, seems like it | hasn't been a big problem. Some of them have been there for | years at this point. | | Not even that far out in the burbs. Mixes of ~5ish story | apartment buildings, commercial, and SFH homes for miles in | all directions. | | Seems like "are people used to people being in the street" is | very area-specific. If this was _all_ 5+ story mixed-use | apartment developments, like a few miles north? Yeah, you don | 't see it as much there. On the other hand, if it was even | less developed, with basically no non-local through traffic? | I've seen even more. | cldellow wrote: | From reading the decision and looking at Google Maps: the | street is a short, narrow dead-end street in the suburbs. | Most of the people who live there have young children who | play together. | | It would be very difficult to accidentally find yourself on | this street, driving quickly. | | Of course, it's dangerous in the sense that anything to do | with cars is dangerous. But it seems pretty safe as far as | these things go. | ElfinTrousers wrote: | I live in a much more built up area than this. Mostly small | apartment buildings, duplexes and three-deckers. The odd | single-family home, usually on the small side. People here | still let their kids play in the streets. Not the youngest | kids or the busiest streets, but it's not at all unusual to | see some kids kicking a ball or playing hockey in the | street, or just tooling around on bikes going nowhere. | m_0x wrote: | > It would be very difficult to accidentally find yourself | on this street, driving quickly. | | As a parent of a 6 years old, I always assume all drivers | are not paying attention to the road but rather to their | phones when my kid is playing in the street (with | supervision because I don't know if he will react quickly | to a car coming his way) | | It sucks, because I used to play in the street without | supervision (to my best knowledge). But today, cars are | faster and drivers are more distracted. | codetrotter wrote: | > I used to play in the street without supervision (to my | best knowledge) | | Bro, when I was a kid we went as far as to me | intentionally walking into the street to slow cars down | just to see what would happen ':) | | Kids are crazy. Myself in the past included. | m_0x wrote: | That's exactly why I'm sad of the precautions I take. | Back then drivers had less distractions while driving. Of | course there was the occasionally distracted driver but | nowadays is more common than what it used to be thanks to | the smartphone. | wil421 wrote: | Teach your kids to move out of the street and stand in | the sidewalk or yard. My 3 year old is trained to do this | and will do it on her own, still working on doing it 100% | of the time. | | Neighborhoods have not gone up in speed limits it's 25 in | residential streets unless you live directly off a main | road. | chitowneats wrote: | If you vacate the space, you're responsible for the | consequences. | blendergeek wrote: | > Not like when I was a kid where we would get ball games | going and pause to let the cars pass. People expected kids to | be playing in the street so didn't drive like complete | lunatics. | | In my neighborhood kids play in the street all the time. | There are basketball goals up and down my street and the kids | pause the ball games to let the cars pass. | | Are you sure that you don't just live in a different place | now? | unixgoddess wrote: | doesn't the noise from basketballs hitting concrete/asphalt | drive you guys nuts? | jakear wrote: | It's not nearly as bad as the sound of children laughing. | arcanemachiner wrote: | The absolute horror. | ipaddr wrote: | Saw kids playing on my last walk around. It still exists in | some places. | wil421 wrote: | My kids 3 and under play in the street multiple times a week | during the summer. Our neighbors kids will come out if they | see and vice versa. | | There's kids that throw footballs and baseballs most weekends | during the warm months in the road. They move over. | | What kind of place are you living? | JohnFen wrote: | > people don't let their kids play in the street anymore so | drivers aren't used to having them there. | | This must depend on where you are, because kids around here | play in the street all the time, in residential areas. | namuol wrote: | There is no more-self-entitled group of jerks in the US than | drivers like these. They expect pedestrians to be second class | citizens. They expect acres upon acres of land to be dedicated | to plopping their vehicle down so they don't have to walk more | than a block. The cherry on top is that they expect everyone - | not just car owners - to pay for their monumentally wasteful | infrastructure and stand in the way of anything that they | believe may threaten this frankly depressing way of life. | setgree wrote: | This particular case took place in Canada :) | [deleted] | Jeff_Brown wrote: | There are drivers like that -- a surprising lot of them, even | -- but it's quite a leap to.say drivers are like that. | entropicgravity wrote: | Yes it's a God-given right until someone flips it in this judge's | court room and points it at him. Judge 1 God 0. | ilrwbwrkhv wrote: | [flagged] | burnished wrote: | [flagged] | freetime2 wrote: | Here's the specific "God-given right" passage from the ruling. So | satisfying: | | [168] To be abundantly clear, it is not a crime to give someone | the finger. Flipping the proverbial bird is a God-given, Charter | enshrined right that belongs to every red-blooded Canadian. It | may not be civil, it may not be polite, it may not be | gentlemanly. | | [169] Nevertheless, it does not trigger criminal liability. | Offending someone is not a crime. It is an integral component of | one's freedom of expression. Citizens are to be thicker-skinned, | especially when they behave in ways that are highly likely to | trigger such profanity - like driving too fast on a street where | innocent kids are playing. Being told to "fuck off" should not | prompt a call to 9-1-1. | [deleted] | rossdavidh wrote: | I admit, it's long. But the ending was brilliant. | | "In the modern-day vernacular, people often refer to a criminal | case "being thrown out". Obviously, this is little more than a | figurative expression. Cases aren't actually thrown out, in the | literal or physical sense. Nevertheless, in the specific | circumstances of this case, the Court is inclined to actually | take the file and throw it out the window, which is the only way | to adequately express my bewilderment with the fact that Mr. | Epstein was subjected to an arrest and a fulsome criminal | prosecution. Alas, the courtrooms of the Montreal courthouse do | not have windows. | | A mere verdict of acquittal will have to suffice." | 908B64B197 wrote: | Wow that's colorful for court documents. | | I don't see how it could have turned out any other way. | | I'm just surprised he was actually arrested for something | that's obviously covered by the first amendment. This reeks | incompetence from the district attorney, trying to intimidate | the man out of his rights like that. | barbazoo wrote: | > I'm just surprised he was actually arrested for something | that's obviously covered by the first amendment | | FYI, This is in Canada | talideon wrote: | How can you tell me that you're American without actually | saying it? Oh, here's a way! | tjohns wrote: | The first amendment to the US constitution does not apply to | Canada. Unless you believe US law is globally binding. | | (That said, Canada does have their own freedom of speech, | under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.) | SllX wrote: | So actually it is, but not in the way that it applies to | other countries. | | The First Amendment is a a flat limitation of Congressional | power, not a rights grant. So in that way, it is globally | binding as it applies to laws that the United States | Congress may make as they pertain to e.g. US citizens | residing in Canada, or really even Canadians at home or in | the US. | 908B64B197 wrote: | > That said, Canada does have their own freedom of speech, | under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. | | So basically the same amendment, covering the same rights | and inspired by the same document (pretty sure the US | constitution came first) just under a different name. | version_five wrote: | Canada's charter of rights and freedoms isn't worth the | paper it's printed on, especially in Quebec where the | government actively pre-empts it (it has a clause that | allows this, explaining why it's worthless) when it doesn't | line up with their ideology. | acover wrote: | We grant you this right, not withstanding any desire we | have to take it away. | bawolff wrote: | Its not a perfect utopia, but its not nearly as dire as | you suggest. | sangnoir wrote: | > I'm just surprised he was actually arrested for something | that's obviously covered by the first amendment | | >> [...] _Canadian_ Judge rules | Waterluvian wrote: | Americans are harassed and arrested _ALL THE TIME_ for | obvious 1A protected speech. This is why Courts of nations | with true free speech are very eager to push back when police | abuse their power. This prose is just that. An absolute | scolding. | thfuran wrote: | Judicial opinions are often colorful. | Waterluvian wrote: | Read the whole thing. It's very digestible. The judge is | absolutely _livid_ with the complainant. | neonate wrote: | https://archive.ph/SWoUz | ggambetta wrote: | [flagged] | dang wrote: | " _Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents._ " | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | | Especially please don't take HN threads into religious flamewar | --it's easily avoidable and particularly poisonous. | cf100clunk wrote: | Colloquialisms abound, and they are not to be taken literally | or we'd have actors with broken femurs everywhere in the | English-speaking world. Understandably, colloquialisms can be | very problematic for those learning a new language. Is that the | situation in your case? | [deleted] | stametseater wrote: | I'm an atheist but when people sneeze I still sometimes say | "God bless." It's just a phrase at this point, nobody believes | that Canada is a genuine theocracy. | akira2501 wrote: | > "Osiris bless Egypt", | | What is there to "feel?" Is there some reason we shouldn't let | our basic human tolerance apply here as well? | | > God-given, huh. | | Typically, when used by governments, it's meant to mean rights | that aren't endowed upon you by the state and thus aren't | within the purview of the state to police or remove. | glonq wrote: | George Carlin has a great classic bit on "God-given" rights. | kelseyfrog wrote: | Except when I say it's God-given and the state disagrees, | then I don't get the right. When states do it, they do it so | that they don't become the object of frustration when they | don't grant the right. Anyone believing it (god given, or | natural, or universal human) is willingly letting the state | dupe them into this arrangement at their expense and the | benefit of the government. | marcellus23 wrote: | Not really following. Are you saying you have a problem with | the idiom "God-given"? | kwhitefoot wrote: | If @ggambetta believes that there are people with influence | in society who take the idiom literally then it would be | reasonable for @ggambetta to be concerned and to have a | problem with the idiom. | | Perhaps the judge could have used a more precise legal | formula to avoid just this kind of concern. | josefx wrote: | > If @ggambetta believes that there are people with | influence in society who take the idiom literally then it | would be reasonable for @ggambetta to be concerned and to | have a problem with the idiom. | | Can't the same be said for people who believe the world is | flat? After all they believe it, so their concern about the | round world conspiracy has to be reasonable, right? | | I think there might be a tiny gap in your reasoning. | kwhitefoot wrote: | The flat earthers don't use their beliefs as a means to | force their world view on the rest of us, plenty of god | botherers do. | jenadine wrote: | I do have a problem. It's like the sexist language or the N | word. Their just words so nothing to be offended by, right? | But they just perpetuate and normalise the concepts. In this | case non-sensical religious things. | marcellus23 wrote: | There's a pretty big gulf between this and the N word. | cldellow wrote: | I mean, the judge also said it was a "Charter-enshrined" right, | but that's less punchy, so didn't make the headline. | soperj wrote: | I agree with the separation of Church & State. | mirpetri wrote: | praise the Lord | colpabar wrote: | I know saying "fuck the police" is an overused cliche at this | point but how the fuck can anyone have any respect for the police | as a whole when this is the shit they do? In canada they arrest | you for a hand gesture and in america they arrest you for letting | your children walk outside. How could any sane member of society | go to a person's house and arrest them for these things? And they | still have the nerve to complain that people don't respect them! | Do cops in canada have discretion like american cops do? | | I am not completely anti-police and I do think that it's a tough | job and is ultimately necessary for a society. But I really think | we need to completely start over because our current | implementation of policing is completely fucked. | cldellow wrote: | TBH, I think the conduct of the cops is fine here. If someone | alleges that the other party is making death threats, I want | them to investigate. It's not alleged that the cops mistreated | Mr. Epstein. Obviously being arrested is traumatic, but the | fault here lies with the unhinged neighbour, who will hopefully | be prosecuted. | | What's beyond the pale for me is that the Crown prosecutor | brought the lawsuit at all. She's even a 16-year veteran. I'd | be interested in reporting about how this case made it to trial | once they had collected all the evidence. | SkeuomorphicBee wrote: | If all the police did was investigate, then their conduct | would have been fine. But they arrested him, and that is not | adequate conduct. | cldellow wrote: | On the one hand, knowing what we know now, I certainly | agree it would be preferable if he wasn't arrested. | | On the other hand, the neighbour had made at least 4 | reports to the police about harassment and death threats. I | believe the neighbour's brother and parents had also spoken | to the police in support of these claims. On the day of the | arrest, the neighbour had _just_ made the most serious | claim yet--about death threats. | | Given that context, I can understand why the police legally | have the right to arrest, and would be willing to arrest. | Rumudiez wrote: | The kind of person it takes to make 4(!) official | complaints and have the local police office in their | contact list is exactly the same person to exaggerate | dramatically, play the victim, and ultimately be the true | source of anti-social behavior. I don't believe there's | any veracity behind their claims, and the police | department should have forwarded their calls to a | therapist instead. | vkou wrote: | A friend[1] of mine (and his neighbours) have made a lot | more than 4 official complaints about an absolutely | deranged lunatic[2] on his street. | | It took _years_ of complaints and police calls, for the | guy to get a court date (For harassing the neighbors and | vandalizing their cars.) | | Unless you actually go through many of the steps of | investigating, you have no idea if the person making the | complaints is the anti-social shithead, or if the person | being complained about is. '4 official calls = complainer | is full of shit' is a terrible heuristic. | | [1] Who I trust and respect very much. I doubt that he's | full of crap. | | [2] Who, from all accounts, wouldn't benefit from a fine | or prison sentence - he needs _therapy_. | standardUser wrote: | "I certainly agree it would be preferable if he wasn't | arrested." | | We should actually be completely fucking outraged that | any citizen can be forcibly detained on the whim of the | police for non-violent behavior. Yet you seem to think | it's just fine to deny a person every basic human right | on the whim of some cop? | marcosdumay wrote: | Hum... No, it's not ok for the police to arrest somebody | only due to claims. It doesn't matter how often the | claims are repeated. | | Maybe the police should have investigated it earlier, but | lack of that earlier investigation is not cause for | arresting him. | duxup wrote: | The cops weren't involved simply because of someone giving | someone the finger. | | The person was accused for making death threats and that's what | the arrest was about. | alephxyz wrote: | Looks like the cops did the right thing there : | | >In his testimony, Naccache simply says that the police treated | it like a neighbourly dispute and accordingly declined to press | the matter further. They were "not keen of processing a | harassment complaint".[11] However, he conveniently omits | mentioning what he noted in his written log. | | >The log reveals that, to his dismay, the police officer | informed him that his brother Ari could have been charged with | assault and his father Frank could have been ticketed for | driving dangerously. In his notes, Naccache took the officer's | warning as a "threat". He also complained that the officers did | nothing about Mr. Epstein not wearing a COVID mask... outdoors. | standardUser wrote: | Hard to imagine "the right thing" ever involves using force | to detain a citizen who poses no urgent threat and has not | engaged in violent behavior. That detainment may be | temporary, but it is a complete and utter denial of all basic | human rights to the person being detained. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-03-10 23:00 UTC)