Its also time to get rid of these kangaroo courts er rather Tribunals. If something is illegal, then take it to court. If not, you have a vote and the right to exercise your own free speech -- for now.
johnathan/jessica yaniv used those kangaroo courts in BC for years to make alot of money off newcomers. HRTs aren't fit for purpose - get rid of them, don't make more
If incitement to genocide is taken seriously, then many Hamas sympathizers will be facing serious charges. What is the likelihood that the letter of the law will be followed in that case?
Compare BC to Washington State and it is sad. Vancouver is a glorified tourist town with film production, high margin status goods and money laundering as the main industries, while Seattle is one of the most wealthy and dynamic cities on earth. Its cheaper in Washington State to live as well.
Labour was elected. Kier Starmer is a total left wing loon who spent his working life as a Human Rights lawyer representing illegal immigrants, terrorists. Starmer leans so far to the left he is going to meet himself coming the other way.
Orwellian Ministry of Political Purity and Thought Police being brought to you through laws created by Liberals, NDP and the swath of "progressive" illiberal left dictatored by Justin Trudeau, Canada's unprime subminister.
Clearly you are right that this bad tweet is not a matter for the police. But "Blow the Mosque Up and all the adults inside"? I don't care how much you regret it, you just shouldn't post stuff like that. That's like shouting Fire in a crowded theatre, not protected speech.
Human Rights Tribunals have been created for the express purpose of bypassing the rules of evidence and other protocols essential to a fair trial as evolved over a thousand years of common law. These tribunals are an abomination and have no place in our democracy.
The author of this article portrays Julie Sweeney's call for a mosque to be blown up with adults in it "a admittedly nasty but deeply regretted and deleted Facebook posts within a small community group."
She publicly made a bomb/death threat. From where I stand, I see no problem with her serving 15 months in jail and have to question the editorial judgement of The Line to let that characterization of her legitimate threat remain.
The same British legal system recently jailed a man for 6 months for yelling at a Police Dog. Britain is utterly fucked under long time fruit cake Kier Starmer.
Looked that up. He did a lot more than that, had a prior record, and was inciting violence. Actually got 20 months. There's a balance between freedom and order: too much disorder infringes on the freedoms of too many others. That's what Bradley McCarthy did, per the Telegraph, hardly a left-leaning publication, as Peter Menzies points out.
Starmer released hard core prisoners on the basis there was no more room in the prisons. Then Starmer jailed Brits for posting on Facebook etc. No room in prisons for hard core prisoners but room in jail for posting on Facebook. The man is a creep. I have noticed that when Mr. Menzies writes on this substack it seems to attract some of the left wing loons.
In the course of taking a graduate level criminology course, I learned of I believe a UK study in which it was determined that 80 percent of complaints received by the police were noncriminal in nature and really outside the mandate of law enforcement. This finding was taken very seriously by police and criminologists around the world, given the implications for effective police action. (An Australian book on the subject was on our reading list).
The Defund the Police movement in later years in many ways took similar issue from a different perspective.
The picture painted is that police work involves sorting through a barrage of complaints in order to attend to those matters that are actual police business. It could well be argued that they do not always do this very well. Even so, I was taken aback when I read in this article that “Police, of course, are obliged to investigate when they receive a complaint. If they didn’t, they’d almost certainly be accused of enabling hate, and of being racists themselves.” Perhaps your columnist did not mean to say what he said in his first statement, but just in case your readers actually believed it, I felt I had to comment.
Invoking the Magna Carta with the implication that the police actually put people in jail without the benefit of trial or evidence would be another topic in response to this article.
As stories like this make clear, it isn't free speech that's being 'weaponized' but the legal restrictions on it, with such weaponization predictably being guided by political and ideological criteria. Whether the legislators crafting such restrictions are simply well-intentioned but oblivious, or politically/ideologically committed enough to deliberately create legislation for the express purpose of its being exploited in this cynical way, by activists or anyone bearing a grudge, is a moot point: in either case the laws themselves are incompatible with any coherent understanding of freedom of expression.
I commend to reader the following decision on the penalties and remedies (compulsory reeducation) available against some country folk who did not raise the pride flag, when an advocacy group thought they were obliged to do so. And the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal agreed, penalizing the miscreants and directing remedies which would bring their thinking into line with current progessive cant. It is quite an interesting decision, which I comment to Line readers - both on the merits of the issue and the way that non-court instruments of the state can operate. Here is the citation:
Human Rights Tribunals are an abomination and the fact Harper didn't gut them is a stain on his legacy. (Ignore the Supreme Court if they found them to be a new "right")
These tribunals are an example that our legal elites don't take fairness in the legal system for regular people seriously.
One of the most underappreciated aspects of being well off in Canada is the fact that you can purchase justice. You can afford to "lawyer up." Our legal system is definitely pay to play, as common law was designed to be.
This trend is indeed concerning. Although not quite the same, I was horrified to read of the abuse suffered by the little town of Emo because they didn't declare pride week. This was also a result of a Human Rights Tribunal. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/ontario-town-fined-10000-for-refusing-to-celebrate-pride-month
Its also time to get rid of these kangaroo courts er rather Tribunals. If something is illegal, then take it to court. If not, you have a vote and the right to exercise your own free speech -- for now.
johnathan/jessica yaniv used those kangaroo courts in BC for years to make alot of money off newcomers. HRTs aren't fit for purpose - get rid of them, don't make more
Borderland Pride - shake down experts.
If incitement to genocide is taken seriously, then many Hamas sympathizers will be facing serious charges. What is the likelihood that the letter of the law will be followed in that case?
"What is the likelihood .....?"
Zero. Nada. Zilch.
I like your name. Very much to the point on current times.
And the Loonie Left wonders why they are losing elections and will continue to lose elections until this madness stops.
They aren't losing enough elections. See BC.
Every time I see BC I feel wretched. Such a beautiful glorious Province and yet totally mismanaged to the point of failure.
Compare BC to Washington State and it is sad. Vancouver is a glorified tourist town with film production, high margin status goods and money laundering as the main industries, while Seattle is one of the most wealthy and dynamic cities on earth. Its cheaper in Washington State to live as well.
They had 14 years of Tory rule with the same laws on the books. Nothing changed to allow this.
Labour was elected. Kier Starmer is a total left wing loon who spent his working life as a Human Rights lawyer representing illegal immigrants, terrorists. Starmer leans so far to the left he is going to meet himself coming the other way.
There’s a small town in Ontario currently offering an excellent example of this type of social engineering overreach.
Here is the citation:
Borderland Pride v. Corporation of the Township of Emo, 2024 HRTO 1651 (CanLII)
Orwellian Ministry of Political Purity and Thought Police being brought to you through laws created by Liberals, NDP and the swath of "progressive" illiberal left dictatored by Justin Trudeau, Canada's unprime subminister.
Clearly you are right that this bad tweet is not a matter for the police. But "Blow the Mosque Up and all the adults inside"? I don't care how much you regret it, you just shouldn't post stuff like that. That's like shouting Fire in a crowded theatre, not protected speech.
Human Rights Tribunals have been created for the express purpose of bypassing the rules of evidence and other protocols essential to a fair trial as evolved over a thousand years of common law. These tribunals are an abomination and have no place in our democracy.
The author of this article portrays Julie Sweeney's call for a mosque to be blown up with adults in it "a admittedly nasty but deeply regretted and deleted Facebook posts within a small community group."
She publicly made a bomb/death threat. From where I stand, I see no problem with her serving 15 months in jail and have to question the editorial judgement of The Line to let that characterization of her legitimate threat remain.
The same British legal system recently jailed a man for 6 months for yelling at a Police Dog. Britain is utterly fucked under long time fruit cake Kier Starmer.
Looked that up. He did a lot more than that, had a prior record, and was inciting violence. Actually got 20 months. There's a balance between freedom and order: too much disorder infringes on the freedoms of too many others. That's what Bradley McCarthy did, per the Telegraph, hardly a left-leaning publication, as Peter Menzies points out.
Thanks, see here: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2nm5jgxlko
Again, sounds like a perfectly reasonable legal decision when you actually look at the details as opposed to eliding them as Menzies did.
Starmer didn't change anything. The laws that allowed them to do that were already there.
Starmer released hard core prisoners on the basis there was no more room in the prisons. Then Starmer jailed Brits for posting on Facebook etc. No room in prisons for hard core prisoners but room in jail for posting on Facebook. The man is a creep. I have noticed that when Mr. Menzies writes on this substack it seems to attract some of the left wing loons.
In the course of taking a graduate level criminology course, I learned of I believe a UK study in which it was determined that 80 percent of complaints received by the police were noncriminal in nature and really outside the mandate of law enforcement. This finding was taken very seriously by police and criminologists around the world, given the implications for effective police action. (An Australian book on the subject was on our reading list).
The Defund the Police movement in later years in many ways took similar issue from a different perspective.
The picture painted is that police work involves sorting through a barrage of complaints in order to attend to those matters that are actual police business. It could well be argued that they do not always do this very well. Even so, I was taken aback when I read in this article that “Police, of course, are obliged to investigate when they receive a complaint. If they didn’t, they’d almost certainly be accused of enabling hate, and of being racists themselves.” Perhaps your columnist did not mean to say what he said in his first statement, but just in case your readers actually believed it, I felt I had to comment.
Invoking the Magna Carta with the implication that the police actually put people in jail without the benefit of trial or evidence would be another topic in response to this article.
Never underestimate the power of stupid.
Julie Sweeney was sentenced to 15 months for posting: “...Blow the mosque up with the adults in it.”
She deserved her sentence.
PS She will be eligible for parole after 7 1/2 months. Pretty good for someone who has promoted murder.
As stories like this make clear, it isn't free speech that's being 'weaponized' but the legal restrictions on it, with such weaponization predictably being guided by political and ideological criteria. Whether the legislators crafting such restrictions are simply well-intentioned but oblivious, or politically/ideologically committed enough to deliberately create legislation for the express purpose of its being exploited in this cynical way, by activists or anyone bearing a grudge, is a moot point: in either case the laws themselves are incompatible with any coherent understanding of freedom of expression.
This is how Trump won. Or rather, this is how the Democrats lost.
HERE IS THE BARE LINK ADDRESS WHICH WILL MAKE IT EASIER
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2024/2024hrto1651/2024hrto1651.html?resultId=8f11c5dcdf7b469f88011d435b96daf6&searchId=2024-11-28T14:02:06:380/008d5de40ed04790ab384a3960b44465&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAKRW1vIFByaWRlIAAAAAAB
I commend to reader the following decision on the penalties and remedies (compulsory reeducation) available against some country folk who did not raise the pride flag, when an advocacy group thought they were obliged to do so. And the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal agreed, penalizing the miscreants and directing remedies which would bring their thinking into line with current progessive cant. It is quite an interesting decision, which I comment to Line readers - both on the merits of the issue and the way that non-court instruments of the state can operate. Here is the citation:
oops...for some reason it did not copy. I will try again:
Borderland Pride v. Corporation of the Township of Emo, 2024 HRTO 1651 (CanLII)
Human Rights Tribunals are an abomination and the fact Harper didn't gut them is a stain on his legacy. (Ignore the Supreme Court if they found them to be a new "right")
These tribunals are an example that our legal elites don't take fairness in the legal system for regular people seriously.
One of the most underappreciated aspects of being well off in Canada is the fact that you can purchase justice. You can afford to "lawyer up." Our legal system is definitely pay to play, as common law was designed to be.