24 ms·

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

525 points by matbilodeau 4y ago

surfingdino 4y ago
This is glorious. I smell a book deal for the judge. The writing is beautiful.
WeylandYutani 4y ago
God should be written out of the Constitution.
manv1 4y ago
[flagged]
matbilodeau 4y ago
Court decision http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca/php/decision.php?ID=B40649560046AC98B6BC3AA9D9C409F7 http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca/php/decision.php?ID=B4064956004...
- skeaker 4y ago
  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
  - digitallyfree 4y ago
    Yeah I was surprised that they wrote an official court document like that, with plenty of sarcasm and snark. I actually wanted to keep reading it all the way to the end.
- ColinCochrane 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    [deleted]
- dang 4y ago
  We've changed the URL to that from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/10/giving-the-middle-finger-is-a-god-given-right-canada-canadian-judge-rules https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/10/giving-the-mid.... Thanks!
ggambetta 4y ago
[flagged]
- akira2501 4y ago
  > "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 4y ago
    George Carlin has a great classic bit on "God-given" rights.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    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 4y ago
  Not really following. Are you saying you have a problem with the idiom "God-given"?
  - kwhitefoot 4y ago
    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 4y ago
colpabar 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      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.
belval 4y ago
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.
- namuol 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - setgree 4y ago
    This particular case took place in Canada :)
  - Jeff_Brown 4y ago
    There are drivers like that -- a surprising lot of them, even -- but it's quite a leap to.say drivers are like that.
    - namuol 4y ago
      All that matters is that enough of them are like this.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - dang 4y ago
    Ok, but please don't fulminate on HN. We're trying for something else here, as https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html explains.
- UncleEntity 4y ago
swader999 4y ago
Trudeau senior gave some citizens the bird from his train window way back so it should be ok for others to return the salute.
- brailsafe 4y ago
  It's the most Canadian response you can give, before choking someone out that is
DueDilligence 4y ago
[dead]
ilrwbwrkhv 4y ago
[flagged]
- burnished 4y ago
  [flagged]
neonate 4y ago
https://archive.ph/SWoUz https://archive.ph/SWoUz
dustfinger 4y ago
> 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 4y ago
  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 !
rossdavidh 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    > I'm just surprised he was actually arrested for something that's obviously covered by the first amendment FYI, This is in Canada
    - tonyarkles 4y ago
      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 almost two years. > [6] This injustice ends today. And at the end: > [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. > [170] On that topic, the evidence in the case at bar established that even after the accused’s arrest, therefore after the period covered by these charges, Michael Naccache called the police again to report that Mr. Epstein’s wife had given them the finger while walking on the street.[55] > [171] This needs to stop. The complainants are free to clutch their pearls in the face of such an insult. However, the police department and the 9-1-1 dispatching service have more important priorities to address.
entropicgravity 4y ago
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.
Waterluvian 4y ago
Read the whole thing. It's very digestible. The judge is absolutely livid with the complainant.
- error418s 4y ago
  > [149] On what basis did he fear that Mr. Epstein was a potential murderer? The fact that he went for quiet walks with his kids? The fact that he socialized with the other young parents on the street? If that is the standard, we should all fear that our neighbours are killers in waiting. Hide your kids, hide your wives. We are all in mortal danger. The judge's writing is amazing.
freetime2 4y ago
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.
- hackernewds 4y ago
  > 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-human-rights-violation https://www.them.us/story/canadian-court-rules-misgendering-...
  - klyrs 4y ago
    That's a human rights tribunal, which is basically a lawsuit in a fancy hat. Not a crime.
    - jakeogh 4y ago
      Incrementalism. Its exceptionally effective. Before we know it, a comedian will train his dog to show us.
      - klyrs 4y ago
        Lol you yanks have an actual fascist movement underway passing laws against books and education and free expression and here you are repeating their talking points concern-trolling like free speech is under attack in Canada. Get your own house in order.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
anonymousDan 4y ago
I hope the accused was awarded costs. What a bloody waste of time and money.
phkahler 4y ago
Another great nugget: >> This deplorable Laval reference is worthy of an eye roll that could sever both optical nerves. When a Karen presses charges...
- ttul 4y ago
  For those who don’t know Montreal, Laval is a suburb of the city. It’s mostly white, French-speaking majority has been in decline for years relative to newcomers who speak other languages - including anglophone Canadian. The complainants in the case are definitely Québecois and emblematic of the resentment toward newcomers expressed by many.
  - simonlc 4y ago
    Laval is its own city.
  - aga98mtl 4y ago
    Michael, Ari and Frank Naccache are not typical Québécois names. I would guess they are either Mizrahi jewish or Lebanese.
- kl4m 4y ago
  For those wondering, the Laval reference is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laval_daycare_bus_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laval_daycare_bus_crash
jawns 4y ago
In the U.S., however, First Amendment protection for flipping the bird is not considered "clearly established" law in some portions of the country, and police officers can be protected by qualified immunity if they arrest you in retaliation for displaying the middle finger. The U.S. Courts of Appeal for the 2nd Circuit and 6th Circuit have held that flipping the bird is protected speech. (See Swartz v. Insogna, 2013, and Ellis v. Davidson, 2004.) But as far as I've been able to determine, the 3rd Circuit, which governs my own part of the country, has not made any definitive rulings on it. That means that a case like Guessford v. Douglas et al, which was recently filed by a Delaware man, might end up with the police involved protected from punishment. (Guessford held up a handmade "RADAR AHEAD" sign while standing near a speed trap, and the police ripped up the sign, then later pulled him over and cited him in retaliation for flipping them the bird.)
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  >(Guessford held up a handmade "RADAR AHEAD" sign while standing near a speed trap, and the police ripped up the sign, then later pulled him over and cited him in retaliation for flipping them the bird.) The police can have fun fighting the likes of Google and Apple, since their map programs feature speed trap warnings.
- jakeogh 4y ago
  Any SC that would rule against that hand signal as anything but speech would be clearly making new law. There are strong forces that would like to do this, but at the moment the SC majority+ is not. Sign language is language. To the other side... it may be worth attempting to rewrite the sign dictionary such that dissent is assult. Billions of $ already are spent on it monthly. It's a long road to the SC. I think that is a feature. Fire*3 might need another look https://youtu.be/4Z2uzEM0ugY https://youtu.be/4Z2uzEM0ugY
ttul 4y ago
It is indeed shocking that this poor man was arrested, charged, and taken through a full prosecution despite the obviously flawed evidence. The crown prosecutor erred so greatly in taking this case on that it strains belief. In Canada, the crown turns down all sorts of cases if they aren’t highly confident they can win. This one? Prosecutors are appointed, not elected. They have nothing to gain from such legal tourism and whomever brought this case forward will have a black mark on their credentials for some time.
- EntrePrescott 4y ago
  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.
  - JeremyBanks 4y ago
    [dead]
  - zemnmez 4y ago
    “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-services-unit/ https://www.mof.gov.jm/careers/crown-counsel-mlss-legal-serv...
    - zemnmez 4y ago
      wanted to correct this one: I confused Barbados with Jamaica here. Barbados is a republic. I am sure its laws still use the term "the crown", but it looks like it uses the term "Public Prosecutor" instead of "Crown Prosecutor".
    - mod50ack 4y ago
pdonis 4y ago
Protip: Don't make accusations against someone that can easily be refuted by looking at video evidence from your own cameras. (Special Darwin Award extra credit if the video evidence also shows you doing things that are at least questionable.)
retr0nerd 4y ago
Which god? Humans have invented several thousands of them over the years.
- jenadine 4y ago
  The one who is allowed to give rights according the the constitution of Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_Canadian_Chart...
eth0up 4y ago
Digitus impudicus - the middle finger and the law: https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/03/middlefinger.pdf https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/03/middl...
eyelidlessness 4y ago
> He even claimed that “dipshit” is not really an insult. It is merely a nickname like any other; an innocuous form of slang What an amazing self own. Especially when you could very plausibly say you had a heated reaction and accept it with very minimal consequences for judgement. But by all means double down!
aleister_777 4y ago
But honking will get your bank accounts seized and have you declared a terrorist.
gerdesj 4y ago
I have no idea what a UK version of this transcript would look like but I rather enjoyed this one from Canada. The Décision is spelt out with exquisite precision throughout the entire document. King Charles III's Justice is quite clearly very well dispensed in Canada.
- raattgift 4y ago
  tl;dr: <https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/chambers-v-dpp.pdf https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Ju...> (wiki overview <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_joke_trial#cite_ref-High_Court_Judgment_29-0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_joke_trial#cite_ref-Hi...>), which summarizes the very different first-instance trial (in England & Wales) of Chambers from this first-instance trial of Epstein (in Canada). In particular, Chambers was accused of threatening to blow up an airport, which is rather different than giving someone a finger. The finger was meant seriously, whereas the "threat" was clearly not meant seriously, and the conviction of Chambers is widely considered a miscarriage of justice that was only belatedly corrected. I am fairly sure that to the extent the Canadian acquittal becomes widely know, it will be considered a correct and just outcome. The UK has at least three different criminal jurisdictions. The most readily comparable one is that of England & Wales ("E&W"). Most criminal law in modern times flows from legislation in the various parliaments based at Westminster in London ("Westminster" for short), however in Scotland and Northern Ireland there is law that is variously old enough to predate Westminster's legislative control; there is also old law in England and Wales together and separately; and finally there is new law legislated by the devolved assemblies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In terms of criminal law, there has been a sort of quasi-federalism in the UK and its predecessor kingdoms for centuries. In Canada there is only one criminal law, and it is exclusively controlled by the federal parliament. In England & Wales the criminal law is generally not codified; one finds criminal offences were (and continue to be) created in topical legislation, for instance there are new criminal offences throughout the Landlord Tenant Act, 1985, a topical act rebalancing landlord-tenant responsibilities and liabilities. In Chambers, the topical Communications Act, 2003, created the relevant criminal offence. The Criminal Code of Canada is (practically) the only place where criminal offences can be itemized, and the creation of new offences require an amendment to the Criminal Code. These amendments are usually done in standalone Acts of Parliament, however from time to time a topical Act may amend the Criminal Code. When that happens, the Code is where one looks to understand the criminal law, not the Act which amended it. The Code is meant to be uniformly applied and interpreted in every province and territory. However, as in most systems in which criminal law is codified, the code is not especially verbose nor exhaustive of possibilites (the law is not a computer program), and first-instance courts (and appellate courts) can resolve a prosecution with a particular set of facts differently from one another. Sometimes differences in the highest appellate courts in provinces are dealt with by modifications to the Criminal Code by the federal parliament; sometimes the matters are resolved by the Supreme Court of Canada; sometimes the differents are just left different, and typically those are situations which will require such unusual circumstances that they will never be comparable to prosecutions (for the same criminal code offence) brought elsewhere in Canada. In Epstein the judgment makes reference to various paragraphs of the Criminal Code. The Court did not see the need to make explicit reference to paragraphs in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of the Canadian constitution. In Chambers the judgment makes explicit reference to the (UK) Human Rights Act, 1998, ("UKHRA") and articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (which UKHRA imported into the laws of England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, etc.). It also looks to other sources of law to consider what was meant by the wording of the Communications Act, by referenes to other legislation (e.g. the Malicious Communications Act, 1988) and case law (DPP v Collins (2006)). Epstein was acquitted at trial. Chambers was convicted, but ultimately the High Court (in the chain of appeals against the initial conviction) quashed the conviction. The judgments share some features, namely the use of long numbered paragraphs, and a detailed itemization of the law and evidence considered by the two Courts. Some court systems using codified criminal law tend to have very short judgments, and an acquittal might be memoralized in a single short paragraph which might take the form of, "the conditions for the conviction of the accused were not met so he is not convicted". This is fairly common in systems which descend from 19th century French law (Québec is not an example; it lost legal ties to France before then) or which have been highly influenced by it in the 20th and 21st centuries. Finally, King Charles III of Canada is not really involved in matters of Canadian criminal law. The Constitution of Canada obliges him to delegate legislative, executive, prosecutorial, and judicial authority to Canadian institutions. The (less consolidated but very much written) constitution of the United Kingdom likewise ousts its monarch from a significant role in shaping and enforcing the criminal laws in the various UK jurisdictions; those powers are exercised by Parliament (or the national legislatures), various executive bodies and various courts. Nobody would take the expression "King Charles III's Justice" seriously in either country, although in some contexts one would hear pretty much exactly that formalism being uttered as an essentially empty tradition.
iisan7 4y ago
This whole episode recalls _A Confederacy of Dunces_ vividly with Naccache as Reilly.
jfb 4y ago
I have never been prouder to have become a Canadian citizen.
klyrs 4y ago
Reminds me of the time a cop hassled me on a really bad day and I gave him the finger as I walked away. "You're lucky I can't arrest you for that!" I didn't look back. Thanks, Canada, for being a bit better than your shithole neighbor.
eqvinox 4y ago
[78] At the time of the events, his daughters were 2 and 4 years old. […] [80] At trial, there is no evidence before me suggesting these young children form a criminal or terrorist organization.
lxe 4y ago
This is a great read! Never thought a judgment can be this fun, Why is the King prosecuting this?
raydiatian 4y ago
“God gave me ten fingers, and said ‘arrange them as you see fit’ and I said holy f* you’re actually God why are you operating the drive thru window, anyway thanks for the chicken fingers your holiness”
rektide 4y ago
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 be punished for it). And I don't really see or get how to navigate these two "protests", what maxims to apply, how to see these cases which I think have different judgements as actually different. Maybe it's just the social cost: a personal insult of a middle finger versus a civically-disturbing loud horn blow. And that kind of checks out. This decision feels right on to me (which I understand countries like Germany highly disagree on atm): you're free to express that. Maybe the social cost is that, once you start using a very loud system of alert as a way to indicate anger, you dilute the exigency of this alert system, become a cause of false-alarm that creates a real risk that real-alarm goes unnoted. Maybe that's a good enough case against letting drivers honk, a check. But to go back to the general: this decision is about not limiting, but what are the limits? What are problematic displeasures? What lines shouldn't we accept? If someone flips the bird, how much counter-permission do you have to be a terror? This case suggests flipping the bird back might be a counter-God-given-right, but can we scream our head off back? Can we honk for the next 5 minutes after seeing someone flip a bird at us? Can we drive aggressively?
- Beldin 4y ago
  Dunno about your jurisdiction; around here there are nuisance laws and traffic laws pertaining to honking that a honker would quickly run afoul of.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  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.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
p-e-w 4y ago
> [6] This injustice ends today. No it doesn't. Unless such actions have consequences for the police and prosecutors beyond their case being thrown out, this injustice persists. To claim otherwise is like saying the injustice of a robbery has been rectified because the robber was not allowed to keep the stolen goods. That's not what "justice" means. What the judge is really telling police and prosecutors is: You failed this time, but by all means keep trying.
- olliej 4y ago
  I am really unsure what was going on here - it seems the crown made no attempt to find the victim guilty, and the police had formally rejected charges (and as the ruling says literally told the complainant that if anyone had committed crimes it was them). The judge also seems to believe that this is what the crown was wanting, so is there some reason that they could have been required to bring the case?
djha-skin 4y ago
No one should get arrested for expressing their opinion. That being said, just because you can give someone the finger, doesn't mean you should.
- olliej 4y ago
  You should read the ruling. If anyone deserves the finger it would be this dude and his family. After one of them assaulted the victim, multiple threatened to hit their kids, they accusing his flipping the bird at them as being a death threat with a "throat slitting" gesture.
  - ChoGGi 4y ago
    He first gave the finger, then I'm guessing gave him a two fingered chin flick. At least when they had the jack hammer confrontation.
    - olliej 4y ago
      It sounds like he flipped him off, and the victim of the nonsense claim says he flipped the bird then waved off the asshole. Everything shows that the victim never did anything threatening no matter how belligerent the complainant was - the most "threatening" thing you could claim he did was shout at them after they almost drove over his kids and said that they would do it in future. So while the video in question is apparently not super clear in this particular "death threat", the only person who says he did anything neck related is the guy who also made numerous other claims directly contradicted by his own video. The same guy that - and the court notes - repeatedly lies about things that have happened whenever facts are inconvenient, even when the complainant's own video demonstrates the falsity of the claims.
hn_throwaway_69 4y ago
Australian here. I find the excessive emotive flair throughout the judgment as pressing the boundaries on occasion. A court is supposed to act impartially and emotions kept in check. This kind of language could be appealable in Australia, see for instance, this news report from yesterday: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-10/dismissal-of-assault-charge-against-teacher-overturned/102080754 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-10/dismissal-of-assault-... Maybe it's just more common in Canada for judges to be more forthright with their opinions.
- charles_f 4y ago
  > A court is supposed to act impartially and emotions kept in check What are you talking about? The whole point of a court is, by very definition, to judge
- procavia 4y ago
  This is in a very different vein than the language in that story and not equivalent
mihaaly 4y ago
Mrs Smith sues his neighbour for calling her cow publicly all the time and wins the case. On the end of the ruling the neighbour asks the judge: - Does this mean I cannot call Mrs Smith cow from now on? - That is right. - But can I still call a cow Mrs Smith? - Yes, that you can do. The neighbour turns to Mrs Smith with a big sarcastic smile: - See you later Mrs Smith!
joseftexas 4y ago
[flagged]
unhammer 4y ago
Reminds me of https://www-dagsavisen-no.translate.goog/nyheter/innenriks/2008/05/05/greit-a-kalle-politimann-haestkuk/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=no&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://www-dagsavisen-no.translate.goog/nyheter/innenriks/2... where swearing at a police officer in Norway was "ok in this instance since they're both northeners and that's just how they talk up there", while in other cases people have been given fines.

525 points by matbilodeau 4y ago

surfingdino 4y ago

This is glorious. I smell a book deal for the judge. The writing is beautiful.

WeylandYutani 4y ago

God should be written out of the Constitution.

manv1 4y ago

[flagged]

matbilodeau 4y ago

Court decision http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca/php/decision.php?ID=B40649560046AC98B6BC3AA9D9C409F7 http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca/php/decision.php?ID=B4064956004...

skeaker 4y ago
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
- digitallyfree 4y ago
  Yeah I was surprised that they wrote an official court document like that, with plenty of sarcasm and snark. I actually wanted to keep reading it all the way to the end.
ColinCochrane 4y ago
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 4y ago
  [deleted]
dang 4y ago
We've changed the URL to that from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/10/giving-the-middle-finger-is-a-god-given-right-canada-canadian-judge-rules https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/10/giving-the-mid.... Thanks!

ggambetta 4y ago

[flagged]

akira2501 4y ago
> "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 4y ago
  George Carlin has a great classic bit on "God-given" rights.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  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 4y ago
Not really following. Are you saying you have a problem with the idiom "God-given"?
- kwhitefoot 4y ago
  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 4y ago

colpabar 4y ago

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 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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.

belval 4y ago

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.

namuol 4y ago
[flagged]
- setgree 4y ago
  This particular case took place in Canada :)
- Jeff_Brown 4y ago
  There are drivers like that -- a surprising lot of them, even -- but it's quite a leap to.say drivers are like that.
  - namuol 4y ago
    All that matters is that enough of them are like this.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 4y ago
  Ok, but please don't fulminate on HN. We're trying for something else here, as https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html explains.
UncleEntity 4y ago

swader999 4y ago

Trudeau senior gave some citizens the bird from his train window way back so it should be ok for others to return the salute.

brailsafe 4y ago
It's the most Canadian response you can give, before choking someone out that is

DueDilligence 4y ago

[dead]

ilrwbwrkhv 4y ago

[flagged]

burnished 4y ago
[flagged]

neonate 4y ago

https://archive.ph/SWoUz https://archive.ph/SWoUz

dustfinger 4y ago

> 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 4y ago
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 !

rossdavidh 4y ago

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 4y ago
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 4y ago
  > I'm just surprised he was actually arrested for something that's obviously covered by the first amendment FYI, This is in Canada
  - tonyarkles 4y ago
    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 almost two years. > [6] This injustice ends today. And at the end: > [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. > [170] On that topic, the evidence in the case at bar established that even after the accused’s arrest, therefore after the period covered by these charges, Michael Naccache called the police again to report that Mr. Epstein’s wife had given them the finger while walking on the street.[55] > [171] This needs to stop. The complainants are free to clutch their pearls in the face of such an insult. However, the police department and the 9-1-1 dispatching service have more important priorities to address.

entropicgravity 4y ago

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.

Waterluvian 4y ago

Read the whole thing. It's very digestible. The judge is absolutely livid with the complainant.

error418s 4y ago
> [149] On what basis did he fear that Mr. Epstein was a potential murderer? The fact that he went for quiet walks with his kids? The fact that he socialized with the other young parents on the street? If that is the standard, we should all fear that our neighbours are killers in waiting. Hide your kids, hide your wives. We are all in mortal danger. The judge's writing is amazing.

freetime2 4y ago

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.

hackernewds 4y ago
> 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-human-rights-violation https://www.them.us/story/canadian-court-rules-misgendering-...
- klyrs 4y ago
  That's a human rights tribunal, which is basically a lawsuit in a fancy hat. Not a crime.
  - jakeogh 4y ago
    Incrementalism. Its exceptionally effective. Before we know it, a comedian will train his dog to show us.
    - klyrs 4y ago
      Lol you yanks have an actual fascist movement underway passing laws against books and education and free expression and here you are repeating their talking points concern-trolling like free speech is under attack in Canada. Get your own house in order.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

anonymousDan 4y ago

I hope the accused was awarded costs. What a bloody waste of time and money.

phkahler 4y ago

Another great nugget: >> This deplorable Laval reference is worthy of an eye roll that could sever both optical nerves. When a Karen presses charges...

ttul 4y ago
For those who don’t know Montreal, Laval is a suburb of the city. It’s mostly white, French-speaking majority has been in decline for years relative to newcomers who speak other languages - including anglophone Canadian. The complainants in the case are definitely Québecois and emblematic of the resentment toward newcomers expressed by many.
- simonlc 4y ago
  Laval is its own city.
- aga98mtl 4y ago
  Michael, Ari and Frank Naccache are not typical Québécois names. I would guess they are either Mizrahi jewish or Lebanese.
kl4m 4y ago
For those wondering, the Laval reference is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laval_daycare_bus_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laval_daycare_bus_crash

jawns 4y ago

In the U.S., however, First Amendment protection for flipping the bird is not considered "clearly established" law in some portions of the country, and police officers can be protected by qualified immunity if they arrest you in retaliation for displaying the middle finger. The U.S. Courts of Appeal for the 2nd Circuit and 6th Circuit have held that flipping the bird is protected speech. (See Swartz v. Insogna, 2013, and Ellis v. Davidson, 2004.) But as far as I've been able to determine, the 3rd Circuit, which governs my own part of the country, has not made any definitive rulings on it. That means that a case like Guessford v. Douglas et al, which was recently filed by a Delaware man, might end up with the police involved protected from punishment. (Guessford held up a handmade "RADAR AHEAD" sign while standing near a speed trap, and the police ripped up the sign, then later pulled him over and cited him in retaliation for flipping them the bird.)

Dalewyn 4y ago
>(Guessford held up a handmade "RADAR AHEAD" sign while standing near a speed trap, and the police ripped up the sign, then later pulled him over and cited him in retaliation for flipping them the bird.) The police can have fun fighting the likes of Google and Apple, since their map programs feature speed trap warnings.
jakeogh 4y ago
Any SC that would rule against that hand signal as anything but speech would be clearly making new law. There are strong forces that would like to do this, but at the moment the SC majority+ is not. Sign language is language. To the other side... it may be worth attempting to rewrite the sign dictionary such that dissent is assult. Billions of $ already are spent on it monthly. It's a long road to the SC. I think that is a feature. Fire*3 might need another look https://youtu.be/4Z2uzEM0ugY https://youtu.be/4Z2uzEM0ugY

ttul 4y ago

It is indeed shocking that this poor man was arrested, charged, and taken through a full prosecution despite the obviously flawed evidence. The crown prosecutor erred so greatly in taking this case on that it strains belief. In Canada, the crown turns down all sorts of cases if they aren’t highly confident they can win. This one? Prosecutors are appointed, not elected. They have nothing to gain from such legal tourism and whomever brought this case forward will have a black mark on their credentials for some time.

EntrePrescott 4y ago
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.
- JeremyBanks 4y ago
  [dead]
- zemnmez 4y ago
  “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-services-unit/ https://www.mof.gov.jm/careers/crown-counsel-mlss-legal-serv...
  - zemnmez 4y ago
    wanted to correct this one: I confused Barbados with Jamaica here. Barbados is a republic. I am sure its laws still use the term "the crown", but it looks like it uses the term "Public Prosecutor" instead of "Crown Prosecutor".
  - mod50ack 4y ago

pdonis 4y ago

Protip: Don't make accusations against someone that can easily be refuted by looking at video evidence from your own cameras. (Special Darwin Award extra credit if the video evidence also shows you doing things that are at least questionable.)

retr0nerd 4y ago

Which god? Humans have invented several thousands of them over the years.

jenadine 4y ago
The one who is allowed to give rights according the the constitution of Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_Canadian_Chart...

eth0up 4y ago

Digitus impudicus - the middle finger and the law: https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/03/middlefinger.pdf https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/03/middl...

eyelidlessness 4y ago

> He even claimed that “dipshit” is not really an insult. It is merely a nickname like any other; an innocuous form of slang What an amazing self own. Especially when you could very plausibly say you had a heated reaction and accept it with very minimal consequences for judgement. But by all means double down!

aleister_777 4y ago

But honking will get your bank accounts seized and have you declared a terrorist.

gerdesj 4y ago

I have no idea what a UK version of this transcript would look like but I rather enjoyed this one from Canada. The Décision is spelt out with exquisite precision throughout the entire document. King Charles III's Justice is quite clearly very well dispensed in Canada.

raattgift 4y ago
tl;dr: <https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/chambers-v-dpp.pdf https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Ju...> (wiki overview <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_joke_trial#cite_ref-High_Court_Judgment_29-0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_joke_trial#cite_ref-Hi...>), which summarizes the very different first-instance trial (in England & Wales) of Chambers from this first-instance trial of Epstein (in Canada). In particular, Chambers was accused of threatening to blow up an airport, which is rather different than giving someone a finger. The finger was meant seriously, whereas the "threat" was clearly not meant seriously, and the conviction of Chambers is widely considered a miscarriage of justice that was only belatedly corrected. I am fairly sure that to the extent the Canadian acquittal becomes widely know, it will be considered a correct and just outcome. The UK has at least three different criminal jurisdictions. The most readily comparable one is that of England & Wales ("E&W"). Most criminal law in modern times flows from legislation in the various parliaments based at Westminster in London ("Westminster" for short), however in Scotland and Northern Ireland there is law that is variously old enough to predate Westminster's legislative control; there is also old law in England and Wales together and separately; and finally there is new law legislated by the devolved assemblies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In terms of criminal law, there has been a sort of quasi-federalism in the UK and its predecessor kingdoms for centuries. In Canada there is only one criminal law, and it is exclusively controlled by the federal parliament. In England & Wales the criminal law is generally not codified; one finds criminal offences were (and continue to be) created in topical legislation, for instance there are new criminal offences throughout the Landlord Tenant Act, 1985, a topical act rebalancing landlord-tenant responsibilities and liabilities. In Chambers, the topical Communications Act, 2003, created the relevant criminal offence. The Criminal Code of Canada is (practically) the only place where criminal offences can be itemized, and the creation of new offences require an amendment to the Criminal Code. These amendments are usually done in standalone Acts of Parliament, however from time to time a topical Act may amend the Criminal Code. When that happens, the Code is where one looks to understand the criminal law, not the Act which amended it. The Code is meant to be uniformly applied and interpreted in every province and territory. However, as in most systems in which criminal law is codified, the code is not especially verbose nor exhaustive of possibilites (the law is not a computer program), and first-instance courts (and appellate courts) can resolve a prosecution with a particular set of facts differently from one another. Sometimes differences in the highest appellate courts in provinces are dealt with by modifications to the Criminal Code by the federal parliament; sometimes the matters are resolved by the Supreme Court of Canada; sometimes the differents are just left different, and typically those are situations which will require such unusual circumstances that they will never be comparable to prosecutions (for the same criminal code offence) brought elsewhere in Canada. In Epstein the judgment makes reference to various paragraphs of the Criminal Code. The Court did not see the need to make explicit reference to paragraphs in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of the Canadian constitution. In Chambers the judgment makes explicit reference to the (UK) Human Rights Act, 1998, ("UKHRA") and articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (which UKHRA imported into the laws of England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, etc.). It also looks to other sources of law to consider what was meant by the wording of the Communications Act, by referenes to other legislation (e.g. the Malicious Communications Act, 1988) and case law (DPP v Collins (2006)). Epstein was acquitted at trial. Chambers was convicted, but ultimately the High Court (in the chain of appeals against the initial conviction) quashed the conviction. The judgments share some features, namely the use of long numbered paragraphs, and a detailed itemization of the law and evidence considered by the two Courts. Some court systems using codified criminal law tend to have very short judgments, and an acquittal might be memoralized in a single short paragraph which might take the form of, "the conditions for the conviction of the accused were not met so he is not convicted". This is fairly common in systems which descend from 19th century French law (Québec is not an example; it lost legal ties to France before then) or which have been highly influenced by it in the 20th and 21st centuries. Finally, King Charles III of Canada is not really involved in matters of Canadian criminal law. The Constitution of Canada obliges him to delegate legislative, executive, prosecutorial, and judicial authority to Canadian institutions. The (less consolidated but very much written) constitution of the United Kingdom likewise ousts its monarch from a significant role in shaping and enforcing the criminal laws in the various UK jurisdictions; those powers are exercised by Parliament (or the national legislatures), various executive bodies and various courts. Nobody would take the expression "King Charles III's Justice" seriously in either country, although in some contexts one would hear pretty much exactly that formalism being uttered as an essentially empty tradition.

iisan7 4y ago

This whole episode recalls _A Confederacy of Dunces_ vividly with Naccache as Reilly.

jfb 4y ago

I have never been prouder to have become a Canadian citizen.

klyrs 4y ago

Reminds me of the time a cop hassled me on a really bad day and I gave him the finger as I walked away. "You're lucky I can't arrest you for that!" I didn't look back. Thanks, Canada, for being a bit better than your shithole neighbor.

eqvinox 4y ago

[78] At the time of the events, his daughters were 2 and 4 years old. […] [80] At trial, there is no evidence before me suggesting these young children form a criminal or terrorist organization.

lxe 4y ago

This is a great read! Never thought a judgment can be this fun, Why is the King prosecuting this?

raydiatian 4y ago

“God gave me ten fingers, and said ‘arrange them as you see fit’ and I said holy f* you’re actually God why are you operating the drive thru window, anyway thanks for the chicken fingers your holiness”

rektide 4y ago

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 be punished for it). And I don't really see or get how to navigate these two "protests", what maxims to apply, how to see these cases which I think have different judgements as actually different. Maybe it's just the social cost: a personal insult of a middle finger versus a civically-disturbing loud horn blow. And that kind of checks out. This decision feels right on to me (which I understand countries like Germany highly disagree on atm): you're free to express that. Maybe the social cost is that, once you start using a very loud system of alert as a way to indicate anger, you dilute the exigency of this alert system, become a cause of false-alarm that creates a real risk that real-alarm goes unnoted. Maybe that's a good enough case against letting drivers honk, a check. But to go back to the general: this decision is about not limiting, but what are the limits? What are problematic displeasures? What lines shouldn't we accept? If someone flips the bird, how much counter-permission do you have to be a terror? This case suggests flipping the bird back might be a counter-God-given-right, but can we scream our head off back? Can we honk for the next 5 minutes after seeing someone flip a bird at us? Can we drive aggressively?

Beldin 4y ago
Dunno about your jurisdiction; around here there are nuisance laws and traffic laws pertaining to honking that a honker would quickly run afoul of.
denton-scratch 4y ago
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.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

p-e-w 4y ago

> [6] This injustice ends today. No it doesn't. Unless such actions have consequences for the police and prosecutors beyond their case being thrown out, this injustice persists. To claim otherwise is like saying the injustice of a robbery has been rectified because the robber was not allowed to keep the stolen goods. That's not what "justice" means. What the judge is really telling police and prosecutors is: You failed this time, but by all means keep trying.

olliej 4y ago
I am really unsure what was going on here - it seems the crown made no attempt to find the victim guilty, and the police had formally rejected charges (and as the ruling says literally told the complainant that if anyone had committed crimes it was them). The judge also seems to believe that this is what the crown was wanting, so is there some reason that they could have been required to bring the case?

djha-skin 4y ago

No one should get arrested for expressing their opinion. That being said, just because you can give someone the finger, doesn't mean you should.

olliej 4y ago
You should read the ruling. If anyone deserves the finger it would be this dude and his family. After one of them assaulted the victim, multiple threatened to hit their kids, they accusing his flipping the bird at them as being a death threat with a "throat slitting" gesture.
- ChoGGi 4y ago
  He first gave the finger, then I'm guessing gave him a two fingered chin flick. At least when they had the jack hammer confrontation.
  - olliej 4y ago
    It sounds like he flipped him off, and the victim of the nonsense claim says he flipped the bird then waved off the asshole. Everything shows that the victim never did anything threatening no matter how belligerent the complainant was - the most "threatening" thing you could claim he did was shout at them after they almost drove over his kids and said that they would do it in future. So while the video in question is apparently not super clear in this particular "death threat", the only person who says he did anything neck related is the guy who also made numerous other claims directly contradicted by his own video. The same guy that - and the court notes - repeatedly lies about things that have happened whenever facts are inconvenient, even when the complainant's own video demonstrates the falsity of the claims.

hn_throwaway_69 4y ago

Australian here. I find the excessive emotive flair throughout the judgment as pressing the boundaries on occasion. A court is supposed to act impartially and emotions kept in check. This kind of language could be appealable in Australia, see for instance, this news report from yesterday: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-10/dismissal-of-assault-charge-against-teacher-overturned/102080754 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-10/dismissal-of-assault-... Maybe it's just more common in Canada for judges to be more forthright with their opinions.

charles_f 4y ago
> A court is supposed to act impartially and emotions kept in check What are you talking about? The whole point of a court is, by very definition, to judge
procavia 4y ago
This is in a very different vein than the language in that story and not equivalent

mihaaly 4y ago

Mrs Smith sues his neighbour for calling her cow publicly all the time and wins the case. On the end of the ruling the neighbour asks the judge: - Does this mean I cannot call Mrs Smith cow from now on? - That is right. - But can I still call a cow Mrs Smith? - Yes, that you can do. The neighbour turns to Mrs Smith with a big sarcastic smile: - See you later Mrs Smith!

joseftexas 4y ago

[flagged]

unhammer 4y ago

Reminds me of https://www-dagsavisen-no.translate.goog/nyheter/innenriks/2008/05/05/greit-a-kalle-politimann-haestkuk/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=no&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://www-dagsavisen-no.translate.goog/nyheter/innenriks/2... where swearing at a police officer in Norway was "ok in this instance since they're both northeners and that's just how they talk up there", while in other cases people have been given fines.