By now you've probably heard about the Toronto man fired by Hydro One after being caught on camera defending the practice of yelling a particular obscenity at female reporters. But think about that part:
This guy wasn't one of the original shouters. He answered a reporter's question about the annoying fad, saying he approved of it.
That seems almost like he was punished for a thought crime.
Then he was fired -- via Twitter. Is any of that legal?
In some cases, disturbing the peace and similar actions are illegal -- but as I point out, the authorities are selective about who gets punished.
If these laws were applied equally, Toronto's Gay Pride Parade would be a crime scene, and pro-Palestinian protesters yelling "Heil Hitler" like they did in Calgary last year would be in trouble too.
PS: Does the name "Avery Haines" ring a bell? Watch and see why she's suddenly back on the scene.
READ Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights --
Ezra Levant’s book about the Canadian Human Rights Commissions, censorship and the Mohammed cartoons was voted "the best political book of the last 25 years."
JOIN TheRebel.media for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.
Her bahavior in the field and in the office are very different
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epm2lPjlsdg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NQa9wdnQTk
I was shocked at how exaggerated the FHRITP news firestorm was. It was as if pent up anger at the FHRITP phenomenon from all over Canada was focussed on Shawn Simoes. I think what was in the video (the long uncut video) and in the media reporting were very different and in many cases I would almost say MALICIOUS.
Here is my look at the edited video that went viral and the uncut video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltvwn_RwBtE
Shauna is clearly CHASING Ryan and a story.
Shawn ends up taking an RPG in the backside for being an obnoxious drunk.
Depends. In your scenario, am I drunk, obscene and agressive while being recorded by a broadcaster?
God help us when it becomes a “code of conduct” obligation to give polite response to every overbearing bitch or son thereof who demands a response from you that is none of their fucking business.
How DARE the forces of political correctness claim there’s anything wrong with that behaviour?
And FIRING the poor guy? Hey, to all the women who work at Hydro One who’d have to work with him, and to all the women who are Hydro One clients, or suppliers, or associates, who’d have to deal with him, and to all the people at Hydro One who actually take their Code of Conduct seriously – I say, hey, lighten up, where’s your sense of humour?
A self appointed witches coven demanded my dismissal…I was virtually under house arrest and barred from entering the workplace for three months. Finally management came to their senses and realized that discussions between two union officers at a union meeting were not subject to their code of conduct…but nobody was making book on that outcome and it was the most stressful episode in my life.
You have no idea what it means to me to finally get that off my chest…. thank you Ezra and thank you THE REBEL.
The spin doctors who rationalize these codes of conduct speak of public servants being held to higher standards of conduct and of the importance of the public service being non-partizan…..that being the case make them sign an agreement forfeiting their right to vote in elections of the jurisdiction they serve. The vast majority of them would cave in like kelp and do it.
The problem is that police services members are increasingly joining the fray, and instead of simply doing their jobs to uphold the Criminal Code, they are re-interpreting it so as to display their own politically correct social justice credentials.
CJ McLachlin said it herself: “Shouting or swearing or singing are not in themselves criminal offences. They become criminal only when they cause a disturbance in or near a public place.” The Criminal Code speaks of “disturbance” of a public space, not of someone’s mind. Further, McLachlin CJ notes that “before an offence can arise under s. 175(1) of the Criminal Code, the enumerated conduct must cause an overtly manifested disturbance which constitutes an interference with the ordinary and customary use by the public of the place in question.”
In short, not everything that “disturbs” people constitutes criminal “disturbance”. As a principle of fundamental justice and legality, everyone deserves to know in advance what kind of conduct is illegal. Accordingly, application of the criminal law requires at least some measure of objectivity. Is it the specific combination of words that (in the opinion of the Calgary Police Service) makes it criminal, or is it just one or two words in particular? Is it only criminal when the reporter is female, or if there happen to be women within earshot? What if the so-called offender is a woman? Does that turn it back into protected speech? This is precisely why an objective standard for criminality is necessary.
The Calgary Police can hardly claim to be objective when they idly stand by and allow people to shout “Heil Hitler” in a public space, yet threaten to arrest anyone who yells “Fuck Her Right In The Pussy” just to get on the 6 o’clock news. Moreover, the Calgary Police actively justified such anti-semitic language (often heard at pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel public rallies) as protected expressions of political opinion.
Personally, I am far more disturbed by someone uttering the former phrase than the latter. In my view, shouting “heil Hitler” in public is a form of criminal hate speech. However, the rule of law ensures that it’s not my, or anyone else’s, individual psychological upset that defines one utterance over another as a criminal offence.
A man’s opinion is solicited. He gives it. It’s objectionable, and for that he loses his job.
Of course I’m certainly not condoning these idiotic yahoos, but I say that our society doesn’t need any more condescending, holier-than-thou individuals, politicians or organizations trying to outdo one another, as if in a kind of grotesque competition, to see who can achieve the highest rank on some fictitious or imaginary scale of false morality and righteousness, and all the while pursue that goal with little or no regard given for the greater consequence of their selfish actions.
Yes Ezra, the victims of the past have become today’s bullies of society.
As for the behaviour of the foul-mouthed “men” in question, I’m trusting that society, along with their friends, family, loved ones, acquaintances and co-workers, will hold them in the contempt that they so appropriately deserve.