First they came for #FHRITP louts: Who's next on the "thought police" list?

I don’t trust Shauna.
Her bahavior in the field and in the office are very different
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epm2lPjlsdg

Avery blooper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NQa9wdnQTk

One of the foundations of Canadian society is that we believe the media tells the truth. What is the media does not tell the truth but creates news because someone has an agenda.

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.

Glenn: “would it be Ok for him to fire you for being drunk off the clock?”
Depends. In your scenario, am I drunk, obscene and agressive while being recorded by a broadcaster?

Trying to keep this short is going to be difficult and I’m not supporting these guys actions, but should not the employer first had asked the individual to apologize for his actions. Instead of firing via tweeter? I would question this action because it sets a challenge. I am at the rink I holler at the referee a few profane words, someone challenges me and I give them a few choice words, and maybe the parents around just lower their heads and by doing so condone my actions. If it was taped and goes viral. Will i lose my job? I say this because this has happened many times and you can see the same bullying and intimation, yet how many companies have outright fired their employee for such action? If this moron publicly apologizes to the reporter it goes a long way, but his employer actions opens to be sued for wrongful dismissal?? This reminds me of lynch mob mentality.

To those of you who have not figured out why FHRITP is a viral MEME…There is a growing and GRASSROOTS contempt of the feminist commandeered media and their role as self appointed Gauleiters …self appointed commissars of the political corrections politburo ….the response is an expression of grievance and an outcry against perceived injustice…. to ears that are dogmatically deafened….if you say it politely the best you can hope for is to be ignored.

To all of you who rationalized this man being fired….none of you have an employer who would tolerate you being drunk at the workplace…would it be Ok for him to fire you for being drunk off the clock?

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.

I’m of two minds on this. Yes, Hydro One shouldn’t have fired that particular guy. The guy who actually made the comment, maybe, if he were an employee. As one poster said, an opinion was asked for and given, the guy shouldn’t have to pay for that with his job. OTOH, the original comment does skirt pretty close to assault. A good prosecutor could use the “rape encouragement” argument, as in The Accused. And it’s pretty obvious that you, Ezra, haven’t been bothered much by the phenom, being male and kinda fugly and all. Put youself in the shoes of an attractive female reporter (not literally!) for a day or two, you might sing a different tune. Also, your slippery slope argument sounds way too much like the same argument many leftists are using against C-51, an argument I have fought strenuously against on several forums. So I’ll give it to you then: just because the police have the right to use some obscure law against singing in public, doesn’t mean that they will. It’s a variation of the “hidden agenda” argument so many use against Harper et al, and I just don’t buy it. He didn’t have a hidden agenda 3 elections ago, or any since, and he doesn’t now. Same thing for the various police agencies who you claim are now cooking up ways to stop “legitimate” circumstances as you propose in your video. I’m with you Ezra, but on this issue only about one third.

Obviously this malevolent feminazi (obviously a feminazi, since she’s working in media) went out there deliberately to taunt a handful of innocent, high-spirited young men looking to have a little fun). Let’s be honest: who among us haven’t screamed obscenities at women on national TV at one time or another?)
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?

Ezra, I once had a career crisis because…while in the role of an officer of PSAC and attending a union meeting I told off another officer of the union who had flown in from Ottawa out of order on the stated agenda to rabble rouse support for the soon to be dismantled gun registry and to protest the defunding of status of women funded advocacy groups and “women and the law”

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.

I am now retired and therefore I no longer have the spike of political correctness driven through my tongue. But for more than a decade my participation on social media had to be by a pseudonym . People…..the things you post on THE REBEL could get you fired. This is not a sanctuary of free speech.

I wasn’t sure how I felt about this matter, but as usual Ezra provides the right angle from which to view the incident and the resultant repercussions on all involved. These young men may deserve nothing more than a public shaming but there was a time not so long ago when they may have had to deal with a man who was not afraid to defend somebody from this sort of behavior. Their embarrassment and shame would have been delivered onsite via, I don’t know, maybe a good …. attitude adjustment. I’m not condoning violence but good manners when enforced by the people around you may work as well or better than the " hug a thug" mentality so favoured by the left. If my father saw me on TV behaving like this, jail would be preferable. That may be the root here, no strong parental guidance, no moral compass and no fear of consequence.

Standards are in free fall precisely because of the shifting sands of moral relativism. Is it any wonder these idiots think it’s okay to yell obscenitities at news reporters when others are not only permitted but encouraged to spew hate speech with impunity?

First off, Ezra has once again honed in on the real issue and exposed the “moral preening” of the “pitchfork and torch-wielding social justice warriors.” I couldn’t have put it better myself.
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.

Well said Ezra. You completely validated the feelings I had when I inadequately commented on your earlier post.

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.

A very disturbing news item. If you believe in free speech then the young men should be able to articulate what ever they want. At the same time the video reveals how people have no self respect nor respect for others. Standards are in free fall it seems. Should the young man have been terminated? I don’t see how this despicable behaviour away from the workplace could lead to dismissal. I imagine he will be reinstated by the relevant provincial employment authority.

Right on, Ezra! This is reminiscent of the Anti-Social Behaviour Ordnance (ASBO) insanity in the UK. And, the Calgary police have, once again, put themselves at the forefront of this drift towards police-state fascism. Something needs to be done to reverse this trend or we’ll come to deeply regret it in the not so distant future.

Maurice I couldn’t agree more.

You would be okay with your employer terminating your employment on twitter for defending a “bad joke” at a soccer game?

I’ll repost what I posted when the story first broke. It should never be illegal to be a jerk. If it were, I think all of us would end up behind bars at some point in our lives. The men have the right to be idiots, the reporter had the right to challenge them on their behavior, Hydro One had the right to fire the jerk, and, the jerk has the right to sue Hydro One for wrongful dismissal. And, I suppose, some lawyer has the right to make money off this bad behavior. Welcome to what passes as “civility” in 2015 Canada. But here’s the real issue, unless they are required to sign a code of conduct agreement for their job, then it depends on the type of job they’re doing. If they have any contact with the public at all as representatives of their employer, and that would include any kind of work done in public view, or as service agents making house calls, then bad conduct outside of working hours I believe would be grounds for dismissal. But if they work in a back room somewhere, out of view of the public, then the only thing they do that could sully their employers reputation would be poor workmanship. In those cases, conduct outside of working hours should not be grounds for dismissal, with a few exceptions. That would be criminal activity and, as I said, if they signed a code of conduct agreement, and they knew the rules up front. Of course, I have no idea what this guy did for Hydro One, so I have no idea whether the firing can be justified.

Cannot agree with you this time. He got what he deserved. They had every right to fire him.

Ezra, the threat of loss of livelihood has been a more stringent enforcer of political correctness than your ordeal at the HRC and this has been going on for some time. The government demands and enforces strict codes of conduct on not only it’s own workplace, but that of all publicly owned corporations AND those that do business with the government…I am shocked that you are just now becoming aware of it.