The end of FHRITP in Toronto?

[AndreaPalladio]

Not true. And once is too often. Why are you in favour of such behaviour?

 

[Skeezix]

Generally, harassment is a behaviour that persists over time.

No. That's simply not true legally or practically.

If I sexually harass a coworker, it only counts as sexual harassment if I do it over a period of time? I get a freebie?

 

[Johnny Au]

What was done was clearly harassment.

What if one were to fly the Confederate battle flag while running around Jane and Finch or Malvern? The Nazi swastika flag along Bathurst Street? The person flying the flags may claim freedom of expression, but freedom from hate speech trumps freedom of expression.

 

[Armour]

What was done was clearly harassment.

What if one were to fly the Confederate battle flag while running around Jane and Finch or Malvern? The Nazi swastika flag along Bathurst Street? The person flying the flags may claim freedom of expression, but freedom from hate speech trumps freedom of expression.

Are you serious? First of all, logically, that makes no sense, as flying a flag isn't a verbal activity. Doing so while engaging in discriminatory language is a different story. And no, freedom from "hate speech" (which is a bullshit term that has no clear boundaries and too often is used to stifle anything one finds offensive) doesn't trump one's freedom of expression. No one has the right not to be offended. If someone wants to say racist or bigoted things, they have the right to be jackasses. The idea that we can censor people based on subjective ideas of what is acceptable behaviour/expression (generally speaking) is even more offensive than what you are suggesting. I sure as hell don't want to live in a fascist state where people are muzzled and even punished for saying whatever they want (only threats should be omitted from this freedom). Our veterans died to thwart this sort of notion from spreading into this country.

Not true. And once is too often. Why are you in favour of such behaviour?

Why do you automatically assume that he condones such behaviour just because he has a different interpretation of what constitutes harassment?

 

[Skeezix]

Some forms of hate speech are prohibited and could lead to criminal sanctions. And the prohibition does not trump the freedom of expression, as per Section 1 of the Charter. There is nothing fascist about that.

But, no, absent some other circumstances or context, flying a Nazi flag outside a synagogue or yelling FHRITP do not constitute hate speech. They might attract mischief or disturbance charges, and possibly criminal harassment (more likely in the Nazi flag scenario) depending on the facts.

 

[Northern Light]

On harassment:

There are different definitions, depending on what legal act is being cited, but most are pretty close to this definition under Ontario's Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.

This does not explicitly require 'repeated' or 'ongoing' behavior. However, the law is often applied that way, in that one may
make a case that you were unaware your conduct might be unwelcome in some circumstances, and as such maybe you get a pass on the first instance of same.

In the case, its the act of repeating the behavior after having been told its unwelcome that constitutes harassment.

However, in cases where its clear as day that most people would understand a statement to be vexatious or known to cause offense, once is sufficient to have violated the law.

****

On the issue more broadly, I view the behavior of these (typically) young men as boorish and obnoxious, but I admit to reservations over using the power of criminal law.

One could not reasonably infer, in most cases, that the young men are intending to threaten, they imagine (though one wonders why) they are being funny.

Its clearly not acceptable conduct, but potentially giving someone a criminal record also seems a bit over done.

I do think reporters (of either sex) ought not to have to endure people behaving like this; I'm just challenged to find a balanced reaction other than negative social sanction.

In the case where alcohol is clearly an issue, we do have statutes against being drunk in public; though again, selective enforcement of the law tends to bother me.

****

Only tangentially related, and in no way excusing the behavior described above, it does bring to mind how many unnecessary 'live shots' there are in newscasts today.

As is reporting on something that happened, in many cases hours before......from 'the scene' somehow adds value.

Nothing wrong w/recording your bit, and editing it back at the station, or in the truck.

I mention this, because we see local news often struggling to survive in many smaller markets, and even in urban ones, investigative journalism at the local level is downright rare.

Yet, somehow there are resources for satellite time and oodles of dish-equipped trucks.

 

[picard102]

There are different definitions, depending on what legal act is being cited, but most are pretty close to this definition under Ontario's Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Does that apply to the conduct of a third unrelated party who isn't employed by the complainant's employer, nor in the complainant's workplace?

 

[Armour]

Some forms of hate speech are prohibited and could lead to criminal sanctions. And the prohibition does not trump the freedom of expression, as per Section 1 of the Charter. There is nothing fascist about that.

But, no, absent some other circumstances or context, flying a Nazi flag outside a synagogue or yelling FHRITP do not constitute hate speech. They might attract mischief or disturbance charges, and possibly criminal harassment (more likely in the Nazi flag scenario) depending on the facts.

I thought the whole hate speech farce was shot down by the federal conservatives? There is also no clear definition on what hate speech is. People use this for their own convenience to silence those with opinions they dislike. It's more of a bullying tool than anything.

 

[Northern Light]

Does that apply to the conduct of a third unrelated party who isn't employed by the complainant's employer, nor in the complainant's workplace?

In respect of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the argument advanced by some is that 'the street' IS the workplace for reporters.

Its an argument that to my knowledge has not been tested before the courts.

****

In respect of Criminal Harassment under the Criminal Code of Canada, I went and looked it up.

That specific charge states:

264(1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

Prohibited conduct
(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of

1. repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;
2. repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;
3. besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or
4. engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.
   
   
   
   
   

 

[Northern Light]

I would read the above (Criminal Code) as suggesting that 'reasonable fear' for one's safety a required element of the crime, that's a very high bar, and doesn't likely apply to this situation.

 

[Northern Light]

On the other hand, the Criminal statues around causing a public disturbance might apply (specifically in reference to being drunk)

• 175 (1) Every one who
  
  • (a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,
    
    • (i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language,
      
      
    • (ii) by being drunk, or
      
      
    • (iii) by impeding or molesting other persons,
      
  • (b) openly exposes or exhibits an indecent exhibition in a public place,
    
    
  • (c) loiters in a public place and in any way obstructs persons who are in that place, or
    
    
  • (d) disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in a public place or who, not being an occupant of a dwelling-house comprised in a particular building or structure, disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house comprised in the building or structure by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in any part of a building or structure to which, at the time of such conduct, the occupants of two or more dwelling-houses comprised in the building or structure have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied,
    
  is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
  

 

[Skeezix]

I would read the above (Criminal Code) as suggesting that 'reasonable fear' for one's safety a required element of the crime, that's a very high bar, and doesn't likely apply to this situation.

Nobody said that this was a criminal harassment situation.

 

[Skeezix]

On the other hand, the Criminal statues around causing a public disturbance might apply (specifically in reference to being drunk)

• 175 (1) Every one who
  • (a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,
    • (i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language,
      
      
    • (ii) by being drunk, or
      
      
    • (iii) by impeding or molesting other persons,
  • (b) openly exposes or exhibits an indecent exhibition in a public place,
    
    
  • (c) loiters in a public place and in any way obstructs persons who are in that place, or
    
    
  • (d) disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in a public place or who, not being an occupant of a dwelling-house comprised in a particular building or structure, disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house comprised in the building or structure by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in any part of a building or structure to which, at the time of such conduct, the occupants of two or more dwelling-houses comprised in the building or structure have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied,
  is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

It is generally agreed that disturbance and/or mischief would apply, depending on the circumstances.

 

[Skeezix]

I thought the whole hate speech farce was shot down by the federal conservatives? There is also no clear definition on what hate speech is. People use this for their own convenience to silence those with opinions they dislike. It's more of a bullying tool than anything.

I was talking about criminal sanctions under the Zcriminal Code. You're thinking of the federal human rights code, which only applies in areas of federal jurisdiction (wouldn't apply to that example of the nazi flag on Bathurst) and doesn't impose criminal sanctions. You're correct that the hate speech provisions in the human rights act were repealed in 2013.

 

[nfitz]

What was done was clearly harassment.

Legally ... probably not.

It was clearly sexual assault though, and possibly uttering threats. Hopefully the bigot who did it is jailed.