The end of FHRITP in Toronto?

[Tewder]

That's not the point - the point is how something as offensive as said phrase can be used so causally and without regard to the meaning of the phrase itself, much less its' impact on others. Words have meaning - and it isn't that of the meme being put forth as a defense (i.e. it's a simple, harmless joke). Did they not think about what it really meant? I highly doubt that - the very value of the phrase is its' ability to offend. One set out to do so, one reap what it sows.

AoD

I'm not sure how many different ways I can express that I do agree with the censure?

Let me clarify further with respect to what I feel is an overreaction: I do not feel the public outcry over the issue itself was an overreaction. This incident/meme/cultural phenomenon/whatever you want to call it raises some pretty important issues surrounding the treatment of women in society, appropriate behaviour, personal responsibility etc. The overreaction here is towards the guys in question specifically, and for all the reasons i already posted in my previous post.

Don't tell me that with all the issues Toronto faces, we need to put poor "victimized" white guy problems near the top of our list. Life is unfair, deal with it.

You do see the contradiction though right? Either we promote certain values or we don't. I don't care if you're the whitest wealthiest and most privileged person in the world, nobody should be targeted unfairly.

If you and your friends want to access YouTube videos of The Aristocrats or the comic who started this, or watch Johnny Knoxville be an ass, fill your boots. But arguing strenuously an argument I object to is 'free speech'. Screaming in my ear obscenities THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY AIMED AT MY GENDER is no more 'free speech' than you having to turn down your music at 3am in your condo, despite your need to play loud music.

I'm not an expert on the law but it doesn't seem like a law was broken here. I know it sometimes sucks but people have the right to be offensive or say things in poor taste. In fact, it is people doing just this, saying things that society once considered inappropriate that helped moved a lot of social agenda issues forward, i.e. women's rights, gay rights etc.

Anyway, I'll stop. I'm obviously singing to the choir at this point. But I'll say this: my daughter's 18. If someone did this to her while she was filming a school project or some such, my reaction would probably be uncontrollable. So, for all of you 'don't overreact, it's funny' types -- you're right. I'd react very, very negatively.

... and i wouldn't blame you one bit!

 

[nfitz]

Last time I checked being an obnoxious cretin was not illegal, and no charges have been pressed against any of these guys. If what they did was so bad I'm sure the police would have no trouble making a case given that everything was recorded on video. It may offend good taste but it ain't assault unless the courts say so.

Lot of things are so simply without a court making a rule.

If you see car drive 80 down a residential street, but doesn't get a ticket, does that mean they weren't speeding unless the courts say so?

Simply because the police/crown haven't laid charges, doesn't mean that the police haven't put the offenders names into their system and warned them that they risk being charged for doing such stuff.

I don't see the need to defend or even encourage misogynistic behaviour.

 

[Palma]

I just watched the video. It seems to me that Shawn Simoes was clearly not the instigator here - he was just a camp follower of two other guys who initiated his encounter with the reporter. When she calls them out for their behaviour, only then does he join in and repeat the vulgarity.

To me, that's very different than interrupting her and shouting an obscenity on live TV. It is pretty clear he did not think he was on live TV. Actually, was this on live TV, or had they cut away by then?

I don't see this as a sackable offense, not for a guy who did not instigate. I'm pretty sure his union will agree. What's happening re the other two guys, by the way.

Who cares if if he did not think he was on live on tv. I am glad he lost that good paying job. It showed his ignorance knowing he is getting paid that sum of money for a young guy and thinks he can say whatever. With that sum of money I doubt he belongs to the union.

 

[Tewder]

I don't see the need to defend or even encourage misogynistic behaviour.

Nobody is defending misogynistic behaviour. The issue is whether saying mean or tasteless things is 'illegal'. It is not. You can call somebody the vilest thing you can think of and you're not breaking the law. Now, whether or not your boss fires you for it, or you're kicked out of school, or you're removed from an association, or you lose customers or friends or whatever, sure that's all fine and just desserts.

 

[Videodrome]

http://www.citynews.ca/2015/05/15/fired-hydro-one-employee-apologizes-to-shauna-hunt/

The idiot apologized.

 

[nfitz]

The issue is whether saying mean or tasteless things is 'illegal'. It is not.

That's your opinion though. The opinion of some in law enforcement is that is illegal.

 

[BurlOak]

It seems that losing a job is a bit harsh for this "crime", but some type of punishment is definitely warranted to act as a deterrent and to punish the individual to some degree.

I remember last year that people made fun of Taber Alberta for passing such by-laws, yet they were ridiculed for being backwards. It looks like in hindsight, people were completely wrong to make fun of the decency laws enacted, since there needs to be reasonable means to punish behaviour that should not be tolerated.

 

[Silence&Motion]

Last time I checked being an obnoxious cretin was not illegal, and no charges have been pressed against any of these guys. If what they did was so bad I'm sure the police would have no trouble making a case given that everything was recorded on video. It may offend good taste but it ain't assault unless the courts say so.

No charges have been pressed? Calgary man charged for shouting FHRITP at female reporter

 

[picard102]

When should we accept that saying FHRITP, out loud, in public, in the presence of women is not grounds for reaction of some kind?

Women aren't some delicate flower to be protected from vulgarities. They are no less capable than men, and their being present shouldn't be a qualifier.

 

[TheKingEast]

Whatever happened to the three Toronto cops charged with sexual assault, and then suspended, not fired, form their jobs?
Where's the outcry?

What's your point here? There are far worse things going on that we don't hear a peep.

 

[doug]

What's your point here?

really?

 

[Tewder]

No charges have been pressed? Calgary man charged for shouting FHRITP at female reporter

The individual was fined, not criminally charged... and it's interesting to note that the fine was for "distracting, startling or interfering with other users of a roadway", not for the tasteless comment specifically. I'm curious to know what would have happened if the setting had been different, i.e. the 'roadway' fine didn't apply. Clearly the fine was a technicality used to nail that schmuck. Heck, Al Capone was finally caught on tax evasion...

That's your opinion though. The opinion of some in law enforcement is that is illegal.

No, it's not my opinion. I's my understanding of the law, as limited as my understanding is. There have been ample opportunities to criminally charge somebody for this behaviour but i've yet to see it happen outright. As mentioned above, the Calgary case doesn't really qualify.

 

[nfitz]

No, it's not my opinion. I's my understanding of the law, as limited as my understanding is. There have been ample opportunities to criminally charge somebody for this behaviour but i've yet to see it happen outright. As mentioned above, the Calgary case doesn't really qualify.

It's still an opinion. Even lawyers provide opinions, not understandings.

Clearly the Calgary case is irrelevant to this. I was thinking of the opinion of the Kingston police, for example.

 

[k10ery]

No, someone was verbally assaulted. Which is also not 'free speech.'



The Calgary police have charged a man there yesterday. So, they believe a law was broken.

Oh come on. This is a speech issue because all the guy did is speech, it's just a matter of whether that speech is protected or not. There is no such thing as verbal assault. Your citing Calgary is completely specious. Because they did not believe there was a crime, they charged him under the Highway Act.

Come on Ratty, own up to the fact that you want to prosecute this guy for his speech.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Oh come on. This is a speech issue because all the guy did is speech, it's just a matter of whether that speech is protected or not. There is no such thing as verbal assault. Your citing Calgary is completely specious. Because they did not believe there was a crime, they charged him under the Highway Act.

Come on Ratty, own up to the fact that you want to prosecute this guy for his speech.

OK, you're right. I believe that 'free speech' arguments are - and should be - about your freedom to argue opinions different from mainstream society's. I don't think they're about your 'right' to shout 'fuck her right in the pussy' in a woman's ear. But, you know, if you think it's a free speech issue, go ahead and yell 'fuck her right in the pussy' in your Mom's ear as often as you want. Just don't do it to a working journalist while she is live on TV.

But, you know, I'm done. Y'all want to defend this cretin or continue to argue this, do it without me. But, next time you want to do this, give me advance warning and your Mom's address. I'll come down, witness you make an ass of yourself, then go to your Mom's house and show her the tape. If she laughs, I'll shout FHRITP in her ear. Why do I think I won't have to do that, because only sophomoric a-holes who don't relate well with women think this is funny?