Topic: Cartoon madness

[Kirkhill]

Actually 48th, initial assault occurred  with the verbal challenge and it then becomes debatable whether the victim of the verbal assault is within their rights to respond physically.  Under the circumstances you describe, as well as in my example,  I would agree that the anwer is "Yes".  Others might not.

Regardless, trading insults doesn't do very much to resolve any situation.

Cheers.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

"Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Muslims are going to do. Some of you always seem to think they are suddenly going to turn a double somersault, and land in our rear and on both of our flanks at the same time. Go back to your command, and try to think what are we going to do ourselves, instead of what Muslims are going to do."

[48Highlander]

Actually 48th, initial assault occurred  with the verbal challenge and it then becomes debatable whether the victim of the verbal assault is within their rights to respond physically.  Under the circumstances you describe, as well as in my example,  I would agree that the anwer is "Yes".  Others might not.

What?  An insult is not considered "assault" under any criminal law I've ever seen.  Could you provide a quote from the CC?

Or maybe I misunderstood, I'm having a bit of a problem parsing your first sentence.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Mod Note - Pic removed


At this time, we don't think it would be prudent to have this photo associated with the site. Thanks.

Army.ca Staff

Y'all let me know when freedom becomes prudent.

[Mike Bobbitt]

It's prudent now. You're free to leave and we're free to remove content that we deem unsuitable.

[Nemo888]

Slippery slope, whats next?

[Kirkhill]

as·sault (ə-sôlt')
n.
A violent physical or verbal attack.

A military attack, such as one launched against a fortified area or place.
The concluding stage of an attack in which close combat occurs with the enemy.
Law.
An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.
The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another.

Law. Sexual assault.
The crime of rape.

http://www.answers.com/assault&r=67

265. (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or

(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.

The Criminal Code apparently defines assault as uttering a threat.  Unless there is threat then there is no criminal assualt.  However fist does not need to make contact with nose for an assault to have occurred.  Also civil law defines things differently than does criminal law and "verbal assault" seems to show up in a variety of contracts and documents.    I'm no lawyer, anymore than I am a soldier, but I have always worked under the understanding of the first general definition that swearing at somebody can be construed as a form of assault.

PS Mike, Thank you.

 

[3rd Herd]

After which the drunk promptly threatens to do unspeakable things to your wife and kids.  And proceeds to take your hamster hostage.

Highlander:
Criminal Code
            PART VIII OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON AND REPUTATION
               Assaults
Uttering threats
 264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat

(a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person;

(b) to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or

(c) to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person.
 
Punishment
 (2) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(a) is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.
 
Idem
 (3) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) or (c)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 38; 1994, c. 44, s. 16.

Criminal Code
            PART II OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
               Duels
Duelling
 71. Every one who

(a) challenges or attempts by any means to provoke another person to fight a duel,

(b) attempts to provoke a person to challenge another person to fight a duel, or

(c) accepts a challenge to fight a duel,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 72.
 
Criminal Code
            PART VIII OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON AND REPUTATION
               Assaults
Assault
 265. (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or

(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.
 
Application
 (2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault.
 
Consent
 (3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of

(a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(c) fraud; or

(d) the exercise of authority.
 
Accused's belief as to consent
 (4) Where an accused alleges that he believed that the complainant consented to the conduct that is the subject-matter of the charge, a judge, if satisfied that there is sufficient evidence and that, if believed by the jury, the evidence would constitute a defence, shall instruct the jury, when reviewing all the evidence relating to the determination of the honesty of the accused's belief, to consider the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for that belief.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 244; 1974-75-76, c. 93, s. 21; 1980-81-82-83, c. 125, s. 19.
 
Source: Criminal Code, [R.S. 1985, c. C-46] http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/






 

[muskrat89]

Slippery slope, whats next?

To whom are you addressing your question?

[Nemo888]

Are news agencies not reprinting the cartoons because they are objectionable or because they are scared? If I have to choose between a rude cartooist and a balckmailer threatening violence and murder its very easy.

I belive that Islam is political by its nature. Theocracies abound throughout the middle east. The lampooning of politcal groups is a tradition in Western culture. A neccessary freedom in a democratic republic. The cartoons are offensive, like Salman Rushdie's interpretation of the Prophets dreams. But we are supposed to be tolerant of others traditional beliefs. It works both ways right?

[48Highlander]

The Criminal Code apparently defines assault as uttering a threat.  Unless there is threat then there is no criminal assualt.  However fist does not need to make contact with nose for an assault to have occurred.  Also civil law defines things differently than does criminal law and "verbal assault" seems to show up in a variety of contracts and documents.    I'm no lawyer, anymore than I am a soldier, but I have always worked under the understanding of the first general definition that swearing at somebody can be construed as a form of assault.

Neither civil law nor criminal law would categorize insults to be an assault.  You could classify it under harrassement, however, that's a whole other bag of worms.  And harrassement does not justify assault.  In other words, if I'm harrassing/insulting you, you do not have the right to "defend yourself" by punching me.  You can call the cops on me, have me charged with harrassement, even get a restraining order against me, but under the criminal code if you punch me, regaurdless of what I may have said to you, YOU will be charged with assault.

The exception, as you have noted, is if I were to utter a threat against you, because that IS considered a form of assault, which means you can now claim self-defence.

PS Mike, Thank you.

Ditto.



3rd Herd:

I was reading though all that wondering what the heck it had to do with anything, right up untill I hit the part about "dueling".  I really had no idea that such a law existed, and did a doubletake once I read it.  I'm betting most cops don't know about it either.  Anyway, even attempting to start a duel doesn't seem to fall under assault, so, while punishable by law, it wouldn't give the party being challanged the right to respond with force.


And none of this has ANYTHING to do with the cartoons    This is why analogies are dangerous; they have a tendancy to derail threads.

[3rd Herd]

Highlander,
I was just trying to be my ever helpful self. You requested some quotes from the CC on assault so I supplied those. I included the duelling because if you do challenge someone to step out of a bar over a difference of opinion, you are in fact challenging them to a duel. Included in my post is the link to the entire Criminal Code of Canada ( for every ones future reference), the section on intimidation could equally be applied in some of the circumstances. A final key point is that it is all up to how the judge interrupts the law.

[Kirkhill]

Highlander:

I shall sit corrected.

[Gunnar]

But we are supposed to be tolerant of others traditional beliefs. It works both ways right?

Ah, but there's the rub.  Tolerance of another's beliefs is a product of a free, and liberal (in the original sense of the term) society.  Their society has no such tradition, and doesn't really understand it.  So as far as they can see, it DOESN'T work both ways.  They condemn when they are offended, and then try to use the rules of OUR game when they want to say things that are offensive to us.

Put another way, they know that we're not allowed to use a bat to hit the baseball out of someone's hand, but they want to be able to do so when we're trying to play.  But they can't even yell "hey, we don't do that to you!" because they do.

[squeeliox]

there's really no wiggle room on this one. these outraged muslims attacking danish embassies are in effect demanding that we (the west, that is) discard a bedrock principle of western civilisation -- freedom of speech and thought. they might as well be asking us to adopt middle eastern standards of living, as well.

anyway, gotta go shopping for a whole bunch of lego...