Canada's blogging "law and order" contingent makes it clear that you can take your law and order and, well, pretty much use it as a suppository as they defend one Brian Knight, who reacted to some guy stealing his quad ATV by ramming him off the road and then shooting him.
Over at JoJo's, commenter Gayle makes the monumental mistake of quoting the Criminal Code of Canada:
The Criminal Code, section 38, contains the provision that permits the use of force to defend property:
“Everyone who is in peaceable possession of personal property, and everyone lawfully assisting him, is justified
a) in preventing a trespasser from taking it, or
b) in taking it from a trespasser who has taken it,
if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser.”
This is not my creation - this is the law in this country. Perhaps you can tell me how Knight fits within this provision.
This turns out to be a devastatingly bad move on Gayle's part as JoJo responds to a careful, well-reasoned reference to Canadian criminal law by being a sanctimonious bitch:
Don’t worry. I’ve got Gayle on a short leash.
Fuckin' A, Gayle. Don't be bringing those liberal facts and everything around Joanne's place. After all, everyone knows that reality has a well-known, liberal bias. And Joanne doesn't do reality.
HERE'S AN IDEA -- LET'S TRY TO DEBATE THIS. As many of us have seen, howling retards like "Hunter" and JoJo have taken the position that the aforementioned Mr. Knight did nothing wrong in racing after the fleeing ATV, ramming it off the road, then shooting the thief. OK, let's see what the Criminal Code of Canada says about this:
Defence of personal property
38. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, and every one lawfully assisting him, is justified
(a) in preventing a trespasser from taking it, or
(b) in taking it from a trespasser who has taken it,
if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser.
Maybe it's just me, but that passage seems fairly straightforward -- you can try to reclaim your property from someone who has taken it from you as long as you don't resort to injury or physical violence. Because if you did, that would be breaking the law. The Criminal Code of Canada says so.
And yet ... and yet ... we have Hunter, JoJo and their assorted fluffers, groupies and hangers-on taking the position that Knight did nothing wrong, which restricts us to one of exactly two possibilities. Either:
- These people don't understand the plain English of the Criminal Code of Canada, or
- They do understand, they just don't care.
Note carefully that there is no door number three. If someone is taking the position that Knight did nothing wrong, then we have either scenario one or scenario two above.
Therefore, in the spirit of intellectual engagement, I'm politely inviting any of Canada's wanks who are defending Knight to stop by the comments section here at CC HQ and simply mention which of the above two choices apply to them. Really, it's not a tough question -- if you're defending Knight's actions from a legal point of view, you are either a) stupid, or b) don't really give a shit about law and order, as much as you love to say so.
So take a minute, the comments section is wide open and we just want to know: a) stupid, or b) hypocritical. Really, it's a simple question. You can even use the letters "a)" or "b)" to save time.
HILARIOUSLY, Blogging Tory "Hunter" -- one of the stupidest human beings imaginable on this or any other planet -- staunchly defends Mr. Knight while gently stroking Ezra Levant's joy department and complimenting him on his tireless efforts to defend human rights.
Here's a thought, Hunter -- given your monumental ignorance of the Canadian Criminal Code, perhaps you're not the best person to be discussing the finer points of rights or law. It just makes you look stupid.
Stupider. I meant to write "stupider."
P.S. At times like this, I have to ask if Blogging Tory co-founder Stephen Taylor ever wakes up in a cold sweat, remembering the old days when he dreamed of organizing an online aggregator of intelligent, thoughtful, literate, Canadian conservatives of honesty and integrity, and wondering how things could have gone this horribly, horribly wrong.