Monday, April 06, 2009

And this is why we mock them.

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.


Cameron Campbell said...

After spending part of the day trying to discuss this rationally with Hunter I'm going with b.

It pains me.

Renee said...

Wait, you're wrong. There is a door #3. They neither understand NOR care.

Southern Quebec said...

Cameron: There is no such thing as trying to do anything rationally with Hunter. She is, shall we say, "special", like those kids in highschool that went to the "special" class.

If you ever ask her to back up a statement, with say facts, she runs off screaming, "Lefties, I spit on you! Iggy! Iggy! Adscam!"
Maybe she has ADD? Or maybe she is just 'teh stoopid'.

Mark Francis said...

There are two precedents which override, in part, the Criminal Code quote you have:

1. If it is not reasonable to expect law enforcement to react in time to be able to recover the possession(s), then stronger force is allowed -- though forcing another vehicle off the road isn't (see Criminal Code: Dangerous Driving), and then shooting the perp doesn't qualify. Note that he shot the man _after_ retrieving the vehicle, as the man fled. (That the threshold in the precedent is fairly high though. It required multiple repeat robberies with police having a 45 minute response time.)

2. It has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada that citizens have the same power of arrest that police do; however, we don't get to shoot unarmed fleeing suspects. Come to think of it, neither do police.

These wingnuts arguing in support of this man, calling for his actions to be legal, are, by analogy, arguing that if only drivers having right-of-way were allowed to run over pedestrians in their way, we'd have no jaywalkers.

And, oh yeah, to claim your actions defensible just plant a family heirloom on your murder victim.

Chet Scoville said...

What an incredible comments thread that was.

"This is what the law says."

"You LIEBERALS keep lying and blah."

"No, seriously, this is what the law says. Here, I'll quote it for you."

"ROFL you LIEberal not knowing about the law."

"Look, this is what the law says right here. See? This is what it says. Really."

"You LIEberal bitches are rude to others."

"Um, look, I'm just pointing out what the law says. It's not me who's doing the name calling."

"ROFLOL you LIEberals are so touchy."

"Look, can we just get back to what the law says? Because this is what it says, right here. See?"

"You LIEberals love changing the subject, don't you?"

And on and on...

CC said...

It's pretty amazing, isn't it, Chet? If I were still in academia, I'd use that as a textbook example of the crippling mental disability that is conservatism.

Words almost fail me.

liberal supporter said...

I heard about this on the liberal dominated talk radio. Oops, sorry there isn't any. My mistake.

Anyway, the meme is all about the gun laws. You see, if Knight is found guilty of any sort of weapons offense, he will be banned from owning firearms for some period of time (possibly lifetime). The damned "Farmer Bob" 4 billion dollar gun registry will make it impossible for him to buy guns and register them.

Instead, it would seem they want Knight to be able to continue to have his arsenal, so he can continue to shoot anyone he feels like, even if on some technicality he is found guilty in this instance.

Niles said...

I think it's C/ They've been told what to think by the proper "awTHORitay" and they're physically and mentally incapable of regurgitating any other viewpoint until their communication programs have been reloaded by the protocol holder.

deBeauxOs said...

CC, with the greatest respect, I have to disagree with the approach you're taking with Hunter and her followers.

I don't dispute that some of them clearly suffer from impaired cognitive abilities, limited social interactions, dysfunctional communication skills and various degrees of religious zealotry disorder.


It is a serious insult and quite cruel to those folks who live with ADD, ADH, autism, FAE/S and various intellectual disabilities, to lump them in with these malicious and dishonest Conservatives.

Their fear and hate threshold is visible for all to observe, as they spew ignorance and loathing towards anyone who does not share their political ideology.

The fact that they pick and choose which individuals to defend and which to condemn, within the parameters of their supposedly legitimate "law and order" agenda demonstrates that they are hypocrites, political opportunists and vile sociopaths.

People who have been labeled stupid can still be compassionate towards others.

Individuals like Hunter willfully choose to be ignorant and malevolent.

Cameron Campbell said...

After trying to talk to Hunter about this, and watching Gayle do the same I have to say that I'm actually physically exhausted... it's like dealing with that amount of stupid starts making your tired in your brain and eventually permeates your whole body...

The best bit, which I didn't even bother to comment on was when she accused "lefties" of only liking the law when it suited our purposes... the fact that her entire post was about how she didn't like the law and didn't think it should be applied to someone she agrees with seems to have utterly escaped her.

Southern Quebec said...

Pretty much everything escapes Hunter...

liberal supporter said...

I think it is time to turn the tables on them.

The suggestion that "Hunter" is a paid CPC operative is not far off. Note that "maryT" and "wilson" are party insiders, if not actual CPC MPs. The Hunter blog is a collaborative project of the CPC strategic brain trust (such as it is). The "Hunter" character is an obvious stereotype, concocted as their ideal beacon to try and drum up support where they are weak. Recall that the CPC is unable to attract women voters, hence the "Hunter" character would be just the kind of person they want to attract. They believe that by providing this example of the kind of voter they seek, they can attract real women with whom the "Hunter" message will resonate.

It is the CPC/BT version of putting out trial balloons, since it is deliberately over the top provocative, trying to attract "lefties" who try and rebut the kind of nonsense they hope to use in the next election. They take notes and try to use these to improve and update their talking points. The videos are part of that trial balloon effort. Where did you first see the Opposition leader being called "Iffy"? And when that seemed to have no traction, they are now trying "Iguana".

That is why I provide them with plenty of material to waste their time on. Alternate between a) Nurturing their innate belief that we are foolish ninnies and b) Refusing to rise to their constant emotional appeals and calmly pointing out reality. Plus provide a good deal of mockery and laughing at them.

Simple, eh?