Cartoon madness

[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.

 

[squealiox]

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...

 

[Nemo888]

I was hopin' someone would catch that Gunnar.

 

[48Highlander]

newest:

Syrians Torch Embassies Over Caricatures By ALBERT AJI, Associated Press Writer

DAMASCUS, Syria - Thousands of Syrians enraged by caricatures of Islam's revered prophet torched the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus on Saturday — the most violent in days of furious protests by Muslims in Asia, Europe and the Middle East.

In Gaza, Palestinians marched through the streets, storming European buildings and burning German and Danish flags. Protesters smashed the windows of the German cultural center and threw stones at the    European Commission building, police said.

Iraqis rallying by the hundreds demanded an apology from the    European Union, and the leader of the Palestinian group Hamas called the cartoons "an unforgivable insult" that merited punishment by death.

Pakistan summoned the envoys of nine Western countries in protest, and even Europeans took to the streets in Denmark and Britain to voice their anger.

....

Aggravating the affront, Denmark's Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen has said repeatedly he cannot apologize for his country's free press. But other European leaders tried Saturday to calm the storm.

Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel said she understood Muslims were hurt — though that did not justify violence.

"Freedom of the press is one of the great assets as a component of democracy, but we also have the value and asset of freedom of religion," Merkel told an international security conference in Munich, Germany.

The    Vatican deplored the violence but said certain provocative forms of criticism were unacceptable.

"The right to freedom of thought and expression ... cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers," the Vatican said in its first statement on the controversy.

The United States called the burnings "inexcusable" and blamed the Syrian government for security failures.

"    Syria must act decisively to protect all foreign embassies and citizens in Damascus from attack," White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said in a statement. "We will hold Syria responsible for such violent demonstrations since they do not take place in that country without government knowledge and support."

But Denmark and Norway did not wait for more violence.

With their Damascus embassies up in flames, the foreign ministries advised their citizens to leave Syria without delay.

"It's horrible and totally unacceptable," Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller said on Danish public television Saturday.

.....

In Gaza, masked gunmen affiliated with the    Fatah Party called on the    Palestinian Authority and Muslim nations to recall their diplomatic missions from Denmark until the government apologizes.

In the    West Bank town of Hebron, about 50 Palestinians marched to the headquarters of the international observer mission there, burned a Danish flag and demanded a boycott of Danish goods.

"We will redeem our prophet Muhammad with our blood!" they chanted.

Mahmoud Zahar, leader of the militant Palestinian group Hamas, told the Italian daily Il Giornale the cartoonists should be punished by death.

We should have killed all those who offend the Prophet and instead here we are, protesting peacefully." he said.

Hundreds of Iraqis rallied south of Baghdad, some carrying banners urging "honest people all over the world to condemn this act" and demanding an EU apology.

Anger swelled in Europe, too. Young Muslims clashed briefly with police in Copenhagen, the Danish capital, and some 700 people rallied outside the Danish Embassy in London.

A South African court banned the country's Sunday newspapers from reprinting the cartoons.

    Iran's president ordered his commerce minister to study canceling all trade contracts with European countries whose newspapers have published the caricatures, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the caricatures showed the "impudence and rudeness" of Western newspapers against the prophet as well as the "maximum resentment of the Zionists (Jews) ruling these countries against Islam and Muslims."

The leaders of Indonesia, Malaysia and Pakistan denounced the publication of the caricatures. Pakistan's Foreign Ministry summoned nine envoys to lodge protests against the publication of the "blasphemous" sketches.

WW1 was started by a Serb in Austria - a massive conflict caused by a relatively insignificant action involving two tiny nations.  It'd be rather poetic if WW3 was started by 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper.....

 

[a_majoor]

48th, WW IV is already under way......

For a really wide ranging look at the entire situation, go to Instapundit.com, and scroll through the February 4 2006 archive.

 

[48Highlander]

48th, WW IV is already under way......

Eh, I know, but I don't consider it a world war unless there's a lot more fighting and killing than what we're seing now.  If the middle east goes to war against the rest of the world and peole start dying in the millions, when it's over you can bet it won't be known as WW V.

For a really wide ranging look at the entire situation, go to Instapundit.com, and scroll through the February 4 2006 archive.

Thanks, I'll check it out

 

[a_majoor]

We can argue about what number to use later (maybe we should be selling WWIII, BTDT tee shirts  )

Meanwhile, here is a comment by Captain Ed Morresy (Captain's Quarters)

    Editorial cartoons exist to challenge political thought and expose hypocrisy. Among religions, Islam should be the least protected from this form of speech, as it insists on involving itself in temporal political matters wherever it is practiced. Indeed, it insists on dictating political and legal matters, usually in the most extreme terms, and it uses the life of Mohammed as its claim on political and legal supremacy. Christianity hasn't taken that position in centuries, focusing on the spiritual and individual rather than group diktat. Judaism hasn't had the means to develop that kind of theocratic position for over two millenia until the establishment of Israel, and even then the Chosen have chosen a liberal democracy for themselves rather than rule by the high-priest descendants of Aaron.

    That insistence on dictating terms of temporal power makes criticism, by cartoonists or editorialists, absolutely necessary in order to combat the stultifying reach of sharia. Islam sets the terms of debate. It cannot insist on temporal rule based on Mohammed and the Qu'ran and then expect people to refrain from criticizing either one.

Actually, it can and does. The fact that criticism and debate is one of the most potent weapons available against tyrannical Sharia law is precisely why they react this way. Islam cannot expect people to refrain from criticism if they wish to be relevant in the modern world, but that isn't the goal of Islamic fascism: They want Islam to be relevant in the 10th century, and to take the rest of humanity with them.

 

[Acorn]

And Morresy illustrates the gulf between cultures. Muslims cannot understand why we do not accept religion's dicates on political and legal matters.

In addition, our reaction to the cartoons, or to the results of the cartoons is illustrative of our ignorance of how Muslims regard the Prophet and their religious texts and scholars.

 

[3rd Herd]

Okay as with any religion their often is a schism. At one point we had three Romes. The Muslim religon is no different with a schism developing over the way they should practice their religon. What has the reaction been from either group. Is one groups public outcry greater than the other or is this the first time since the prophets death they have become reunited as a faith.

 

[48Highlander]

In addition, our reaction to the cartoons, or to the results of the cartoons is illustrative of our ignorance of how Muslims regard the Prophet and their religious texts and scholars.

How so?  I don't think people are "ingorant" of it, I think they just don't give a s**t.  I know I certainly don'y.  So Mohammed's great and holy and doesn't like having his picture taken.  Great.  Get over it.  We have certain freedoms that ol' Mo didn't give the Muslims, if they don't like it that's too damn bad.

 

[SHELLDRAKE!!]

It may offend islamics to see Mohammed portrayed in pictures, but it offends me to see televised beheadings. Maybee I should start a protest that incites violence.

 

[Nemo888]

Agreed 48H. This pretending that primitive beliefs are equal to our own is really treading on my last nerve. Enough all ready. In some situations the "polite" thing to do is teach them some manners.  :threat: