Calgary man out of a job after racist tirade caught on video.

[JonDuke]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Charged:



http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/07/27...cabbie-assault

Different person than who the thread was started about.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by JonDuke

Different person than who the thread was started about.

My bad!

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

“Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.”

― Noam Chomsky (that notorious and reactionary scion of Fox News bigotry)

Anyway, I doubt there's enough common ground for me to have a rational discussion with people who break humanity into sub-groups based on ethnic or religious identity and then assign those sub-groups rankings in a hierarchy of credibility and guilt based on arbitrary, simplistic, and subjective notions of privilege.

How has your or anyone's freedom of speech been infringed?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Of course it does. In some cases it's based on group identity, more often it's on an individual basis. It's impractical to address individual privilege (should you give a man who comes from a poor and uneducated family preference for entrance to medical school over a woman who comes from a family of affluent doctors?). The issue is whether it's better to address group privilege by treating all people as equal, or by trying to rebalance the scales by regarding people foremost by their group identity and then basing your treatment of them on whether they're privileged.

First you would have to identity exactly who is privileged. Is it a a binary quality - is everyone either privileged or not-privileged? If it's not binary, is there degrees of privilege and some imaginary ranking? And of course, we have overlapping identities. Does an affluent Asian woman who thinks homosexuality is immoral rank higher or lower on the privilege scale than a poor gay white man? Are all men more privileged than all women, regardless of affluence, education, or ethnicity?

Also, these identities and privileges are fluid. There was a time in this country when Irish weren't allowed in some bars, and when Jews couldn't belong to golf clubs. Nobody rang a bell one day and moved the Jewish identity up the privilege ladder over some arbitrary threshold.

Lastly, there's no correlation between bigotry and privilege. The poor or disadvantaged minority isn't any more likely to be broad-minded and tolerant of others than the secure majority. Have a friend tell you what his Chinese grandmother thinks of black people. Or look at how intolerant of homosexuality most Muslims are.

In short, using 'privilege' in such a simplistic fashion betrays extreme naivete and ignorance of history. There's a reason identity politics is rejected even by most minorities - it's an ethical dead-end that only entrenches division.

I don't entirely agree with this, but it was a very and reasonable post nonetheless.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Makarov

How has your or anyone's freedom of speech been infringed?

I'm not suggesting it has been. My original comment in this thread was that even though the incident in the OP was justifiably actionable, we need to be wary of routinely firing or otherwise taking action against people who make offensive or unpopular remarks (the difference between which is often subjective). It seems the scope of acceptable expression in this country is getting narrower and narrower. While most of us can shrug it off when it's racists getting a kicking, this kind of appetite for public shaming is sure to find other targets. Even if you're confident that you have no offensive or unpopular opinions likely to arouse public denunciation today, it's naive to think that can't change, social norms being as fluid as they are.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Once charges have been laid by police (who may or may not ask for advice from the Crown Attorney's office before doing so), the discretion to proceed or how to proceed lies entirely in the hands of the Crown. The Crown considers two factors when deciding whether to prosecute: (1) whether prosecution is in the public interest; and (2) whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction.

Certainly, a recanting or uncooperative witness is an important consideration with respect to the likeliness of a conviction. However, it would be unusual for the Crown to withdraw charges due to a recanting witness this early in process. In my experience, the Crown is more likely to set trial dates and give the recanting witness time to get his or her story straight until the trial date arrives.

I still think that this matter was likely resolved by way of diversion. Although I'm still a little surprised by that too.

This helps, but I'm still fuzzy, as well as a lot of the posters obviously. What makes a police officer decide whether or not to press charges without the 'consent' of the one who is 'wronged'? Is it a huge grey judgement call, or is there is narrower set of rules. Because often, in Canada, an officer will ask, 'do you want to press charges?' with smaller crimes or non-obvious guilt.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Daradon

This helps, but I'm still fuzzy, as well as a lot of the posters obviously. What makes a police officer decide whether or not to press charges without the 'consent' of the one who is 'wronged'? Is it a huge grey judgement call, or is there is narrower set of rules. Because often, in Canada, an officer will ask, 'do you want to press charges?' with smaller crimes or non-obvious guilt.

It's probably more of a wink wink thing from police if they're asking citizens if they want to press charges.

Basically saying "I can take this to the crown and go through that whole process but if you don't care we'll probably just forget about it and save everyone the hassle".

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

All criminal charges are laid by the Crown (RCMP here, as correctly pointed out). The victim has no right to determine whether charges are brought against an alleged offender.

The reason why the decision - and again, it's the RCMP's decision, sometimes comes down to the willingness of the victim to cooperate, is because the victim is often the key witness.

If you assault me and rob me in an alley at gunpoint, and no one else is around, and I decide that I'm unwilling to testify against you or cooperate in any way with the authorities because I just can't be bothered, it will be very difficult for the crown to prove their case.

If there is a video camera that shows you clearly sticking me up with a handgun, my cooperation, while still obviously very helpful to the crown's case, may not be necessary.

I know that it's usually not the victim's decision (at least directly), but private prosecution still exists, does it not? According to that great legal resource, Wikipedia...

Criminal offence procedure for private charges

Very basically, a citizen or organisation approaches a justice of the peace to present evidence on each element of the alleged offence. The justice then sets up a hearing with a Judge to determine whether there is evidence on each element of the offence, and if approved, and if the Crown does not intervene and terminate the charge, called Staying the charge, then it is allowed to proceed to and go through court via the criminal procedure.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Edit: Reading comprehension alludes me.

Not to be a dick but it eludes you.

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Nice conclusion jumping without reading anything about it; his boss and another co-worker sat in back but were dropped off before his rant.

But great job blaming the victim, you're a superstar.

I think having the full story is the first order of business here. I didn't jump to any conclusions, I merely posed a hypothetical situation, as on the balance of things it doesn't make sense that a person that harbours such a racist mindset would go and sit shotgun if he had a choice - how many of us sit shotgun in a cab when we're sober, not bigoted and can sit in the back?

But great job you self-righteoussocial justice warrior!! You not only couldn't comprehend my post, but you attacked my viewpoint for posing questions!!

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by Dagger

I think having the full story is the first order of business here. I didn't jump to any conclusions, I merely posed a hypothetical situation, as on the balance of things it doesn't make sense that a person that harbours such a racist mindset would go and sit shotgun if he had a choice - how many of us sit shotgun in a cab when we're sober, not bigoted and can sit in the back?
!

I drove cab over twenty years ago but my experience was that 80% of my passengers insisted on sitting in the front.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Dagger

I think having the full story is the first order of business here. I didn't jump to any conclusions, I merely posed a hypothetical situation, as on the balance of things it doesn't make sense that a person that harbours such a racist mindset would go and sit shotgun if he had a choice - how many of us sit shotgun in a cab when we're sober, not bigoted and can sit in the back?

But great job you self-righteoussocial justice warrior!! You not only couldn't comprehend my post, but you attacked my viewpoint for posing questions!!

Ah the ol' Glenn Beck "I'm just asking questions" defense, wherein one can distance themselves from a morally repugnant opinion by phrasing it as a question and deflecting to being a devil's advocate when their motivations are questioned.

Godspeed.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

I drove cab over twenty years ago but my experience was that 80% of my passengers insisted on sitting in the front.

This is just crazy to me. I've never been in the front of the cab unless the back was full. Survey here, does anyone do this?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is just crazy to me. I've never been in the front of the cab unless the back was full. Survey here, does anyone do this?

Sometimes while drunk I hop in the front for whatever reason. Back otherwise.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

When I'm drunk I'm basically just getting into a cab through instinct alone, so I just do what I always do.

[Bmuzyka]

My dad drove cab for years in Medicine Hat, and he told me to always sit in the back unless full.

[Locke]

A little late to the party and I admit to not reading every post, but I love the fact that since hes done something evil hes from Calgary but if he saved 10 drowning kittens hes from Airdrie.

[Coys1882]

I always sit in the front - fun to chat with these guys. They're just looking to pass the time like you are.

[codynw]

Why would you sit in the back? I've never even considered that before.

[Sliver]

I always sit in the back. I figure the front is their space and I don't want to invade it. Seems rude to sit in the front IMO, but maybe I'm wrong.