Acts of Terrorism megathread

[Josquius]

Lets put your new standard for freedom of expression to the test with a hypothetical.

A person walks on a public sidewalk outside a steak house protest killing cattle for consumption. They carry a placard with a disturbing picture of slaughterhouse in action.  There is a caption which reads "meat is murder".  The protestor has been a part of a vegan protest group for many years and has been protesting outside this restaurant many times.  The owner of the restaurant calls the police and says the protestor is committing a criminal offence.

Under the current law the police politely explain to the restaurateur that no criminal offence is being committed.  Under the Tyr law an investigation ensues.  The investigating officer loves steak and cannot see any justification for why anyone would be so offensive.
Looking at the Tyr factors the investigator determines that there is certainly a pattern of such behaviour which is meant to offend those who love eating steak.  Further, the investigator determines that the views of the protestor are not widely held and so are not valid, reasoning that if they were valid then no one would eat steak.  Further there were less offensive ways to express the idea that people should not eat meat.  That is really the clincher.  The protestor was clearly acting in an offensive manner on the Tyr criteria.

Is this example because you know I'm big on animal rights?
Gross out tactics always get the thumbs down from me. Equally imagine it's a radical Christian group outside a sex shop and they've got a TV screen playing graphic pornography whilst children walk by.
Of course this kind of thing shouldn't be allowed.

The bias factor doesn't even come into this theoretical. If we imagine another theoretical where it might...Well that applies for any law. In a circumstance where the authorities clearly have sympathies with Group A and against Group B, and they find in Group As favour against the evidence, then that's really an injustice. Such an abuse of the law warrants the case stepping up from a very minor slap on the wrist and minor fine sort of crime towards something very serious indeed.

[Sheilbh]

On that I think there have been examples in the UK of restrictions on where Christians can protest outside of centres where women can get abortions. I think it's based on the powers of the police and local authorities to restrict protesting, so they're moved to an exclusion zone normally a little bit away from the centre so they can't directly harass the women walking in and out.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Who said there was no way for offended Muslims to the take their offence to court though? Maybe they have. What happened to CH though is that they got murdered for drawing silly cartoons about some people's sacred cow.

Le CCIF mène un djihad judiciaire (from the article I posted).
The CCIF is such an organisation. Jihad can be waged in many ways. All of them destructive to society.

[Malthus]

There's a simple "But brigade" test for Ty r and his ilk:  "if someone believes that something is true, even if it isn't, should there be any moral or legal impediment to them saying it?"

If they say "no," they are not members.  They believe in free speech.

If they say, "no, but..." then they are members.

If they say "yes," then they are not members, but rather simple free speech deniers.

If someone does not believe something is true, or it is incitement to violence, it isn't protected by free speech rights at all, so the case does not apply.

This test puts defamation law on the free speech denying side of the line.

Subjective Belief in the truth of a statement is not generally a defence to defamation (actual truth is, as is in some jurisdictions meeting some reasonable standard of diligence in inquiring after truth; or, only for public figures being the target, actual recklessness or malice).

This is one of the areas where Canadian and American law differs.

You are correct that an honest but mistaken belief that a statement is true provides limited protection in Canada if the other elements of qualified privilege can be made out.  But I believe the situation is quite different in the US where an honest but mistaken belief provides much more protection.  Which explains a bit why you see so many more false attacks being made against character down south.

Not exactly - the "honest but mistaken belief" defence (Or rather, that the defendant had not acted with "actual malice") only applies In the US where the target is a public figure. If the target is Joe or Jane Q. Public, that defence doesn't work, and an honest but mistaken belief can be libellous if it is careless/negligent - see Gertz v. Robert Welsh, Inc. A state can't allow punitive damages without actual malice though.

https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/defamation-law-the-basics.html

[Liep]

Another beheading in France.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54729957

[Maladict]

 

[Duque de Bragança]

Expect more particularly empty posturing by Jupiter anytime now.
Nice was already the target of one of the most lethal islamist terrorist attacks in 2016.
Some details are already showing up in French media.
Suspect was captured this time, usually not the case ,wounded by the local not national police; claims the attack and says his name is Brahim. A twenty-something it seems.

https://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/en-direct-nice-l-auteur-d-une-attaque-meurtriere-interpelle-20201029

Another attack thwarted in Avignon, perpetrator tried to attack policemen and was shot dead subsequently.

Selon des sources policières du Figaro, deux heures après l'attaque de la basilique de Notre-Dame de Nice, un homme a tenté d'attaquer des policiers à Avignon, dans le quartier de Montfavet. Il a été abattu par les forces de l'ordre vers 11h15.

[Maladict]

Not this shit again 

[Crazy_Ivan80]

cultural enrichment it's called. 

[Admiral Yi]

Always sucks when the attackers are refugees.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

and another attack, this time an orthodox priest was attacked.

[viper37]

Greek Orthodox.  Right after some posturing by Erdogan.  Coincidence?  I think not.

[Valmy]

and another attack, this time an orthodox priest was attacked.

Glad he wasn't killed.

But it doesn't look like they know who shot him at this point

[Eddie Teach]

Greek Orthodox.  Right after some posturing by Erdogan.  Coincidence?  I think not.

Err, how often does Erdogan posture?

[viper37]

Greek Orthodox.  Right after some posturing by Erdogan.  Coincidence?  I think not.

Err, how often does Erdogan posture?

very often,but he did target France specifically over the Greece issues and the caricatures.