Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;SWoUz" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;SWoUz</a>

I admit, it&#x27;s long. But the ending was brilliant.<p>&quot;In the modern-day vernacular, people often refer to a criminal case “being thrown out”. Obviously, this is little more than a figurative expression. Cases aren’t actually thrown out, in the literal or physical sense. Nevertheless, in the specific circumstances of this case, the Court is inclined to actually take the file and throw it out the window, which is the only way to adequately express my bewilderment with the fact that Mr. Epstein was subjected to an arrest and a fulsome criminal prosecution. Alas, the courtrooms of the Montreal courthouse do not have windows.<p>A mere verdict of acquittal will have to suffice.&quot;

If you look past the headline, this story is almost &quot;basic sanity&quot;. The guy&#x27;s neighbour didn&#x27;t want the accused&#x27;s kids playing in the street (in the suburbs) because they have a yard. To &quot;prove&quot; his point that it was dangerous he drove recklessly around the kids in the street.<p>The accused flipped him off and (allegedly because he denies it) threatened him.<p>Now frankly, I don&#x27;t see why this would be hackernews-worthy, but it&#x27;s still a basic triumph of common sense. If I had kids and they want to draw in chalk in a slow suburbs street, having a nosy neighbour calling the police after speeding next to them to illustrate his point would likely make my blood boil.

Here’s the specific “God-given right” passage from the ruling. So satisfying:<p>[168] To be abundantly clear, it is not a crime to give someone the finger. Flipping the proverbial bird is a God-given, Charter enshrined right that belongs to every red-blooded Canadian. It may not be civil, it may not be polite, it may not be gentlemanly.<p>[169] Nevertheless, it does not trigger criminal liability. Offending someone is not a crime. It is an integral component of one’s freedom of expression. Citizens are to be thicker-skinned, especially when they behave in ways that are highly likely to trigger such profanity – like driving too fast on a street where innocent kids are playing. Being told to “fuck off” should not prompt a call to 9-1-1.

In the U.S., however, First Amendment protection for flipping the bird is not considered &quot;clearly established&quot; law in some portions of the country, and police officers can be protected by qualified immunity if they arrest you in retaliation for displaying the middle finger.<p>The U.S. Courts of Appeal for the 2nd Circuit and 6th Circuit have held that flipping the bird is protected speech. (See Swartz v. Insogna, 2013, and Ellis v. Davidson, 2004.)<p>But as far as I&#x27;ve been able to determine, the 3rd Circuit, which governs my own part of the country, has not made any definitive rulings on it.<p>That means that a case like Guessford v. Douglas et al, which was recently filed by a Delaware man, might end up with the police involved protected from punishment.<p>(Guessford held up a handmade &quot;RADAR AHEAD&quot; sign while standing near a speed trap, and the police ripped up the sign, then later pulled him over and cited him in retaliation for flipping them the bird.)

Court decision<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;citoyens.soquij.qc.ca&#x2F;php&#x2F;decision.php?ID=B40649560046AC98B6BC3AA9D9C409F7" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;citoyens.soquij.qc.ca&#x2F;php&#x2F;decision.php?ID=B4064956004...</a>

It is indeed shocking that this poor man was arrested, charged, and taken through a full prosecution despite the obviously flawed evidence. The crown prosecutor erred so greatly in taking this case on that it strains belief. In Canada, the crown turns down all sorts of cases if they aren’t highly confident they can win. This one? Prosecutors are appointed, not elected. They have nothing to gain from such legal tourism and whomever brought this case forward will have a black mark on their credentials for some time.

<p><pre><code> Mrs Smith sues his neighbour for calling her cow publicly all the time and wins the case. On the end of the ruling the neighbour asks the judge: - Does this mean I cannot call Mrs Smith cow from now on? - That is right. - But can I still call a cow Mrs Smith? - Yes, that you can do. The neighbour turns to Mrs Smith with a big sarcastic smile: - See you later Mrs Smith!</code></pre>

I have no idea what a UK version of this transcript would look like but I rather enjoyed this one from Canada.<p>The Décision is spelt out with exquisite precision throughout the entire document. King Charles III&#x27;s Justice is quite clearly very well dispensed in Canada.

I feel this. I&#x27;m late to the party. But... I want to counter ask... how do folks feel about honking? Is honking a god-given right? Does this vary from giving the finger? How and why?<p>I don&#x27;t have great answers for all the above. But I seriously wholeheartedly embrace the idea of giving people the finger, and I seriously am fed up with all the honking shit and don&#x27;t think people are entitled to &gt;50% of it (and should be punished for it). And I don&#x27;t really see or get how to navigate these two &quot;protests&quot;, what maxims to apply, how to see these cases which I think have different judgements as actually different.<p>Maybe it&#x27;s just the social cost: a personal insult of a middle finger versus a civically-disturbing loud horn blow. And that kind of checks out. This decision feels right on to me (which I understand countries like Germany <i>highly</i> disagree on atm): you&#x27;re free to express that. Maybe the social cost is that, once you start using a very loud system of alert as a way to indicate anger, you dilute the exigency of this alert system, become a cause of false-alarm that creates a real risk that real-alarm goes unnoted. Maybe that&#x27;s a good enough case against letting drivers honk, a check.<p>But to go back to the general: this decision is about not limiting, but what are the limits? What are problematic displeasures? What lines shouldn&#x27;t we accept? If someone flips the bird, how much counter-permission do you have to be a terror? This case suggests flipping the bird back might be a counter-God-given-right, but can we scream our head off back? Can we honk for the next 5 minutes after seeing someone flip a bird at us? Can we drive aggressively?

[78] At the time of the events, his daughters were 2 and 4 years old. […]<p>[80] At trial, there is no evidence before me suggesting these young children form a criminal or terrorist organization.

Another great nugget:<p>&gt;&gt; This deplorable Laval reference is worthy of an eye roll that could sever both optical nerves.<p>When a Karen presses charges...

&gt; according to the objective video evidence, they drive dangerously near the children as a way to protest their presence and express their discontent.<p>They should countersue for that!

&gt; He even claimed that “dipshit” is not really an insult. It is merely a nickname like any other; an innocuous form of slang<p>What an amazing self own. Especially when you could very plausibly say you had a heated reaction and accept it with very minimal consequences for judgement. But by all means double down!

I have never been prouder to have become a Canadian citizen.

Read the whole thing. It&#x27;s very digestible. The judge is absolutely <i>livid</i> with the complainant.

Digitus impudicus - the middle finger and the law:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wired.com&#x2F;images_blogs&#x2F;threatlevel&#x2F;2010&#x2F;03&#x2F;middlefinger.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wired.com&#x2F;images_blogs&#x2F;threatlevel&#x2F;2010&#x2F;03&#x2F;middl...</a>

Protip: Don&#x27;t make accusations against someone that can easily be refuted by looking at video evidence <i>from your own cameras</i>.<p>(Special Darwin Award extra credit if the video evidence also shows <i>you</i> doing things that are at least questionable.)

Australian here. I find the excessive emotive flair throughout the judgment as pressing the boundaries on occasion. A court is supposed to act impartially and emotions kept in check. This kind of language could be appealable in Australia, see for instance, this news report from yesterday:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.abc.net.au&#x2F;news&#x2F;2023-03-10&#x2F;dismissal-of-assault-charge-against-teacher-overturned&#x2F;102080754" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.abc.net.au&#x2F;news&#x2F;2023-03-10&#x2F;dismissal-of-assault-...</a><p>Maybe it&#x27;s just more common in Canada for judges to be more forthright with their opinions.

Reminds me of <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www-dagsavisen-no.translate.goog&#x2F;nyheter&#x2F;innenriks&#x2F;2008&#x2F;05&#x2F;05&#x2F;greit-a-kalle-politimann-haestkuk&#x2F;?_x_tr_sl=auto&amp;_x_tr_tl=en&amp;_x_tr_hl=no&amp;_x_tr_pto=wapp" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www-dagsavisen-no.translate.goog&#x2F;nyheter&#x2F;innenriks&#x2F;2...</a> where swearing at a police officer in Norway was &quot;ok in this instance since they&#x27;re both northeners and that&#x27;s just how they talk up there&quot;, while in other cases people have been given fines.

“God gave me ten fingers, and said ‘arrange them as you see fit’ and I said holy f* you’re actually God why are you operating the drive thru window, anyway thanks for the chicken fingers your holiness”

No one should get arrested for expressing their opinion.<p>That being said, just because you <i>can</i> give someone the finger, doesn&#x27;t mean you <i>should</i>.

This is a great read! Never thought a judgment can be this fun, Why is the King prosecuting this?

This whole episode recalls _A Confederacy of Dunces_ vividly with Naccache as Reilly.

This is glorious. I smell a book deal for the judge. The writing is beautiful.

I hope the accused was awarded costs. What a bloody waste of time and money.

Reminds me of the time a cop hassled me on a <i>really</i> bad day and I gave him the finger as I walked away. &quot;You&#x27;re lucky I can&#x27;t arrest you for that!&quot; I didn&#x27;t look back. Thanks, Canada, for being a bit better than your shithole neighbor.

God should be written out of the Constitution.

I know saying &quot;fuck the police&quot; is an overused cliche at this point but how the fuck can anyone have any respect for the police as a whole when this is the shit they do? In canada they arrest you for a hand gesture and in america they arrest you for letting your children walk outside. How could any sane member of society go to a person&#x27;s house and arrest them for these things? And they still have the nerve to complain that people don&#x27;t respect them! Do cops in canada have discretion like american cops do?<p>I am not completely anti-police and I do think that it&#x27;s a tough job and is ultimately necessary for a society. But I really think we need to completely start over because our current implementation of policing is completely fucked.

Trudeau senior gave some citizens the bird from his train window way back so it should be ok for others to return the salute.

Yes it&#x27;s a God-given right until someone flips it in this judge&#x27;s court room and points it at him. Judge 1 God 0.

But honking will get your bank accounts seized and have you declared a terrorist.

Which god? Humans have invented several thousands of them over the years.

&gt; [6] This injustice ends today.<p>No it doesn&#x27;t. Unless such actions have consequences for the police and prosecutors beyond their case being thrown out, this injustice persists. To claim otherwise is like saying the injustice of a robbery has been rectified because the robber was not allowed to keep the stolen goods. That&#x27;s not what &quot;justice&quot; means.<p>What the judge is really telling police and prosecutors is: You failed this time, but by all means keep trying.