I’m sorry I didn’t upload this before, if there are some amongst you who want to discuss the, er, situation. I have been obsessing about this election for months now and I think that now we’re here I find I’m too anxious to watch the returns coming in as a Trump victory would be the biggest disaster for this country since, I dunno, the civil war? I took a peek at Twitter about twenty minutes ago (I refuse to use its other name) and the people I follow are all sounding very gloomy and now I’m more tense and scared than I have ever been about this election. The Russian bomb threats aren’t helping the situation. I don’t know if I’ll even check the news again tonight (who am I kidding, I will) but if you guys feel like chatting here’s a place to do it.
I’d laugh hysterically except my asthma’s acting up and I don’t know what my and the Mr’s health coverage is going to do.
@ jenora
This is a big bugbear for me. It’s one of the reasons I do my channel.
I know we live in a post truth world now, and it’s perfectly legitimate to question the implications of a law.
But some things are simply true or not. There’s no wriggle room there.
It’s perhaps not as egregious when lay people state the law wrong. Especially when it’s just ignorance rather than bad faith. Then people can make their own assessments of the credibility of the assertion based on the provenance of the statement maker.
Of course that brings in things like “appeal to authority” but I’m not sure why thats considered a logical fallacy. When it comes to issues like health I’m going to trust a doctor over a podcaster,
A big problem for me though is when lawyers state the law wrong. Especially for political reasons. I have proposed to our regulator that that should be a disciplinary offence. We’ll see what happens there. There are Art.10 implications; but my argument is there’s no public interest in being misinformed.
As it happens it is now a criminal offence here to share false information. Although it doesn’t help the “two tier” justice thing that the BBC is expressly exempt from the law.
@Alan:
Well, yes, I can see why that would be an issue for you in particular.
(See also some of Youtuber ‘Legal Eagle’s comments on Trump: somebody who respects the Rule of Law in general while acknowledging its failures in many particulars is obviously going to have problems with somebody who clearly doesn’t believe any laws should apply to him.)
In this particular case, the law was essentially meant to explicitly add anti-trans speech (including such things as deliberate misgendering) to the existing category of ‘hate speech’. The courts had been trending that way anyway: ever since the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted as part of our first formal constitution in 1982, our Supreme Court had generally interpreted Section 15 of the Charter to include what they considered ‘analogous grounds’ (for example discrimination based on either sexual orientation or pregnancy had both been ruled to be forms of discrimination based on sex, which was an explicitly enumerated ground under the charter) and while I don’t believe there has been a formal case before the court regarding anti-trans discrimination yet, it would almost certainly have landed as ruling anti-trans discrimination as a violation of the Charter under the same analogous grounds.
(See Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms)
Peterson, of course, was crying about how accidentally saying one wrong word in class could get him thrown in jail. And kept claiming that despite others pointing out how that wasn’t the case.
I had a friend who was quoting Peterson on this. Between another friend of mine (who was mid-transition and had looked into the details of the law in question) and myself with more general study of the structure of law, we both fought back on that point. For one, ‘hate speech’ is practically never a crime in itself, it’s a rider on top of other crimes to increase sentencing; in cases like this, the base crime would probably be harassment. For another, getting charged with harassment wouldn’t be possible with ‘one wrong word’, it would require deliberately and knowingly misgendering someone over multiple interactions despite corrections. On top of that, harassment in general (and anti-trans harassment in particular) is not an easy crime to actually get enforced. Heck, the very fact that Peterson still technically has his licence to practise despite everything he’s said and how horrible he has been to not only some of his old students but some of his old patients shows how difficult it is to actually enforce things like this. He can still get away with keeping a licence he hasn’t even used in years if he completes a training program on professionalism in social media (which of course he has claimed is propaganda training and a violation of his right to free speech). Heck, he didn’t even get fired from the University of Toronto; he’s still technically a professor emeritus there, while simultaneously being chancellor of Ralston College in Savannah, Georgia.
If it were anywhere near as easy to get thrown in jail as Peterson claimed… he would have been in jail years ago, rather than being one of the least ‘silenced’ people out there.
Obligatory U.S. New World Food, Sportsball, and Family Drama Day anthem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5_8U4j51lI
(With the unhappy postscript that Alice Brock died a week ago at 83: https://archive.ph/iortw)
Pet Peeve Alert!
Logical fallacies only apply to logical deductive arguments. “I’m going to trust this guy over that guy” isn’t a logical argument; it’s just a personal evaluation of credibility. The fallacy occurs only if you make the deductive argument that:
Premise 1: A says X and B says Y.
Premise 2: A is an authority and B is not.
Conclusion: Therefore X is true and Y is false.
@ Lukas
Sorry or the delayed response. I was trying to remember the word, syllogism. But yes, quite right. I also like a bit of logic pedantry.
@Surplus: Aw, she almost made another one.
The classic rock radio station I listened to for many years till it became sportsball (ugh) played that a couple times every Thanksgiving so you could catch it before or after your meal.
(and the 8×10 glossies with circles and arrows on the back)
@Alan: I think we’re all fine with a bit of pedantry here, because we is us and between all of this lot, we can probably pedant for gold in most fields, especially the word-wrangling kinds.
@GSS ex-noob:
@Alan: I think we’re all fine with a bit of pedantry here, because we is us and between all of this lot, we can probably pedant for gold in most fields, especially the word-wrangling kinds.
My family thinks this Saturday Night Live sketch is the funniest thing ever; was I the only sapient life form hooting and throwing (metaphorical) poop at the TV screen?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJ62EfUKI3w
(“‘Dozen’ is a French derivative!” “BRACE! COUPLE! SCORE!” “FIRST! $#&@%! CHAPTER! OF! IVANHOE!”)
@ FMO
If you want to get really pedantic point out that the flag in the boat was, contrary to all the paintings, the Grand Union Flag.
Here though, we do call them ‘beefburgers’
And speaking of the revolution, that was our idea too…
@GSS ex-noob: ?
Seems I’m missing some context here. I went back and reviewed all my recent comments on this site, and it’s still missing, sorry.
@Surplus to Requirements:
@GSS ex-noob: @Surplus: Aw, she almost made another one.
I think GSS ex-noob may have been referring to either Afrodita (who either gave up or got banned before making another fatuous incel straw argument) or Alice Brock, who died just short of another Thanksgiving.
I’m finding the discourse on the New York health exec shooting pretty interesting. So may I do a bit of a poll?
If the shooter is ever caught and you were on the jury, how would you decide?
“I think he was justified in law, so I would acquit.”
“I think he is technically guilty, but I would acquit anyway.”
“No matter what the background circumstances, this is murder so I would convict.”
Here’s some comments on the actual law.
@Alan
I’d probably be disqualified from jury selection – decades-long career in healthcare, and I admit up front that I have a deep-seated longtime bias against insurance companies. Plus I’ve worked with people who work for United Healthcare (not the insurance arm, thankfully).
I’d like to think I’d weigh the evidence and vote according to my conscience, but I’m not entirely sure what that would mean.
David, can we pretty please have an open thread that doesn’t feature he who must not be looked at? Maybe a picture of a cat or capybara?
@FMO: I did mean Alice.
@Alan: I’ve got to say I don’t know. They’re going to have a heck of a time finding a jury in this country who’ll be unanimous on first-degree murder. Hating insurance companies is one of the few truly bipartisan things 99% of Americans agree on. Not to mention everyone who posted online about how they hoped the cops didn’t catch him. There will be mistrials and if he gets a good lawyer, they may end up knocking it down to a lesser charge.
Or, y’know, he might “somehow” get shanked in jail for no reason, or the security cameras could “mysteriously” fail outside his cell. I mean… that happens.
@ Vicky P & GSS
Well he’s certainly a lot more succinct than Ted Kaczynski
“To the Feds, I’ll keep this short, because I do respect what you do for our country. To save you a lengthy investigation, I state plainly that I wasn’t working with anyone. This was fairly trivial: some elementary social engineering, basic CAD, a lot of patience. The spiral notebook, if present, has some straggling notes and To Do lists that illuminate the gist of it. My tech is pretty locked down because I work in engineering so probably not much info there. I do apologize for any strife of traumas but it had to be done. Frankly, these parasites simply had it coming. A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy. United is the [indecipherable] largest company in the US by market cap, behind only Apple, Google, Walmart. It has grown and grown, but as our life expectancy? No the reality is, these [indecipherable] have simply gotten too powerful, and they continue to abuse our country for immense profit because the American public has allwed them to get away with it. Obviously the problem is more complex, but I do not have space, and frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument. But many have illuminated the corruption and greed (e.g.: Rosenthal, Moore), decades ago and the problems simply remain. It is not an issue of awareness at this point, but clearly power games at play. Evidently I am the first to face it with such brutal honesty.”
If he did release that that’s clever. A judge might not let him run a necessity defence. But that statement will probably have to go in as an admission of guilt. So the jury will get to see it anyway.
Alan, what say you regarding this legal advice?
https://bsky.app/profile/buny.bsky.social/post/3lablquxp4a2n
Alan, do you agree with this advice?
@ GSS
This illustrates the difference between English and
ColonialAmerican law. In the US you have the 5th Amendment. So that’s an absolute right to silence; and no inferences can be drawn from your refusal to say anything. Here it’s very different. You do have a right to silence, both in interview with the police and in court. However, if you do stay schtumm the judge/jury can draw ‘such adverse inferences as seem proper’. So that can be held against you. The rationale being ‘the innocent man cries out to be heard!’. Or as the courts put it, if you have a defence then you might be expected to mention it.So yeah, good advice in the US, not so much here.
But for an English perspective see here from 19:00
Dumb question: am I the only one around here that is disturbed by the utter glee people online have been showing over the possible horrible fate(s) of the person who turned the assassin in? I’ve been getting the majority of my info about this killing from certain left-leaning Reddit subs, and the absolute thrill some of those posters are showing at the whole ‘Snitches get Stitches – CLAIM DENIED!!!!HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!’ idea rather repulsive.
I have no idea who turned the guy in (I’ve heard both it was a McDonalds employee and an elderly McDonald’s patron) let alone why they did it, but acting like it’s some form of karmic justice if that person is hunted down by a rabid mob, beaten within an inch of their life, then denied both money to treat the injuries and sympathy because they’re the worst traitor to humanity in the history of ever…not a good look for anyone. (Allegedly the rewards hotlines advertised to reward informants are set up to make it so difficult to actually get the money that the folks running those hotlines almost never have to pay out so much as a penny to their users. Which seems counterproductive if the goal is to get the public’s help on locating your average fugitive, but what do I know? I just live in this country.)
To be clear, I’m not talking about the morality of turning in the assassin, especially given the crimes the dead CEO participated in. I’m talking about the gleeful vitriol aimed at the informant, as if whoever did injure them should be hailed as the greatest heroes ever, is all.
Or course this all assumes that the Deep State didn’t make up a fake informant to take the fall to cover up just how extensive their Survailence Machines have gotten…. /joking. (I hope.)
@ Alan Robertshaw
Based on the news articles I have been reading, I can answer your poll with the third option: He committed murder, and his attitude suggests he is likely to attempt something similar again if let free. Prison therefore seems appropriate.
Though, I kind of have to stop and think about my personal sense of justice here, since I would be more sympathetic if say, the victim was a child molester or serial killer. Of course, in those cases, after killing the person who molested or killed someone close to them, the new killer is less likely to be a repeat offender. Hmmmm…
@Redsilkphoenix: Jetpack Vixen, Intergalactic Meani
Yes. I am very disturbed by this side of people that seems to be very much in vogue these days. People all across the political spectrum seem to be so damn excited to see people they don’t like getting hurt, tortured or killed, taking a fiendish glee in talking about it and imagining it.
In particular, the Left doing it bothers me a lot. (See also: What Hamas did in Israel and the satisfaction so many people seemed to take in the idea of the oh so evil colonizers being raped and tortured to death was really… Unpleasant.)
Quite frankly it is damaging my world view. Traditionally I usually see such a desire for harm on the side of the Righties, and to see so much of it on the Left as well just makes me think things are spiraling around a drain with humanity everywhere.
I don’t know what to do about it, but I feel something of a responsibility given that I am, depending on who you talk to, anything from Left leaning to a full on Woke Liberal Socialist
@ .45
I might not know for sure what the actual cause of left wingers following this trend of increasing animosity of others you noticed; but my pondering on it has me wounder if its a co-morbidity of factors relating to social media and online discourse fanning the flames of political polarization, the normalization of right wing Reactionary hate mobs taking their mental and emotional toll on Left Wingers, and a knock on effect of Trump being elected and the ever fanning flames of Fascist movements and Is real’s atrocities towards Palestine civilians and right wing reactionary glee and malice express in these and the hate mobs harassing and threatening cis women and various minorities; effecting Left Winger’s to the point that they now think and feel they have to play by the prison rules Right Wing reactionaries keep laying down; because with such hate now normalized with right wing bigots being the right wing base now: Left Winger’s and the marginalized feel that its the only way to ensure that bigoted bullies no longer have “soft targets” anymore (in every sense of the word).
After Trump’s re-election: cis women and LGBTQ people have grown so afraid for their lives after a deluge of rape threats against Cis Women and criminalization, harassment, assaults and death threats made against them from the Trumplerites and their fellow right wing travellers; that many of both groups (Cis women and LGBTQ folks) are increasingly seeking gun ownership for self defence. It’s so bad that even left wingers who never really wanted to seek gun ownership; are for the first time actually seeking gun ownership and asking gun owning left wingers how to use and train safely with guns.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/23/women-lgbtq-guns-trump
Trans people are not only being more openly and frequently assaulted; lookers on are not just passively watching trans people being assaulted, but are actively cheering the assaults in broad daylight.
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/transgender-women-attacked-minneapolis-rail-station-b2649250.html
Its a series of co-morbid factors, possibly, but I think that is may be a case where the Left Wing, may be be of the ever growing impression that “taking the moral high ground”; doesn’t actually accomplish anything in the wake of Right Wing Reactionaries amorality and lack of principals and lack of empathy still somehow able to make social and political gains without much, if any push-back or effective counter and the atrocities at their hands being unanswered for and unopposed.
At the very least; it would not surprise me if, given these factors; this may be what is happening.
The victim was a serial killer. The worst kind, the sort who does it with a pen rather than a gun and whom the police refuse to touch.
Actually, that’s an encouraging sign. We’ve been in an undeclared war since, arguably, 1980 and finally some on our side are starting to act appropriately and arm themselves etc. rather than just getting beaten, gassed, and killed while pleading “why can’t we all just get along?”
The current oppressive system has become so entrenched that it no longer seems possible to root it out by purely legal means. We vote and we vote, but conservatives somehow keep winning and winning. We protest and instead of winning more civil rights like we used to, we lose them (e.g. Dobbs). The moral arc of the universe seems to have quit bending toward justice and started bending toward crap. And you want to know why? Because we’ve lost something since the MLK days, and that something is militancy. MLK talked a good game about peaceful change, but he was part of a “good cop/bad cop” duo, and the “bad cop” half of that was Malcolm X. Always an unspoken threat looming behind MLK’s diplomacy. Deal with me, or you’re gonna have to deal with him. And it wasn’t just Malcolm X. There were numerous militant groups on the left in those days, the days when the left made real gains and, more importantly, held onto them. The days of Roe, not Dobbs; of civil rights, not the repeal of affirmative action; of Stonewall, not bathroom bills.
The same was true during the preceding era of progressive gains. Unions didn’t only get legal recognition because they made eloquent speeches about workers’ plights while being shot at by cops and corporations’ mercenary goons; there were militant pro-labor groups providing the implicit “or else” behind those speeches.
Recently we have had a surfeit of MLKs but there have been no Malcolm Xs backstopping them and serving as the unspoken, but well-known, alternative for if the right and corporations didn’t play ball.
Until now.
Some really thought provoking comments on the CEO shooting case. You’ve got me thinking.
But can I first interject with a bit of news. My chambers colleague and friend Charlotte Proudman was being prosecuted by our regulator over some tweets commenting about sexism in the judiciary. Well, glad to say the tribunal dismissed all charges.
More here on that:
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/proudmans-boys-club-tweet-not-misconduct-bar-tribunal-rules/5121816.article
And if you want the background to the case.
I hope the informant gets the money, but I doubt they will. And I fear they might lose their job at McDs due to the attention on that particular franchise. No good deed goes unpunished.
The killer is rich, good-looking, and male, so I’d guess he gets is murder with the possibility of parole, if they get a jury that isn’t hung. Everyone on both the left and the right hates “health” care companies, so it won’t break along ideological lines. Just finding enough jurors who haven’t personally or in their family been screwed over by their insurance is going to be tough.
@Alan: In practice, taking the Fifth in court is regarded by most as an admission of at least a little guilt/knowledge before or after the fact, so not much difference.
That particular video pertains to the questioning after you’re arrested — never help the cops do their job or point them towards any others who escaped being rounded up. Invoke your Miranda rights and lawyer up, always. It’s good advice, particularly if you were arrested for some non-violent political thing like a peaceful protest. Plus their phrasing is just amusing.
@ GSS ex Noob
Here, the adverse inference thing starts from arrest. The caution (our version of Miranda) is:
“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court.”
So if you don’t give your explanation of innocence right from the start, even if you then present a defence in court, the jury are entitled to disregard it on the ground if it was real you’d have mentioned it as soon as the police turned up.