Canadian Propaganda

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

LunaticReason wrote:

Why assume that the people they are addressing are male?

Clearly you are unfamiliar with Ontario’s whole #WhoWillYouHelp campaign. It’s totally directed at men. It’s just another face of the He For She / It’s On Us line of crap they’re pushing these days.

If someone is being roofied than thats an entire different story.

Yeah, a fantasy story in the Feminist Book Of Fables. As I mentioned above, that simply does not happen. Rohypnol has been used for theft, but it has NEVER been detected in any cases of supposed “date rape”. Ever.

Every single case has turned out to be the women CHOOSING to “self medicate” with plain old alcohol. Women push the roofie fantasy as a way to deflect women’s responsibility for their own alcohol consumption. Because responsibility is kryptonite for women.

LunaticReason wrote:

Not certain of the specific law but I have a feeling that if a fire was happening near you that you’d have to take some action like call the fire department. The same goes for any crime.

Hahaha. No. You’re not certain of the specific law because there is no such law. Not in the United States at least. And every time some community tries to pass one it gets struck down. If you are called to be a witness in a court you can be compelled to answer questions, but even then only after being given a guarantee against prosecution for your answers, but no law can compel you to simply volunteer information. Your right to remain silent is just that. And even if such a law existed, which it doesn’t, it would be utterly unenforceable. Certain professions with an in loco parentis aspect to them or similar do have an obligation to report suspected crimes like child abuse, but unless you are a teacher or principal or doctor or the like you are not obligated to do a damn thing.

If such a draconian, tyrannical law did exist, there would be no “need” for this PSA (not that there’s a legitimate need for it anyways), or at the very least it would damn well have mentioned it.

[AFTParticipant 2725]

Where is the PSA on women should stop being nagging, whiny, spoiled, crazy, bitches? That would stop the abuse men suffer and the retaliation men sometimes act out against women, after being provoked.
How about the PSA on don’t get in a LTR / marriage, because divorce settlements / child maintenance.
As for the eye contact harpomason, for the last 10years, I have been telling them if I walked around with my c~~~ hanging out, would it be their fault for looking?
I would be insulted if I walked into the room with my c~~~ hanging out and no one looked. So they should be flattered and if they don’t want anyone to see their precious t~~~ then cover them up. Looking is not illegal…YET.
We had a similar PSA in Australia, targeted at both boys and girls, about not drinking themselves stupid and regretting drunken mistakes, it was slightly more even, but still biased. Operating under the socially ordained premis of EQUALITY is impossible, because the sexes are different. Until they get it right with acknowledging that men are more powerful, so don’t p~~~ them off, or you’ll get hurt, they are damaging society. Their PC rules are dangerous, unnatural and harmful for individuals and society at large. The time will come when individuals will be again free, and with that freedom, individuals need to be responsible for themselves.
If I went into a dangerous place looking for trouble I’d soon find it, and who would be to blame? So why don’t these stupid t~~~s get it? If they choose to do stupid things then they will soon experience the consequences. That’s not PC, it’s common sense.

When the war cemeteries are half full of the corpses of dead conscripted women, only then will women have earned the right to speak of equality. Sidecar “A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night and in between does what he wants to do.” - Bob Dylan

[нσтησσвParticipant 830]

Not certain of the specific law but I have a feeling that if a fire was happening near you that you’d have to take some action like call the fire department. The same goes for any crime.

That would be the “good samaritan law, ” of which people get confused which. All it is saying is that you should be able to void all minor laws such as physical contact / sexual abuse and so forth… which of course never happens. Ie, if someone drops dead and you perform CPR, your supposed to be exonerated of sexual assault / rape, but ofc thats not always the case. If you see a chick dying, don’t resuscitate her unless you want to go to jail as a sex offender, and then get raped by all of the mangina inmates.

The law also specifies that you don’t have to help them.

My Goal: To Leave Society.

[LunaticReasonParticipant 78]

In Quebec’s charter of rights. “Every human being whose life is in peril has a right to assistance…Every person must come to the aid of anyone whose life is in peril, either personally or calling for aid, by giving him the necessary and immediate physical assistance, unless it involves danger to himself or a third person, or he has another valid reason.”

How about being charged for Voyeurism

162. Voyeurism

162. (1) Every one commits an offence who, surreptitiously, observes — including by mechanical or electronic means — or makes a visual recording of a person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, if

(a) the person is in a place in which a person can reasonably be expected to be nude, to expose his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or to be engaged in explicit sexual activity;

(b) the person is nude, is exposing his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or is engaged in explicit sexual activity, and the observation or recording is done for the purpose of observing or recording a person in such a state or engaged in such an activity; or

(c) the observation or recording is done for a sexual purpose.

How about accessory after the fact?

23. (1) An accessory after the fact to an offence is one who, knowing that a person has been a party to the offence, receives, comforts or assists that person for the purpose of enabling that person to escape.

How about criminal negligence?

219. (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(a) in doing anything, or
(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
How about abetting?

In Canada, a person who aids or abets in the commission of a crime is treated the same as a principal offender under the criminal law. Section 21(1) of the Criminal Code provides that:
Every one is a party to an offence who
(a) actually commits it;
(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or
(c) abets any person in committing it.

How about Omission and Duty to act?

Now what if prosecution/crown decides to go after you? Who side do you think the jury/judge will take? Think you’re above arguments against taking action would fly in court? That’s just criminal, you may even have to contend with civil as well. Hey I totally get what you guys are saying but from a legal standpoint there might be ramifications for not taking action to consider.

Hypothetical. You’re at a party and some drunk chick gets taken advantage of and you’re of this but don’t feel its your responsibility to take action. Girl reports it and says the entire party there was participant of this crime in some form or another and later prosecution goes after every guy there regardless if they committed a crime or not. They learn that you knew about it and didn’t try to stop it. Now you’re screwed because regardless of whether the actual perpetrators committed are convicted or not. A lawyer could easily sell this to a judge/jury and they will do it because doing so looks good. Now they are the champion of rape victims.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

You don’t have to tell me how f~~~ed in the head Canada is. Believe me, I already know. That being said…

Your first non-point is constitutional, not legal. There is a difference. And beside that:

LunaticReason wrote:

unless it involves danger to himself or a third person, or he has another valid reason.”

Let me repeat that: another valid reason. Personally I consider not giving any f~~~s another valid reason, but if needs be, make something up.

This is why these laws are unenforcable. They CANNOT PROVE you actually noticed anything. They CANNOT PROVE you weren’t in fear of your own safety if you got involved. THEY CANNOT PROVE ANYTHING.

They learn that you knew about it and didn’t try to stop it.

And how, exactly, are they going to learn that? How are they going to prove it? Especially if you make a point of NOT GETTING INVOLVED.

Seriously, this is another reason why you don’t get involved. You didn’t notice it. You weren’t involved. You weren’t even a bystander because you weren’t standing by. You were just walking through. So maybe some skank hand non-consensual sex on the couch? You sure didn’t hear her complaining, and you sure as f~~~ didn’t look closely. What the f~~~ kind of pervert does the prosecutor think you are? You’re not going to just stand there and watch while two people have sex. Ewww.

As to everything else:

(c) the observation or recording is done for a sexual purpose.

But you are NOT observing and you sure as f~~~ are NOT recording. You are NOT INVOLVED. See above. Also trying to quote voyeurism laws? That’s clutching at straws a bit.

knowing that a person has been a party to the offence,

A lot of people get confused with the whole “accessory after the fact” thing. You are one of them. For a whole bunch of reasons it’s non-applicable here, but in the interest of brevity I’ll just ask you two things: How can they know what you knew or didn’t? How can they prove it? Especially since you were not involved.

receives, comforts or assists that person for the purpose of enabling that person to escape.

But you are not receiving, comforting, or aiding anyone. YOU ARE NOT INVOLVED, remember?

in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

But it’s NOT your duty. This is where that thing I mentioned above about teachers etc. comes in. Unless you are a teacher etc., you have NO DUTY. So it doesn’t apply to you.

(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or
(c) abets any person in committing it.

But you are not aiding or abetting. YOU ARE NOT INVOLVED! And merely being in the same proximity for a short time does not make you involved.

And believe me, not involved is the best place to be.

[Author]

Posts