• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

Procedure for filing a harassment case against a cop??

OTIS

TRIBE Member
PosTMOd said:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Just a heads up that article 15 doesn't include sexual orientation specifically. This has been a sticking point for many "gay rights" ativists over the years.
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Genesius said:

The funny thing about that shot is that every time I see it, the caption appears:

"Oh my a plebe! Ignore him, he'll go away. What's this, you would like to take my photograph? Very well then, but don't expect me to reimburse you for your effort! Be sure to get my pork. *pose**snap* Run along now!"
 

TrIbAlNuT

TRIBE Member
OTIS said:
Just a heads up that article 15 doesn't include sexual orientation specifically. This has been a sticking point for many "gay rights" ativists over the years.
thats true, some background info....

In 1982, Canada patriated its Constitution, to which it added the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 15 of the Charter, which guarantees equality "before and under the law" and the "right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination" does not explicitly list sexual orientation, but was designed to permit the addition of new grounds by the courts. In 1995, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that "sexual orientation" should be 'read in' to Section 15.

In the 1980s, several attempts were made to add "sexual orientation" into the federal government's Human Rights Act, an amendment that did not take place until 1996.

In 1986, sexual orientation was added to the Ontario Human Rights Code as a prohibited ground for discrimination. Like most other human rights acts in Canada, this act prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, services and certain other activities in the public and private sectors, but it does not apply to federally regulated activities.
 

Tins

TRIBE Member
PosTMOd said:
Chlorpromazine and risperdol are first and foremost anti-anxiety medications, totally calming, and there is absolutely no way the cop could tell I was on them (and I'm not even saying I was, necessarily ;) ). They have NO significant behaviourial/neurological effects except to CALM A PERSON RIGHT DOWN...and that is ALL THEY DO. The only thing the cop could "tell", or so he thought, was that I was apparently a nice, really quiet, mentally retarded gay, sitting quietly, doing nothing, as he apparently must think that that is what slow gay retards do... see, MOST cops only hassle you (quite legally) if you are all up in their grills, and because of those meds, that was an impossibility!!!!
Regardless of what you want to do with this cop, I think you should do more research into the medication that you are taking. Those 2 medications are actually strong anti-psychotics. Yes they are calming because they totally knock you out. Maybe you should speak with your doctor again or re-adjust your doses if your behavior is getting too different.
 

sarafina

TRIBE Member
Tins said:
Regardless of what you want to do with this cop, I think you should do more research into the medication that you are taking. Those 2 medications are actually strong anti-psychotics. Yes they are calming because they totally knock you out. Maybe you should speak with your doctor again or re-adjust your doses if your behavior is getting too different .
too different?
i feel like i want to agree with atp - sitting quietly and THINKING are abnormal?!?!?! wtf

and i also can't believe you failed the mensa test
 

AshG

Member
OTIS said:
Just a heads up that article 15 doesn't include sexual orientation specifically. This has been a sticking point for many "gay rights" ativists over the years.
its very much a moot point though. the current definition supersedes gay rights to the extent that it covers rights for all, under the form of any discrimination.

identification of specific rights would be, to my mind, a weakness to the current statement insofar as implying a limitating inclusion of the rights aforementioned.
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Either that or it implies that some previously marginalized "rights" issues may become more salient over time due to cultural, demographic, or environmental changes and thus, for interpretive purposes, should be given increased recognition. I understand the implications of adding more particularity to Article 15, but I think first and foremost rather than it being understood as a weakening, it would be just the opposite. That it would be metabolized as a simple amendment, one which adds legitimacy to the constitution itself as a “living, breathing” document. Amendments fall well within the normative procedures of constitutional law and I see no problem with them given that they abide by the outlined amending formulas. As well, “weakening” implies there are some consequences. Other than rejection of constitutional provisions by the judiciary, I can’t imagine how a perceived “weakening” of the constitution which has enjoyed over 2 decades of acceptance would result in anything consequential other than passive disappointment among the religious right.

That being said, I specifically refrained from saying whether it was good or bad, but I seem to have bit anyway. ;)
 

PosTMOd

Well-Known TRIBEr
Thank you all for your input; much appreciated, and helpful. It also makes more sense now what my lawyer was pointing at... careful guy that he is, didn't exactly point it out, but I understand now that this might go much further than I thought, way out into "perceived gay" territory, and that is good: not only is this going to help discrimination against gays, but also the marginalized issue of "perceived gays", that is to say, people who are actually not gay, but are discriminated against for being perceived as gay. These are people who cannot even understand WHY they are being discriminated, and so therefore do not react to it... a homophobic cop, for instance, who merely assumes that someone is gay (i.e. "must be gay, for why else would he be sitting and doing nothing?")... the worst form of discrimination, for the party being fucked over does not even KNOW.

But this will be my last post about this topic, for I have a case to work on, a case that is very solid, according to my lawyer.
 

Genesius

TRIBE Member
PosTMOd said:
But this will be my last post about this topic, for I have a case to work on, a case that is very solid, according to my lawyer.
Good luck TMO. Fight for justice!
p.s. don't forget to post the details, when you feel it's ok to do so.

*pat on back*
 

Adam

TRIBE Member
OTIS said:
I understand the implications of adding more particularity to Article 15, but I think first and foremost rather than it being understood as a weakening, it would be just the opposite.
I agree, although to some degree it would be redundant; not simply because it's been read-in for the past 10 years, but because it's for all intents and purposes covered by the inclusion of 'sex' in s.15. Meaning, pre-legal same-sex marriage, if one half of a same-sex couple was the the opposite sex, their marriage would be legal. Hence, you're discriminating based on that person's gender. It's semantics perhaps, but I agree that these things can make a difference.

Really, I'm just trying to drastically change the topic of this trainwreck thread as quickly as possible.
 

Thumpr

TRIBE Member
X_Door said:
Whoa! Holy misconception! If a cop demands that you identify yourself while being investigated for a Criminal Code offence, you must do so or you'll be arrested. The cop will arrest in order to establish your identity. Certain provincial acts require the accused to identify themselves or be arrested, such as the Highway Traffic Act and the Trespass to Property Act.
actually you'll note that i asked if he was on private property with adequate signage, and i'm familiar with the HTA provision but he was not operating a motor vehicle.
 

Tins

TRIBE Member
sarafina said:
too different?
i feel like i want to agree with atp - sitting quietly and THINKING are abnormal?!?!?! wtf

and i also can't believe you failed the mensa test
Well then I would be very curious to see what the cops justification will be as to why he arrested an 'innocent' man for 'sitting quietly and thinking', wont you?

I am more concerned about the medications. I have met many patients taking these same medications and it's a fine balance.
 

NemIsis

TRIBE Member
newstyle666 said:
How on earth did my photo wind up in this thread? Now that creeps me out even more than mentally challenged PostMod.
Well, you posted it initially



Ok, the pipe was my idea.. lol
Couldn't resist at the time..
 

derek

TRIBE Member
newstyle666 said:
How on earth did my photo wind up in this thread? Now that creeps me out even more than mentally challenged PostMod.
yeah...your pictures creep me out too.
 

X_Door

TRIBE Member
Thumpr said:
actually you'll note that i asked if he was on private property with adequate signage, and i'm familiar with the HTA provision but he was not operating a motor vehicle.
The cop could have arrested him under the LLA considering the self-described state that he was in. The cop could easily articulate that he believed that Postmod was intoxicated in a public place.
 

X_Door

TRIBE Member
Thumpr said:
actually you'll note that i asked if he was on private property with adequate signage, and i'm familiar with the HTA provision but he was not operating a motor vehicle.
Upon reviewing the post that I was responding to, I have noted that you did ask whether he was on private property and about the signage on the property. However, I was specifically responding to a particular statement that you made. This is the statement that I felt was misleading:

Thumpr said:
contrary to what many people believe, you do not have to identify yourself to a police officer unless you an under arrest.
I believe that it's too broad of a statement to make and it could mislead those reading it into thinking that it applies in all cases. Whereas, in reality, people must identify themselves to a peace officer in most cases, whether they've been arrested or not. In fact, I advise people to identify themselves and cooperate with the cops in order to avoid being arrested. But once someone has been arrested, they don't have to say anything, not even to name themselves. Once you're under arrest, make the cops work for their pay. Let them determine your identity in any manner that they choose. However, the drawback is that they'll detain you until they do establish your identity and they'll likely also charge you with obstruct justice.
 

marcinm

TRIBE Member
PosTMOd said:
I was actually dressed sort of nice for once...

And so, yes, he mistook me for a fag, then when he talked to me, thought I was mentally retarded as well, so he thought he could just do whatever he wanted and not worry that the "retarded fag" would be able to do anything about it.
so basically he fucked you up the ass then? :eek:
 
Top