Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This here woman is totally okay with it. The only mistakes the policeman made was in letting the reporter get anywhere close to Freeland in the first place and for that he should be reprimanded and demoted or re-assigned or whatever ..... and he used the wrong word. Instead of using the word assault he should have used the word accostment. That reporter didn't physically assault anyone but he is guilty of accostment - with a video to prove it - and that's not okay. Look up accostment if you don't know what it means.
In case you haven't noticed Freeland is a tiny little woman and that big strong cowardly bully of a man accosted Freeland aggressively, raised his voice at her, tried to intimidate her with his size, got in her space and her face, got in front of and tried to impede and stop her progress as she was walking to work, tried to force her to make eye contact and to respond verbally to him. That's not okay. It's abusive behaviour. It's accostment.
In fact if it had been me there in Freeland's high heeled shoes that she wears to give her some height, the reporter would still be regretting it every year for the rest of his life as he gets examined for new corrective glasses every year. Freeland can't do what I would do because of who she is and the position she represents, so she has to rely on security personnel to keep her safe from the big strong cowardly bully-boys who like to try to intimidate her. But if that had been me being accosted by a cowardly man like she was accosted, and with me also being a tiny little woman just like she is, and me fearing for my safety and my life - that bad man would have gotten a face full of full strength vinegar sprayed directly into his face and eyes. I keep the little spritzer bottle of vinegar handy for some of the bad dogs around here when I'm out gardening, but vinegar works just as well on bad, cowardly bully-boys trying to intimidate tiny little women as it does on bad dogs.
.
I wanted to rep you but couldn’t.
When I was reading the thread over the last few days, I wondered how many males in this thread have treated their wives or significant others in a similar intimidating manner. It might explain why they consider it OK for Chrystia Freeland to be treated that way.
why they consider it OK for Chrystia Freeland to be treated that way.
She went to public service allegedly to "serve the public" all on her own volition, no? A psychopathic, parasitic, attention grabbing politician just like the rest of them. If she were growing legumes or contributing to the welfare of the nation some other capacity, perhaps she'd be safe from Rebel News harassment?
When I was reading the thread over the last few days, I wondered how many males in this thread have treated their wives or significant others in a similar intimidating manner. It might explain why they consider it OK for Chrystia Freeland to be treated that way.
Probably none. To be honest, (except for just that one angry and abusive extreme right wing Canadian living in America who is suddenly a non-member now) I don't think any of the men that posted in this thread are likely to be abusive like that. Having read and recalling many of their other posts over the years I think they all seem like generally reasonable, intelligent, kind spirited and non-patronizing guys that have always spoken respectfully about their spouses. I'd probably be happy to call any of them friend if I was personally acquainted with them.
We all have our odd little quirks though, right? That Menzies character with Rebel news is a very quirky bully and doesn't have any respect for any person or any situation. I've read several of his article over the years and he isn't a particularly intelligent person but he's cunning and sneaky mean. He's a hefty sized man with bad attitude and a massively huge chip on each shoulder against Canada and he tries every which way he can to grind an axe to make Canada and Canadian people look small.
He had to have known that Freeland would not respond to him, she never, ever responds to obnoxious and loud blowhards who accost and disrespect her, but Menzies had a thoughtless agenda. He was just trying to prove to himself that he isn't afraid of trying to intimidate a little Liberal woman who just might become prime minister of Canada some day. His attempt went awry and he looked very surprised and frightened by the several policemen who surrounded him and took him away. His bluster made it clear he's afraid of men, particularly big men that are near his own size or bigger, although if you look at the video again you'll see he is actually taller than all of the group of policemen that were there. And without her high heels on Freeland wouldn't even come as high as his chest.
But she is a 10 times bigger person and character than he can ever hope to be.
423 (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, wrongfully and without lawful authority, for the purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything that he or she has a lawful right to do, or to do anything that he or she has a lawful right to abstain from doing,
(a) uses violence or threats of violence to that person or their intimate partner or children, or injures the person’s property;
(b) intimidates or attempts to intimidate that person or a relative of that person by threats that, in Canada or elsewhere, violence or other injury will be done to or punishment inflicted on him or her or a relative of his or hers, or that the property of any of them will be damaged;
(c) persistently follows that person;
(d) hides any tools, clothes or other property owned or used by that person, or deprives him or her of them or hinders him or her in the use of them;
(e) with one or more other persons, follows that person, in a disorderly manner, on a highway;
(f) besets or watches the place where that person resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or
(g) blocks or obstructs a highway.
Marginal note:Exception
(2) A person who attends at or near or approaches a dwelling-house or place, for the purpose only of obtaining or communicating information, does not watch or beset within the meaning of this section.
The word “acostment” doesn’t appear so I assume it is not a legal term.
Yes, accostment is illegal. So is stalking and harassment. Here are some legal definition examples of "accost" from lawinsider.com, and there are more specifics to see if you click on the website link below:
1 - Accost means repeated nonconsensual conduct directed to another person in such a manner as would cause a reasonable person to feel harassed, intimidated, or that a commission of a criminal act was about to occur.
2 - Accost means to approach or speak to a person in such a manner as would cause a reasonable person apprehension for his or her personal safety, of imminent bodily harm or of the commission of a criminal act upon his or her person, or upon property in his or her immediate possession.
3 - Accost means physically approaching, or when in close proximity to an individual, speaking to that individual in such a manner as would cause a reasonable person to fear imminent bodily harm or fear endangerment that the commission of a criminal act upon his or her person, or upon property in his or her immediate possession, may be about to be committed by the accoster. "Accost" does not include passive, nonobstructive speech or conduct while standing or sitting along the side of a sidewalk or walkway if it does not physically obstruct pedestrians.
So if you were to read all of the information contained within the two legal websites posted above and look at the video of Menzies' encounter with Freeland and her assistant you would see that Menzies is guilty of several counts of accostment. And ironically enough, it was Menzies' own videographer who recorded the whole thing, which also makes the videographer culpable because there were two individuals in cahoots together lying in wait for Freeland.
Yes, accostment is illegal. So is stalking and harassment. Here are some legal definition examples of "accost" from lawinsider.com, and there are more specifics to see if you click on the website link below:
1 - Accost means repeated nonconsensual conduct directed to another person in such a manner as would cause a reasonable person to feel harassed, intimidated, or that a commission of a criminal act was about to occur.
2 - Accost means to approach or speak to a person in such a manner as would cause a reasonable person apprehension for his or her personal safety, of imminent bodily harm or of the commission of a criminal act upon his or her person, or upon property in his or her immediate possession.
3 - Accost means physically approaching, or when in close proximity to an individual, speaking to that individual in such a manner as would cause a reasonable person to fear imminent bodily harm or fear endangerment that the commission of a criminal act upon his or her person, or upon property in his or her immediate possession, may be about to be committed by the accoster. "Accost" does not include passive, nonobstructive speech or conduct while standing or sitting along the side of a sidewalk or walkway if it does not physically obstruct pedestrians.
So if you were to read all of the information contained within the two legal websites posted above and look at the video of Menzies' encounter with Freeland and her assistant you would see that Menzies is guilty of several counts of accostment. And ironically enough, it was Menzies' own videographer who recorded the whole thing, which also makes the videographer culpable because there were two individuals in cahoots together lying in wait for Freeland.
.
Those are both American sites, the second one out of Boston, and refer to US law.
I'm pretty sure though that there must be laws that are equivalent but don't specifically use " accost ". I believe, and perhaps Chevy can comment, that it falls under " assault". The only time the code seems to use "accost" is in regard to weapons.
The only thing I've been able to find for Canada that uses the word accost is this.
In this particular case I would think it falls under " this section aims to provide protection to individuals against such threats, including verbal and psychological assault."
He was a good boy. He understood right and wrong. When his father did something wrong, the boy told the authorities. The boy’s name was Pavlik Morozov.
There were bad people in Pavlik’s village, including members of his own family. They did not understand right and wrong. When the boy went into the woods, the bad people were waiting. And the boy was never seen alive again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
you don't know what it means. 
