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.
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."
Intimidation is IMO psychological assault.
Yeah, there doesn't seem to be much Canadian legal information online that uses the word accost, there is more info for Canada that uses the terms "simple assault" and "harassment" in place of "accost". According to this (in Canada) -- https://www.torontoassaultlawyer.ca/simple-assault.htm -- he could be charged with simple assault for approaching and gesturing with an object in his hand that might be used as a weapon. He was doing that with both the microphone and with his imposing bulk by blocking or crossing in front of the two women forcing them to move around him to the edge of the sidewalk to avoid him. That might even constitute endangerment.
I'm beginning to think the policeman who charged him for assault knew exactly what was the correct charge to make.
I agree with you that intimidation is a psychological assault.
David Menzies is at it again: accosting a 50-year-old ‘transgender’ swimmer named Melody Wiseheart, who once competed under the name Nicholas Cepeda, competing against teenage girls at a swim meet in Canada and changing alongside them in the women’s locker room.
David Menzies is at it again: accosting a 50-year-old ‘transgender’ swimmer named Melody Wiseheart, who once competed under the name Nicholas Cepeda, competing against teenage girls at a swim meet in Canada and changing alongside them in the women’s locker room.
It’s weird how it’s been almost 2 months and very little reporting of substance has talked about this. All I see when I google for articles are editorials (I.e. opinion pieces, not stories) from tabloids like the Toronto Sun and Daily Mail and far right conspiracy websites like Rebel News. The small bit of context that has been reported on makes it sound really bad, but I’m skeptical about the whole thing. There’s more context to this and it’s not being reported on. Whether it clears up the confusion about the situation or actually confirms the things people are worried about, I don’t know. But there’s like a tiny little nugget of information about this and a whole bunch of speculation and outrage in editorial pieces.
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".
One of the problems with legal terminology is that while pretty much every legal term of art has a legal definition, it's not necessarily consistent between common-law countries, and sometimes even within those countries. For example, even here in Canada, if Andy threatens Bob ("I'm gonna punch your face in"), Andy has committed the civil tort of assault. If Andy follows through with his threat and punches Bob, Andy has committed the civil tort of battery. At the same time, Andy can be criminally charged for issuing a threat, and if he follows through, can be criminally charged for assault. Confused? Well, believe it or not, that's a simple example of the same word meaning different things, depending on legal context.
Hey, if you really want to have some fun, try to understand what uttering means in a criminal context. Probably not what you expected.
When I've had to refer to the Criminal Code, I don't recall running across the term accost. But I haven't read every page in it--my copy is about three inches thick, and it's not the kind of book you read like a novel. It's a reference book. Accost may well be mentioned, but in a part I haven't needed to refer to yet.
Perhaps a better term would be harassment. I'm always a little hesitant about using this in a civil tort context, because it is so ill-defined. Note that in a criminal context, it tends to take an adjective: sexual harassment and criminal harassment would be two examples, each of which have definite legal meanings in a criminal context. When I've been approached by clients who want to launch a civil lawsuit for what they believe to be "harassment," I do my best to dig for facts that will let us make out a better and more solid cause of action--constructive dismissal, for example.
I have not reviewed any videos or read any reports of the incident in question, so I'm not going to comment on what may result from it. But I hope that I have helped to inform the discussion. Words have meanings, and sometimes, common words that we use every day have very different meanings in a legal context.
Yeah, there doesn't seem to be much Canadian legal information online that uses the word accost, there is more info for Canada that uses the terms "simple assault" and "harassment" in place of "accost". According to this (in Canada) -- https://www.torontoassaultlawyer.ca/simple-assault.htm -- he could be charged with simple assault for approaching and gesturing with an object in his hand that might be used as a weapon. He was doing that with both the microphone and with his imposing bulk by blocking or crossing in front of the two women forcing them to move around him to the edge of the sidewalk to avoid him. That might even constitute endangerment.
I'm beginning to think the policeman who charged him for assault knew exactly what was the correct charge to make.
I agree with you that intimidation is a psychological assault.
.
These might be your views but that sounds like it would be extremely hard to prove in court, particularly in this case.
Yes, there is the notion of criminal harassment that could be invoked, but insistently asking questions of a federal Minister of the Crown, when she is technically working, walking down a public street, to an event in a public place, probably would not meet the criminal harassment test.
If he was always after her at her home, when out grocery shopping, at her kids' soccer games, then there would be a better case for criminal harassment.
And the idea that the microphone could be considered a weapon also would likely not pass the test either, since Menzies even if not recognized as a legit reporter, is a known individual to Freeland and anyone on the Hill in Ottawa. They know what he is doing and the idea he could have been seen as out to cause physical harm would be ruled out immediately.
You're probably right about all of that Acajack. I guess this is just another example of the trials and tribulations that must be accepted as part of the job by anyone who becomes a federal Minister of the Crown.
One of the problems with legal terminology is that while pretty much every legal term of art has a legal definition, it's not necessarily consistent between common-law countries, and sometimes even within those countries. For example, even here in Canada, if Andy threatens Bob ("I'm gonna punch your face in"), Andy has committed the civil tort of assault. If Andy follows through with his threat and punches Bob, Andy has committed the civil tort of battery. At the same time, Andy can be criminally charged for issuing a threat, and if he follows through, can be criminally charged for assault. Confused? Well, believe it or not, that's a simple example of the same word meaning different things, depending on legal context.
Hey, if you really want to have some fun, try to understand what uttering means in a criminal context. Probably not what you expected.
When I've had to refer to the Criminal Code, I don't recall running across the term accost. But I haven't read every page in it--my copy is about three inches thick, and it's not the kind of book you read like a novel. It's a reference book. Accost may well be mentioned, but in a part I haven't needed to refer to yet.
Perhaps a better term would be harassment. I'm always a little hesitant about using this in a civil tort context, because it is so ill-defined. Note that in a criminal context, it tends to take an adjective: sexual harassment and criminal harassment would be two examples, each of which have definite legal meanings in a criminal context. When I've been approached by clients who want to launch a civil lawsuit for what they believe to be "harassment," I do my best to dig for facts that will let us make out a better and more solid cause of action--constructive dismissal, for example.
I have not reviewed any videos or read any reports of the incident in question, so I'm not going to comment on what may result from it. But I hope that I have helped to inform the discussion. Words have meanings, and sometimes, common words that we use every day have very different meanings in a legal context.
Rebel News sues RCMP, alleging pattern of 'intimidation and exclusion'
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.
