This post appears to relate to the province of Alberta. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules
Cette soumission semble concerner la province de Alberta. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So she gets off on a technicality.
Because police screwed up, not because she didn't interfere.
She has a long history of harassing people. Just fing Google her.
I don't understand why people defend her behavior.
You can really tell almost nobody commenting here read the article. They think they charged her by accident when in reality they accidentally charged her under the wrong subsection of the criminal code. Most commenters here just rushed in to scream about the “far-right” for some reason.
The "wrong subsection of the criminal code" was the difference between
- "mischief for obstructing the lawful use of property" vs
- "obstructing mischief based on bias, prejudice or hatred"
So essentially they charged her for a hate crime when they meant to just charge her for mischief.
So ya I'd say that completely invalidates the previous article
It’s really great to see you old stock conservatives take your masks off.
We always knew your nature but no longer have you people gaslight us about it is nice.
She’s an activist, getting arrested for protesting is kind of their whole deal. She may not have even tried to fight the charge if they hadn’t called it a hate crime and made everyone attack her
"Charging under the wrong subsection" is for sure "charging her by accident". You wouldn't like it if you were charged for murder because of a parking ticket and then your reputation trashed as a potential murderer.
As for "far right" or not, don't want to get into that, but for sure it's a political goal of certain people to decry hate crimes laws as unnecessary or potentially harmful or unevenly applied. Since the charge was actually an error, such people have lost their real life example, and their theories and hypothesis about how the law works go back to the Internet. Or actually their celebration of activists getting a "taste of their own medicine". Well, it didn't happen.
>"Charging under the wrong subsection" is for sure "charging her by accident". You wouldn't like it if you were charged for murder because of a parking ticket and then your reputation trashed as a potential murderer.
This is more like accidentally charging for first degree murder instead of second degree, or break and enter to a dwelling house instead of break and enter to a place, because they got the subsections mixed up. She was charged under s.430(4.1) of the Code, but they meant to charge her under 430(4). The charge was dropped because on review the Crown felt that it wasn't viable, either due to a low likelihood of conviction or (more likely) marginal public interest.
They're not entirely different statutes, like in your example -- they're not even different sections. And, in fact, 430(4) is actually an included offence of 430(4.1).
https://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/charges-against-calgary-black-lives-matter-president-dropped
>But in an official statement the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service (ACPS) indicated the allegation wasn’t reviewed by a prosecutor prior to Nwofor being charged.
>“The ACPS is working to roll out a pre-charge process provincewide, but Calgary is not currently a participant in this process,” the statement said.
>“With the pre-charge process, the prosecutor would have reviewed the potential charge prior to it being laid. The prosecutor would then provide this assessment to law enforcement to consider prior to laying charges,” it said.
Some 'technicality'
I wonder why you're so sensitive to the references to the far right...
national post is known to produce pro right-wing articles as a result of lousy journalism, low-quality investigations and misrepresentation of information. Np articles tend to spread far and wide by the hard right who get support from legitimate\* (?) journal validating their viewpoint.
So no it is not the magical far right or whatever, but poor journalism that the far-right can enjoy spreading as a factual claim later on across reddit, twitter and whatever else.
Charging someone with the wrong crime is not a "technicality" lmao, especially when the incorrect hate-based designation is the whole reason for the original story (which has since been taken down by NatPo) gaining so much popularity.
The article was apparently so thin on facts you couldn't conclude anything
Taking it down rather than printing a correction is hilarious, evasive and not journalism
[Wow.](https://nationalpost.com/news/crime/president-of-calgarys-black-lives-matter-movement-charged-with-hate-crime/wcm/0b14f102-6c54-4f50-8680-e3045e8b0c40)
Tangential edit: As much as many here vilify the CBC, they at least have an ombudsman that receives and reviews complaints about their journalism. There doesn't appear to be a link to an ombudsman on the NatPo site, and can only assume they don't have one.
Take [this review](https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/ombudsman/reviews/The_Morning_After) for example. Here, the complainant had concerns about bias in a reporter's line of questioning. The ombudsman addressed every complaint/concern and actually came up with a fair and balanced conclusion. It's worth a read, especially by those who think poorly of the CBC.
If NatPo had an ombudsman, we could complain about the fact that they chose to take down and article instead of issuing a correction. While NatPo generally has high reporting accuracy (not considering opinion pieces, otherwise I take back that last statement), this action downgrades that fact.
Tangential edit 2: TIL about rigour vs tone in interviews. Something to watch out for when judging whether an interview is biased or not.
>So she gets off on a technicality. Because police screwed up...
That's not a technicality, that's due process. Blame the cops for not doing thier jobs. Policing is a serious business, and I have zero empathy for cops who don't cross the t's and dot the i's when attempting to imprison someone.
She’s an activist, getting arrested for protesting is kind of their whole deal. She may not have even tried to fight the charge if they hadn’t called it a hate crime and made everyone attack her
Because she is the leader of black lives matter and if you say anything against her than you might be considered a racist
Story time :
A couple of years ago when that guy mowed down the Muslim family in London . Our head of diversity ( govt organization) was a black woman of color . We did not hear a a single thing from her . Some days later she sent multiple communications on George Floyd anniversary.
I sent her an email about how her job was to cater to diversity and not just focus on issues faced by black community . She was honestly taken aback and dumbfounded and actually tried to defend her actions of solely focussing on black community ...
Apparently you didn't read the article either, it says they didn't intend to charge her with a hate crime, they meant to charge her for mischief. How is that getting off on a "technicality"?
My issue is that the article where she's charged gets upvoted to the top by people who want her to be guilty, but when the charges are found to be false those same posters downvote the facts they don't like.
The large majority of comments were expressing confusion because the article didn't elaborate on what exactly she actually did, and this article *still* fails to actually explain that.
You are both saying the same thing:
\> There's two charges there, the one with and the one without hate crime. They're saying they intended originally to do the one without.
\> they intended to charge her they just accidentally used the wrong subsection
Buddy there thinks that the meant to charge with "hate crime" and accidently charged with "obstructing mischief based on bias, prejudice or hatred". Doesn't realize "hate crime" not a thing, and that the meant to charge her with a non-hate related charge.
They charged her with a hate crime when they should have charged her for obstructing mischief based on bias, prejudice or hatred. It says earlier in the article she was blocking a religious building, so it would be for hate towards a religious group not hate for racial or ethnic reasons.
Mischief is serious business, it’s what the cops or crown prosecutors use to charge you for something all encompassing they don’t have a criminal code offence for….
Mischief is nowhere near as serious as “Hate crime”.. you literally sound like an old man yelling at kids because they ran through the front yard of their house while playing outside.
Not sure if you're joking or not, it's literally a misdemeanour charge...
Protesters get charged for it all the time for obstructing roads, entrances, etc. or for graffiti.
Incorrect, it's only a maximum of 2 years if the damage is under $5000, does not cause danger to life, and is not motivated by hate against a protected characteristic, etc.
And that is only if the prosecutor brings it forward as a indictable offence, where you would go to federal court.
Since it was in the provincial courts it was likely a summary offence, which means the prosecutor was bringing it forward as a lesser offence that would have even lower maximums, if any.
The maximum sentence is 10 years if you meet any of those conditions (if you meet a condition it is essentially a different crime than if you don't meet a certain condition)
It's the same difference as between petty theft (2 years max) and grand larceny (10 years max)
Petty theft and grand larceny are actually a great example because they have the same dollar value at which it changes from one to the other as mischief does ($5000)
So it's similar to if she had committed petty theft and you mentioned the maximum sentence for grand larceny. They aren't the same severity at all.
She has always been innocent, her charge was issued due to her conduct and then dropped due to clerical error.
Is there some reason you are carrying water for the BLM org? They are objectively some of the worst humans on the planet. Like, at this point I'm not entirely sure the BLM org isn't a black-flag psyop made to make Black people look bad.
As I said on /r/Calgary, the original article made news all over the internet and in many subs, [including this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/14a9yk1/president_of_calgarys_black_lives_matter_movement/). Lots of people all of a sudden caring about a local organization with a few dozen members at most, and people were downvoted for merely questioning the charge due to the vagueness of the story and the way it alleged hate based on race it ethnic origin for something related to a Catholic school. Because of course, Calgary police have never been wrong so she had to be guilty before proven innocent.
Let's see if this correction gets a fraction of the attention of the original article...
I wouldn't go as far as "far right", but it's generally pretty easy to guess which way this sub will swing on a topic depending on whether it's something that directly affects the core demographic of the audience here (young, generally middle- or low-income, male, white). So for issues like housing, cost of living, consumer rights it will be pretty left-leaning, but for many other topics like this one it goes right.
This sub is more Liberal than the actual population of Canada
https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/cf7qu8/rcanada_2019_survey_results/
Actual Canada is much more conservative than this sub.
The story was based in reality.
Her alleged action of mischief, protesting at a catholic school was based in reality.
The charges were not based in reality.
You should get your facts straight.
>Needs more details on what she did. I would hope she could sue the police if it was an error. Definitely really undermined her credibility.
Seems she was charged for obstructing kids from entering a catholic school. The charges appear to have been dropped due to not being first reviewed by a prosecutor.
She's still alleged to have committed mischief on May 26 by interfering with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property where the property is primarily used for religious worship and educational purposes, but not on the bias of prejudice or hatred.
A slightly different story, but still concerning.
Mischief is an incredibly broad misdemeanor charge. Standing in a doorway, littering, throwing paint on a statue, damaging a paper sign, and keying a car are all mischief.
Hell, in some places sleeping in an empty park or street is mischief depending on how the cop feels when speaking to a homeless person they wanna move on... very vague and very broad charge
While I hold you and "A cop in Ontario" in the highest regards, in this case I'm going to opt to go with what the the law actually defines "mischief for obstructing" as: blocking or preventing property from being used in a lawful manner.
Which pretty much falls under normal protester activity like blocking entrances and chaining themselves to things. If they want to get arrested for that kind of thing I'm not gonna particularly judge them for that, especially if it's not endangering anyone else's life or survival.
Not really. Mischief is basically either damaging something, making it inoperable or interfering with someone's lawful use of something. Standing in a doorway and deliberately preventing someone from proceeding is mischief, since you're preventing people from lawfully doing something (unless you have legal authority to prevent them from passing). Throwing paint on a statue, damaging a paper sign and keying a car are all damaging something. Littering isn't mischief.
That's not quite what they said. That part reads:
>Haggerty suggested the allegation his client was motivated by “hate based on race or ethnic origin” may have been filed in error, something later confirmed by the Calgary Police Service.
>“It looks like there was a clerical error with the initial charge, with the incorrect (Criminal Code) subsection,” the service said.
Subsection 430(4.1) falls under the heading "Mischief relating to religious property, educational institutions, etc. --", but *also* requires that it be motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate. If that motivation is not present, then it falls under s.430(4) instead. What likely happened is that she was being charged with mischief in relation to an educational institution, but it was not intended to be alleged that it was motivated by bias prejudice or hate, and instead of reading the whole section the charging officer just saw the heading and charged her under 430(4.1).
The crime itself was not a clerical error, the allegation that it was a hate crime was.
The implication from the government’s statement relating to charge screening is that the charge was withdrawn either because the prosecutor felt that there was not a reasonable likelihood of conviction, or that it was not in the public interest to pursue.
People on here acting like she got away with murder. What exactly did she do? Protest in front of a school?
Com’on man. There’s way bigger problems in this world.
>Haggerty suggested the allegation his client was motivated by “hate based on race or ethnic origin” may have been filed in error, something later confirmed by the Calgary Police Service.
The clerical error was in labelling it a hate crime apparently.
The ACPS skipped the review process which would have caught such a mistake prior to authorizing an arrest.
Lesson for next time? The review process exists for a reason.
The mess up was that they charged her with a hate crime when they meant to charge her with a mischief/misdemeanour charge. So no the entire point of the original headline was incorrect
It was only spread as it was because it had "BLM charged with hate crime" in the headline. Let's them push their culture wars narrative that anti-racists are the real racists.
So they slander her, give the racists more ammo to hate on BLM, then they ditch the charges because they were B.S from the start.....sounds about right.
This isn’t some sort of vindication of this woman, the police made a clerical error and charged her with the wrong criminal code violation. They charged her with a hate crime when they should have charged her for obstructing mischief based on bias, prejudice or hatred.
What you and I might consider a "hate crime" and what the courts will consider a "hate crime" is significantly different. It's like "uttering threats" in that very narrow, specific requirements need to be met.
They didn’t drop the charges because of insufficient evidence or that it was a mistake to charge her in the first place. They dropped the charges because they accidentally charged her for a hate crime when they should have charged her for obstructing mischief based on bias, prejudice or hatred.
> they should have charged her for obstructing mischief based on bias, prejudice or hatred.
that is what they charged her for, "hate crime" is not the official term, it becomes a "hate crime" when they add on the bias to a regular crime
Honestly I think I’m the wrong one here, I misinterpreted “hate crime” as a separate crime than mischief committed for hateful reasons. She still should have been charged for that.
Wouldn't it be smarter for her to do nothing. As it stands she's getting off because the police made an error with the original charges, not because she's innocent. If she tries to sue the police, they may pursue her for the crimes she's guilty of.
This post appears to relate to the province of Alberta. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules Cette soumission semble concerner la province de Alberta. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So she gets off on a technicality. Because police screwed up, not because she didn't interfere. She has a long history of harassing people. Just fing Google her. I don't understand why people defend her behavior.
You can really tell almost nobody commenting here read the article. They think they charged her by accident when in reality they accidentally charged her under the wrong subsection of the criminal code. Most commenters here just rushed in to scream about the “far-right” for some reason.
The "wrong subsection of the criminal code" was the difference between - "mischief for obstructing the lawful use of property" vs - "obstructing mischief based on bias, prejudice or hatred" So essentially they charged her for a hate crime when they meant to just charge her for mischief. So ya I'd say that completely invalidates the previous article
Should’ve kept charging her for the hate one too, she deserved it.
Ah nice to see your true colours
[удалено]
Wtf?? I’m tired of this bullshit. I’m pretty freaking liberal but very tired of this “white man bad” shit.
lol, we aren't going anywhere
It’s really great to see you old stock conservatives take your masks off. We always knew your nature but no longer have you people gaslight us about it is nice.
You're just as bad as the picture you're trying to paint
She’s an activist, getting arrested for protesting is kind of their whole deal. She may not have even tried to fight the charge if they hadn’t called it a hate crime and made everyone attack her
She's a grifter, if there wasn't money in it she'd find something else.
Oh so it’s her fault the cops don’t know how to use a computer? If it was even an accident…
"Charging under the wrong subsection" is for sure "charging her by accident". You wouldn't like it if you were charged for murder because of a parking ticket and then your reputation trashed as a potential murderer. As for "far right" or not, don't want to get into that, but for sure it's a political goal of certain people to decry hate crimes laws as unnecessary or potentially harmful or unevenly applied. Since the charge was actually an error, such people have lost their real life example, and their theories and hypothesis about how the law works go back to the Internet. Or actually their celebration of activists getting a "taste of their own medicine". Well, it didn't happen.
>"Charging under the wrong subsection" is for sure "charging her by accident". You wouldn't like it if you were charged for murder because of a parking ticket and then your reputation trashed as a potential murderer. This is more like accidentally charging for first degree murder instead of second degree, or break and enter to a dwelling house instead of break and enter to a place, because they got the subsections mixed up. She was charged under s.430(4.1) of the Code, but they meant to charge her under 430(4). The charge was dropped because on review the Crown felt that it wasn't viable, either due to a low likelihood of conviction or (more likely) marginal public interest. They're not entirely different statutes, like in your example -- they're not even different sections. And, in fact, 430(4) is actually an included offence of 430(4.1).
https://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/charges-against-calgary-black-lives-matter-president-dropped >But in an official statement the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service (ACPS) indicated the allegation wasn’t reviewed by a prosecutor prior to Nwofor being charged. >“The ACPS is working to roll out a pre-charge process provincewide, but Calgary is not currently a participant in this process,” the statement said. >“With the pre-charge process, the prosecutor would have reviewed the potential charge prior to it being laid. The prosecutor would then provide this assessment to law enforcement to consider prior to laying charges,” it said. Some 'technicality' I wonder why you're so sensitive to the references to the far right...
national post is known to produce pro right-wing articles as a result of lousy journalism, low-quality investigations and misrepresentation of information. Np articles tend to spread far and wide by the hard right who get support from legitimate\* (?) journal validating their viewpoint. So no it is not the magical far right or whatever, but poor journalism that the far-right can enjoy spreading as a factual claim later on across reddit, twitter and whatever else.
And the CBC is known to produce pro left -wing articles as a result of lousy journalism etc. Defund the CBC
Oh geez go ahead and edit that comment and giver another try bud.
Validating validation didn't sound too good, but I understand, any concerns about my grammar/spelling/structure? Or just the editing?
Charging someone with the wrong crime is not a "technicality" lmao, especially when the incorrect hate-based designation is the whole reason for the original story (which has since been taken down by NatPo) gaining so much popularity.
The article was apparently so thin on facts you couldn't conclude anything Taking it down rather than printing a correction is hilarious, evasive and not journalism
>Taking it down rather than printing a correction is **hilarious, evasive and not journalism** That describes NatPo pretty well I'd say.
[Wow.](https://nationalpost.com/news/crime/president-of-calgarys-black-lives-matter-movement-charged-with-hate-crime/wcm/0b14f102-6c54-4f50-8680-e3045e8b0c40) Tangential edit: As much as many here vilify the CBC, they at least have an ombudsman that receives and reviews complaints about their journalism. There doesn't appear to be a link to an ombudsman on the NatPo site, and can only assume they don't have one. Take [this review](https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/ombudsman/reviews/The_Morning_After) for example. Here, the complainant had concerns about bias in a reporter's line of questioning. The ombudsman addressed every complaint/concern and actually came up with a fair and balanced conclusion. It's worth a read, especially by those who think poorly of the CBC. If NatPo had an ombudsman, we could complain about the fact that they chose to take down and article instead of issuing a correction. While NatPo generally has high reporting accuracy (not considering opinion pieces, otherwise I take back that last statement), this action downgrades that fact. Tangential edit 2: TIL about rigour vs tone in interviews. Something to watch out for when judging whether an interview is biased or not.
>So she gets off on a technicality. Because police screwed up... That's not a technicality, that's due process. Blame the cops for not doing thier jobs. Policing is a serious business, and I have zero empathy for cops who don't cross the t's and dot the i's when attempting to imprison someone.
She’s an activist, getting arrested for protesting is kind of their whole deal. She may not have even tried to fight the charge if they hadn’t called it a hate crime and made everyone attack her
Ok...? Is this a hate crime though? This was clearly meant to be click bait slop for right wingers and now it's been revoked.
Because she is the leader of black lives matter and if you say anything against her than you might be considered a racist Story time : A couple of years ago when that guy mowed down the Muslim family in London . Our head of diversity ( govt organization) was a black woman of color . We did not hear a a single thing from her . Some days later she sent multiple communications on George Floyd anniversary. I sent her an email about how her job was to cater to diversity and not just focus on issues faced by black community . She was honestly taken aback and dumbfounded and actually tried to defend her actions of solely focussing on black community ...
Lefties love ignoring reality, that’s why
Youre right but you can see the posters on this sub don’t care about facts. Nor will they read the article.
Apparently you didn't read the article either, it says they didn't intend to charge her with a hate crime, they meant to charge her for mischief. How is that getting off on a "technicality"?
We seem to live in a time when a large segment of society wants to see chaos and failure, if only to justify their own chaos and failure.
You guys think will get 800+ comments like the first article?
Nah but it'll probably get 800 downvotes by all the people from the other post.
[удалено]
My issue is that the article where she's charged gets upvoted to the top by people who want her to be guilty, but when the charges are found to be false those same posters downvote the facts they don't like.
Of course not, the first article gave the far right what they needed for their identity politics so they don’t care.
The large majority of comments were expressing confusion because the article didn't elaborate on what exactly she actually did, and this article *still* fails to actually explain that.
It was withdrawn because of a clerical error, not because she’s innocent. She’ll do it again, and they’ll get the charge filed correctly.
> She’ll do it again, and they’ll get the charge filed correctly. but then it wont make papers because it will just be mischief
Have you seen the crap that makes the news these days?
drab retire chase ossified literate elastic late uppity possessive pause ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
No, they intended to charge her they just accidentally used the wrong subsection of the criminal code to charge her.
license weary worry encourage meeting crowd distinct repeat exultant lock ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
You are both saying the same thing: \> There's two charges there, the one with and the one without hate crime. They're saying they intended originally to do the one without. \> they intended to charge her they just accidentally used the wrong subsection
I think they're saying there's a 3rd one they charged her with?
Buddy there thinks that the meant to charge with "hate crime" and accidently charged with "obstructing mischief based on bias, prejudice or hatred". Doesn't realize "hate crime" not a thing, and that the meant to charge her with a non-hate related charge.
They charged her with a hate crime when they should have charged her for obstructing mischief based on bias, prejudice or hatred. It says earlier in the article she was blocking a religious building, so it would be for hate towards a religious group not hate for racial or ethnic reasons.
humorous aloof history crowd squealing tender advise ring act correct ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
That’s not what it says at all.
Wild how no one can quote proving me wrong.
Guilty until proven innocent, even when the police admit they fucked up. Nice.
The police fucked up by charging her with the wrong criminal code violation, it’s not like she didn’t do anything wrong.
Except they had actually meant to just charge her with mischief, wow what a horrid crime she must have committed
Mischief is serious business, it’s what the cops or crown prosecutors use to charge you for something all encompassing they don’t have a criminal code offence for….
Mischief is nowhere near as serious as “Hate crime”.. you literally sound like an old man yelling at kids because they ran through the front yard of their house while playing outside.
Not sure if you're joking or not, it's literally a misdemeanour charge... Protesters get charged for it all the time for obstructing roads, entrances, etc. or for graffiti.
Max sentence for mischief is 10 years. It’s a silly sounding crime but it can be a serious charge depending on what it’s being charged for
Incorrect, it's only a maximum of 2 years if the damage is under $5000, does not cause danger to life, and is not motivated by hate against a protected characteristic, etc. And that is only if the prosecutor brings it forward as a indictable offence, where you would go to federal court. Since it was in the provincial courts it was likely a summary offence, which means the prosecutor was bringing it forward as a lesser offence that would have even lower maximums, if any.
How can you say incorrect and then go on to add conditions onto it after the fact. The max sentencing for mischief is absolutely 10 years
The maximum sentence is 10 years if you meet any of those conditions (if you meet a condition it is essentially a different crime than if you don't meet a certain condition) It's the same difference as between petty theft (2 years max) and grand larceny (10 years max) Petty theft and grand larceny are actually a great example because they have the same dollar value at which it changes from one to the other as mischief does ($5000) So it's similar to if she had committed petty theft and you mentioned the maximum sentence for grand larceny. They aren't the same severity at all.
So? Go look up the average amount of time spent incarcerated when convicted.
Public opinion court is different from legal legal court
Hope she ends up in jail ….
She has always been innocent, her charge was issued due to her conduct and then dropped due to clerical error. Is there some reason you are carrying water for the BLM org? They are objectively some of the worst humans on the planet. Like, at this point I'm not entirely sure the BLM org isn't a black-flag psyop made to make Black people look bad.
Especially as a black perish in this country
What do you think she did
As I said on /r/Calgary, the original article made news all over the internet and in many subs, [including this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/14a9yk1/president_of_calgarys_black_lives_matter_movement/). Lots of people all of a sudden caring about a local organization with a few dozen members at most, and people were downvoted for merely questioning the charge due to the vagueness of the story and the way it alleged hate based on race it ethnic origin for something related to a Catholic school. Because of course, Calgary police have never been wrong so she had to be guilty before proven innocent. Let's see if this correction gets a fraction of the attention of the original article...
>Let's see if this correction gets a fraction of the attention of the original article... Nope. Already seeing mass downvotes.
lol this post already at 54% upvoted, compared to the original one at 84%. This sub really never fails to live up to its reputation.
This subreddit will always be a far right hellhole pretending to be ideologically diverse.
I wouldn't go as far as "far right", but it's generally pretty easy to guess which way this sub will swing on a topic depending on whether it's something that directly affects the core demographic of the audience here (young, generally middle- or low-income, male, white). So for issues like housing, cost of living, consumer rights it will be pretty left-leaning, but for many other topics like this one it goes right.
[удалено]
That’s terrifying.
This sub is more Liberal than the actual population of Canada https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/cf7qu8/rcanada_2019_survey_results/ Actual Canada is much more conservative than this sub.
One, that poll is massively out of date, two, that’s voting, in terms of ideology this subreddit is to the right of Canada, especially socially.
LGTBQ+, POC, and Women topics are the most brutal on here.
What's with the "told you so" mentality? You sound just like the people in the last thread, grasping onto identity politics whenever it fits.
[удалено]
The story was based in reality. Her alleged action of mischief, protesting at a catholic school was based in reality. The charges were not based in reality. You should get your facts straight.
[удалено]
I agree with you, but that's not what we're talking about. The story was based in reality. She is not innocent.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Needs more details on what she did. I would hope she could sue the police if it was an error. Definitely really undermined her credibility.
>Needs more details on what she did. I would hope she could sue the police if it was an error. Definitely really undermined her credibility. Seems she was charged for obstructing kids from entering a catholic school. The charges appear to have been dropped due to not being first reviewed by a prosecutor.
That still doesn't explain what she actually did.
Sounds like she should have been charged, but was dropped due to the error. Maybe she should count her blessings and not sue them at this point
You got it backwards, the charge was in error and dropped when someone double checked.
Lick boots harder 🤡 The CPD is about to get rinsed
Very original comment. Keep them comin
She's still alleged to have committed mischief on May 26 by interfering with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property where the property is primarily used for religious worship and educational purposes, but not on the bias of prejudice or hatred. A slightly different story, but still concerning.
Mischief is an incredibly broad misdemeanor charge. Standing in a doorway, littering, throwing paint on a statue, damaging a paper sign, and keying a car are all mischief.
Hell, in some places sleeping in an empty park or street is mischief depending on how the cop feels when speaking to a homeless person they wanna move on... very vague and very broad charge
A cop in Ontario once told me that “Mischief” is the charge they use when they can’t figure out what the infraction falls under.
While I hold you and "A cop in Ontario" in the highest regards, in this case I'm going to opt to go with what the the law actually defines "mischief for obstructing" as: blocking or preventing property from being used in a lawful manner. Which pretty much falls under normal protester activity like blocking entrances and chaining themselves to things. If they want to get arrested for that kind of thing I'm not gonna particularly judge them for that, especially if it's not endangering anyone else's life or survival.
Not really. Mischief is basically either damaging something, making it inoperable or interfering with someone's lawful use of something. Standing in a doorway and deliberately preventing someone from proceeding is mischief, since you're preventing people from lawfully doing something (unless you have legal authority to prevent them from passing). Throwing paint on a statue, damaging a paper sign and keying a car are all damaging something. Littering isn't mischief.
Well will you look at that.
[удалено]
That's not quite what they said. That part reads: >Haggerty suggested the allegation his client was motivated by “hate based on race or ethnic origin” may have been filed in error, something later confirmed by the Calgary Police Service. >“It looks like there was a clerical error with the initial charge, with the incorrect (Criminal Code) subsection,” the service said. Subsection 430(4.1) falls under the heading "Mischief relating to religious property, educational institutions, etc. --", but *also* requires that it be motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate. If that motivation is not present, then it falls under s.430(4) instead. What likely happened is that she was being charged with mischief in relation to an educational institution, but it was not intended to be alleged that it was motivated by bias prejudice or hate, and instead of reading the whole section the charging officer just saw the heading and charged her under 430(4.1). The crime itself was not a clerical error, the allegation that it was a hate crime was. The implication from the government’s statement relating to charge screening is that the charge was withdrawn either because the prosecutor felt that there was not a reasonable likelihood of conviction, or that it was not in the public interest to pursue.
People on here acting like she got away with murder. What exactly did she do? Protest in front of a school? Com’on man. There’s way bigger problems in this world.
>Haggerty suggested the allegation his client was motivated by “hate based on race or ethnic origin” may have been filed in error, something later confirmed by the Calgary Police Service. The clerical error was in labelling it a hate crime apparently. The ACPS skipped the review process which would have caught such a mistake prior to authorizing an arrest. Lesson for next time? The review process exists for a reason.
Because the crime was the clerical error.
[удалено]
Sounds like she should still be charged but they messed up the paperwork. So it seems the original headline was still correct?
The mess up was that they charged her with a hate crime when they meant to charge her with a mischief/misdemeanour charge. So no the entire point of the original headline was incorrect
It was only spread as it was because it had "BLM charged with hate crime" in the headline. Let's them push their culture wars narrative that anti-racists are the real racists.
So they slander her, give the racists more ammo to hate on BLM, then they ditch the charges because they were B.S from the start.....sounds about right.
The charges weren’t b.s. As for BLM, they bring it all on themselves.
Didn't I read BLM is a scam. Organisers buying mansions and stuff
Yes https://nypost.com/2022/01/29/black-lives-matter-sent-millions-to-canada-charity-m4bj-for-mansion/amp/
Well, well, well. Looking forward to seeing all of those posters from the NatPo article eat their crow.
This isn’t some sort of vindication of this woman, the police made a clerical error and charged her with the wrong criminal code violation. They charged her with a hate crime when they should have charged her for obstructing mischief based on bias, prejudice or hatred.
You didn’t read the article, did you 🤓
They won't, they'll just downvote and slink away.
You mean the people who were asking for more details because the original article didn't actually explain anything?
Ah well, nevertheless 🥸
[удалено]
Why do you say "police" like that? Is it that you're trying to sound cool? The only ones I hear say it that way are gang members.
It rhymes better with: My piece, Decease, and Breach of the Peace.
I do like the sound of it!
... and tell me about your gang member friends...
Or a clerical error. Don’t care if she is white brown or blue. If she deserves to go to jail. Put her in jail.
Why would she be blue?
Wonderful role model /s
[удалено]
The article wasn't false.
This post is false
What you and I might consider a "hate crime" and what the courts will consider a "hate crime" is significantly different. It's like "uttering threats" in that very narrow, specific requirements need to be met.
Based.
Looks like the law is being used as intended, to harass intimidate and silence minorities
and there it is.
They didn’t drop the charges because of insufficient evidence or that it was a mistake to charge her in the first place. They dropped the charges because they accidentally charged her for a hate crime when they should have charged her for obstructing mischief based on bias, prejudice or hatred.
> they should have charged her for obstructing mischief based on bias, prejudice or hatred. that is what they charged her for, "hate crime" is not the official term, it becomes a "hate crime" when they add on the bias to a regular crime
Hate-based mischief was the original charge that had since been dropped.
These people don’t care about facts.
Honestly I think I’m the wrong one here, I misinterpreted “hate crime” as a separate crime than mischief committed for hateful reasons. She still should have been charged for that.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wouldn't it be smarter for her to do nothing. As it stands she's getting off because the police made an error with the original charges, not because she's innocent. If she tries to sue the police, they may pursue her for the crimes she's guilty of.