This is the same city that charged a man for drawing a swastika in gravel with a pressure washer.
Attack and harass a random woman and her two daughters in public, traumatizing them. Proudly admit on camera that you are a racist and you face no legal consequences. Draw a stupid symbol and you’re charged with one count of offence motivated by hatred.
Attacking
The video is in your article…
He’s a racist asshole, but he didn’t “attack” anyone, which is why there wasn’t a crime and the victim even agrees:
According to Al-Azem, the victim in this week’s incident is confident the police have taken all necessary steps. She hopes to see the perpetrator face some repercussions for his actions, whether that includes municipal infractions, or consequences at his place of work.
“There is a criminal threshold, but there are other thresholds that we expect people to engage in as part of the social fabric of our community,” Al-Azem said.
Your title is so wrong I’m curious if it’s intentionally wrong…
That statement is not from the victims themselves.
Who was “attacked” when a man got charged for drawing a symbol in gravel earlier this month?
Hypocrisy and double standards by the system doesn’t bother you. A title on a social media post gets you all worked up. Are you the guy from the video by any chance?
Who was “attacked” when a man got charged for drawing a symbol in gravel earlier this month?
No one…
But leaving racist symbols/writing is a crime.
Saying racist shit without threatening violence, is despicable but not a crime.
And is definitely not “attacking”. Is this a translation issue?
A title on a social media post gets you all worked up
You made a title that isn’t true…
Yeah buddy, racist propaganda tends to get people “worked up” enough to mention it.
Why are you lying about what happened if not tonatoke racial tensions? Seriously, why make up that she was attacked when the actual reality of what happened is already bad enough to be newsworthy?
That statement is not from the victims themselves.
Yes, she didn’t write the article…
No one was pretending the article was a direct statement from the victim
What racist propaganda?
You have a white supremacist proudly admitting he’s racist on video. He’s attacking her for being muslim.
“Racist symbol that I dislike shouldn’t be allowed. Attacking a woman and her children is despicable but not a crime”. How do you not see hypocrisy and double standards here? Is this a translation issue? White supremacist issue?
Go cry about your white supremacists somewhere else.
Islamophobia ≠ racism
indeed,
Islamophobia ≠ Muslimphobia
You can like people without liking their beliefs.
Christianity is stupid.
Judaism is stupid.
Islam is stupid.
Their prophet Muhammad had sex with a 9 year-old.
Wearing a hijab because a pedophile says that bare hair tempts men is stupid.
I’m able to differentiate between muslim people and their prophet.
I’m sensible enough to understand that not all of them believe Mo raped a child just because christian nationalists like David Wood or zionist bigots like Gad Sad accuse them all for believing it.
You can’t have double standards like “drawing a symbol is a criminal offence but attacking muslims for being muslims is acceptable” and expect to be taken seriously by sensible people.
You don’t have to like their religious head gear. You can’t pick and choose which hats are sacred and which ones get attacked by racist white supremacists publicly and be taken seriously.
This isn’t about mohammad or blasphemy, which is thankfully still legal in this frozen shithole. It’s about a proud racist proudly attacking a family and disgusting people defending his actions.
I’m sensible enough to understand that not all of them believe Mo raped a child just because christian nationalists like David Wood or zionist bigots like Gad Sad accuse them all for believing it.
wp:Aisha#Age at marriage and consummation
First line:
Classical Islamic sources state that Aisha was six years of age at the time of her marriage with Muhammad (then fifty) and nine at the time of its consummation.
You can’t have double standards like “drawing a symbol is a criminal offence but attacking muslims for being muslims is acceptable” and expect to be taken seriously by sensible people.
Yes, these are charged incidents, but IIUC, the first was essentially a property crime that was quickly remedied.
The other looks like a dumbass picked an argument with a woman in a hijab—a woman who is probably a bit concerned about assault from men and/or Mulslimphobes, and/or racists.
Maybe charge him with harassment.
If you want to ban the swastika and attacking Islam, then that’s something else.
You don’t have to like their religious head gear. You can’t pick and choose which hats are sacred and which ones get attacked by racist white supremacists publicly and be taken seriously.
No hat is sacred, but you don’t touch another’s headwear (unless you get consent), because it’s their property, and if they’re wearing it at the time, it can be assault.
But commenting on headwear, while possibly ill-mannered, isn’t a crime, IMO.
This isn’t about mohammad or blasphemy, which is thankfully still legal in this frozen shithole.
My part of Canada isn’t frozen, nor has it been frozen for over 150 days.
It’s about a proud racist proudly attacking a family and disgusting people defending his actions.
I thought he was alone.
That’s kinda the point, he faces no consequences. More of his islamophobic cousins and friends get emboldened.
Swastika isn’t a hateful symbol either IMHO. Indigenous people of North America, European pagans and South Asians were drawing it long before nazis took it. They even called it a “cross” not Swastika.
Anyway, you’re of the opinion that harassing a random muslim family is ill mannered at best. I think that’s bullshit double standards.
Arresting people for drawing an ancient symbol while ignoring proud racists harassing a muslim family for existing. That’s literally how you build fkd up shithole societies.
for drawing a symbol in gravel earlier this month?
Huh?
I linked it above.
Oops. You’re right. My error. Sorry. Thank you.
So this looks like a crime against property.
They explicitly said “motivated by hatred”. Yet the racist, who proudly says he’s racist, spewing hateful venom at an innocent family is protected and even celebrated by many.
In the same country where he’d be charged if he insults SPVM. Drawing a stupid symbol is illegal. Mocking or insulting a cop is illegal. Attacking muslims for being muslim or wearing headgear despised by islamophobes is perfectly acceptable.
City of Montreal bylaw banning insults against police officers is unconstitutional, lawyers claim
By Joe Lofaro
Updated: October 01, 2026 at 3:57p.m. EDT
Published: September 30, 2026 at 7:20p.m. EDT
(my bold)
The legal challenge was filed in Superior Court on Tuesday by the Saint-Michel Legal Clinic (CJSM) and the Association des juristes progressistes (AJP). In it, they argue that the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that expressions that could be characterized as “abusive, insulting, offensive, aggressive, provocative, or even humiliating are protected by freedom of expression.”
Yes, I’m aware. Which is why I pointed it out as hypocrisy.
This same Montreal had a viral video not long ago where an Israeli was harassing a random muslim and bragging about how he slaughtered Palestinians back home. Nobody in the government or police thought it was criminal. Yet they tried to make it illegal to insult police despite the fact that supreme court already ruled that it is indeed legal.
Their hypocrisy and double standards are an issue that should be pointed out, called out, highlighted everywhere.
Obviously not a hate crime but
her hijab was incompatible with Christian values,
Religion has no place in public life. He should be charged with infringing on people’s freedom from religion for bringing up Christian values in public.
Obviously not a hate crime but
Idk… he says he’s racist. He’s proud of it.
Sure doesn’t seem like a love-crime either.
I’m all for freedom from religion, no blasphemy laws and all that good stuff. But wtf kind of double standards do we have where drawing an ancient symbol is illegal but attacking a random family for their religious dogma because of your own dogma is acceptable?
Why not use the actual title of the article for the post?
Then editorialize in the comments all you like.
It’s not editorialized. It cuts to the chase and gets to the point in fewer words.
In that case why bother with making a post that is a link to the CBC article? Write a post with your own text. You can link to the CBC article as a source.
It’s just bad etiquette to mix the two. Either post the article (with the original title) and add your comments underneath. Or post a text article of your own with whatever title and content as you like and cite the article and any other sources that make sense to you.
It’s lemmy… social media. Not an educational institution nor an assignment.
Which is why we ourselves must curate the conventions of our own communities, as opposed to some teacher. Which is why I talked about etiquette.
I don’t think etiquettes are necessary in every instance in life. Certainly not when shitting on white supremacists and the system that protects them.
Look bud, we share the politics, ok? I’m not asking you to maintain etiquette towards the asshole in the article. I’m asking you to maintain it towards this community. Keep the Community Centre/Infoshop/Union Hall tidy, you know what I mean?
Yea, I hear ya. It wasn’t malice or targeted towards anyone.
One dude got mad at me and accused me of racist propaganda and stoking racial tensions. A total wtf moment but I was glad it made people Feel a certain way. One way or another.
This incident happened in the same city where an asshole thought its his duty to mow down a random innocent family because they weren’t white. Then a significant number of people in the country got mad at the government for the government “getting involved” and paying for their funeral and whatnot. Cops in that city think it’s okay for a proud white supremacist christan to attack a random muslim woman and her 2 daughters without any legal consequences. Plenty of people agree with that assessment and I know it’s mostly because of their bias against muslims.
Anyway, it reached more eyes. Partly because of the engagement due to the title making people react. Mission accomplished without anyone getting hurt.
deleted by creator
