Normally I would agree. But Yaniv was attempting to put a target on the Officer's Family's. That's a line that should not be crossed. And I have no issue with Prosecutors taking a hard stand against that sort of thing. Provided the law gives them the tools to do so.
He didn't say go kill him, any more than we are saying go kill someone when we shit-talk them. Compare to Hal Turner (and I think that prosecution was overboard too). I don't see why a civil suit funded by the police union (or whatever professional organization RCMP has for their officers) wouldn't address this.
I initially, and naturally, thought it was a civil case and actually commented that I hoped whoever was taking on yaniv had a decent lawyer and queried whether union subs would foot the bill, (as you say, "police union (or whatever professional organization RCMP has for their officers) ) until a poster pointed out it was a criminal case.
Check out the links in my previous post. What he said arguably rises to the level of criminal libel and the state (prosecutor) has an interest in being seen to protect serving officers. You don’t want, as a government, the cops to think you don’t care about their reputation. One can make the argument that this is a Public Order/ reputation affecting public respect issue whereas Hamm is a civilian dealing with another civilian whose damages, if found, can be dealt with by orders and money.
Yeah, I'd actually read your post in the other thread but either too tired or too thick (probably the latter) to understand the difference. I'm now thinking it's most probably down to the Crown protecting serving police officers and the likes, as you say.
or "T"
Can we just take a moment to appreciate the restraint and professionalism on the part of the clerk who filled out this form, and somehow resisted the siren call of the letter "G" when typing "FAW"?
I dunno. Looking through yaniv's public tweets and FB posts they all seem to just reference physical assault (re "offence date 24th Feb 2021"). The only reference he makes to anything sexual is in the court documents where he's acting as "plaintiff".
If Johnathan attempts to marshall a defense, wouldn't he have to say he based his belief on what they told him? Would this drag them into it if they affirmed his public statements?
Not if they only do it in court, unless Cuckistan has some really odd rules.
While I generally disagree with the excessive deference to defamation claims in Canada, and more specifically the very existence of a concept like criminal defamation, what Jon did here pretty clearly falls under the definition. My disagreement is more of a policy thing.
Refresh my memory, was everything involving the Tawana Brawley case civil, or were there some criminal elements in there. Because other than the age of the "victim" the accusations were not unlike what Jonny is attempting here. Publicly falsely accusing law enforcement officials of a Sexual Assault.
I believe it was all civil, and not just against Brawley but Sharpton and a number of other people involved in spreading the lies, unlike the Duke lacrosse team case, where the prosecutor Mike Nifong was himself criminally prosecuted and convicted, although only serving a single day and being disbarred.
Sharpton & freddies fashion mart, people died in that bullshit
At this rate yaniv won't be allowed to go within 100 metres of anyone (which isn't a bad thing).
Is that measured from his core or his perimeter?
To be honest him being registered as a sex offender would have been better.
Maybe. He's got a criminal record now (Elston). I believe that makes him inadmissible to the US and maybe even Europe. The libel case probably won't bring much beyond another guilty finding with probation. The fire alarm thing tho? Fatboy beat up an innocent old man. Kinda hopeful there might be more than just a slap on the wrist.
The real bonus for me is that he can no longer brag about being bezzie mates with the RCMP (loved by all apparently) and is "untouchable".