it's the old cliche: those who demand security over freedom always end up with neither.

why is it important that the crown demonstrate a rational basis of fear - not a subjective basis, that is not an opinion, but an objectively determinable, reasonable basis of fear - in order to prove a harassment charge?

because you're talking about a restriction of expression, which is the most fundamental right in the constitution. our legal tradition, both constitutional and pre-constitutional, is very clear: an individual's right to expression can only be infringed upon when it succeeds in or threatens to meaningfully harm somebody else.

a more restrictive concept of harassment would consequently be struck down as unconstitutional on the first possible basis. that is not something that is consistent with canadian law.

the reason we insist on this caveat is that it is a very real possibility that a politician, like a mayor, or perhaps a powerful person like a landlord, may otherwise infringe on somebody's rights of expression, if given any sort of space at all, whatsoever. so, we insist: it is not enough to be offended, it is not enough to be annoyed, it is not enough to be bothered. it is not even enough to be afraid, without good reason. there must be a meaningful expression of realistic harm, and must even be a clear and present danger.

this is what being in a free society is all about: learning to tolerate people that are different than you.

again: i hope the voters in her borough make the right decision at the earliest opportunity.

and, transgendered people don't go to drag shows. ever.

it's a faux pas. bad form.

i'm not a gay male that dresses up in women's clothes to get off, i'm somebody that identifies as entirely female 100% of the time. so, you'll never see me at one, don't expect it.

as it is, i hope that the acquitted individual sues the cbc for defamation.

there's a lot of crazy people out there with chips on their shoulders, and they can't be allowed to ruin people's lives with baseless accusations, without consequence for it.

to begin with, an article like this should not be continuing to accuse somebody of something they were acquitted of. to use language like "harasser" to describe somebody that was acquitted of charges is an example of exceedingly poor journalism, to say the least.

second of all, if this woman feels as though she is under some kind of threat despite the fact that the issue has been analyzed and no evidence has been found to uphold her paranoia, then she should be seeking a psychiatric evaluation, as she likely suffers from some kind of mental illness.

i hope that voters take her mental competency into serious consideration when they cast their votes in the next election.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-friday-edition-1.5175775/i-live-with-fear-says-montreal-borough-mayor-whose-harasser-was-acquitted-of-criminal-charges-1.5175783

yeah. it's really not that smart a place to grow peaches. they'd be better off growing apples or tomatoes.

people do all kinds of stupid things, though, don't they?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/harsh-winter-destroys-peaches-cherries-in-essex-county-1.2667482

some people just don't know very much about recent history.

but, i guess some people don't know much about much of anything at all.

yes, jfk stole multiple elections with the help of the mob. that's actual history. it really happened. deal with it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/oct/07/michaelellison