babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Guelph police allegedly sexually assault female arrestee to mark Int'l Women’s Day

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Guelph police allegedly sexually assault female arrestee to mark Int'l Women’s Day
Mick
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2753

posted 12 March 2006 04:44 AM      Profile for Mick        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
*** Please forward widely ***

Guelph police sexually assault female arrestee to mark international Women’s Day

Please help!
Write, call, fax, email the Guelph police chief Robert Davis on Monday March 13th, to let him know you are outraged and that sexual assault will not be tolerated. An example of points to raise and the details of the incident are below.

Please state that:

"On March 8, 2006 Nicole Freeborn attended a GUTS
protest at the OHRT and was sexually assaulted by
Officer (name removed). He held her against a wall, thrust his pelvis into her bum, and asked her "how do you like that?" We demand that the Guelph Police and (name removed) make a public apology to Ms. Freeborn, GUTS, and the public at large. We demand that (name removed) be fired immediately. We demand that all charges and tickets relating to March 8, 2006 at the OHRT be dropped immediately. You, the Guelph Police, sicken, disgust, and outrage me. It baffles me how you sleep at night."

15 Wyndham St S
Guelph, ON N1H 4C6

Phone: 519-824-1212 ext 220,
Fax: 519-822-0949,
Email: [email protected]

Guelph police sexually assault female arrestee to mark international Women’s Day

On March 8, 2006, International Women’s Day, a Guelph cop, (name removed), assaulted a female protestor, Nicole Freeborn, before arresting her at a protest at the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal (OHRT).

Officer (name removed) pinned Ms. Freeborn’s arms behind her back and then pushed his pelvis into her bottom, asking, “so how do you like that?” The people who witnessed the assault immediately began yelling to the other cops present, hotel guests and passersby that he had just sexually assaulted her and demanded that she be released. One witness, Veronica, yelled “you just sexually assaulted my friend” to which Officer (name removed) responded “whatever.”

Witnesses asked other cops nearby, including the lone female officer, if they were going to let him get away with this. One officer responded by smiling and shrugging. Female police officer (name removed) was witness to the assault and looked very uncomfortable but refused to answer any direct questions from other protestors or intervene. After the assault, Officer (name removed) led Freeborn outside the hotel while witnesses
followed alongside. The witnesses continued to
confront him and requested other officers or witnesses help. Once outside, (name removed) requested Officer Carr be called to transport Ms. Freeborn. She was then transported by Officer Carr to the station. On route, Officer Carr initially refused to identify the cop who had assaulted her, demanding to know why she wanted his name. Officer Carr finally stated his last name was (name removed).

At no time were Ms. Freeborn’s rights read to her
during the arrest process. After extensive
questioning in the car and police station, a male
officer entered the room and asked if she had been
read her rights. Ms. Freeborn responded in the
negative. Officer Carr who had been questioning and processing her then did so, and offered her the chance to call a lawyer. At various times, Ms. Freeborn was left in the detention room with a lone male officer, who continued to question her in Officer Carr’s absence.

Before being released from the police station, the
supervising officer came into the room and asked if Ms. Freeborn had any complaints or concerns about the arrest. Freeborn states: “I was got really scared and anxious at this point. There had been 1 or 2 cops in the room with me at any point until this, but there were now 4 cops in the small room. I hesitated but said yes, I do have a complaint and explained what had happened and the officer’s name who assaulted me. The
supervisor got red and looked annoyed but he didn’t really say anything in response. I didn’t say I was planning on following up because I was really scared and I just wanted to get out of there. The 4 uniformed cops filled up the tiny room and blocked me in there. I was really intimidated and intent on getting out of there and to a safe place.”

This is absolutely disgraceful conduct. If Officer (name removed) will assault a woman in public while in uniform, what will he do to women when there are no witnesses around? Women in this society face daily violence at the hands of their partners and friends, as well as on the streets. Police pretend they are here to help women escape violence, yet it is they who perpetrate
this sexualized violence on women. Sexualized
violence from men in this position of authority is
particularly grievous. Other women at the protest
were singled out by the male officers and addressed as “sweetie” and told they were too “pretty” for this [protesting].

We demand that the Guelph Police and Officer (name removed) make a public apology to Ms. Freeborn, GUTS, and the public at large. We demand that Officer (name removed) be fired immediately. We demand that all charges and tickets relating to March 8, 2006 at the OHRT be dropped immediately.

Please help!
Write, call, fax, email, the Guelph police chief
Robert Davis on Monday March 13th, to let him know you are outraged and that sexual assault will not be tolerated.

15 Wyndham St S
Guelph, ON N1H 4C6
Phone: 519-824-1212 ext 220,
Fax: 519-822-0949,
Email: [email protected]

For further information, reply to
[email protected] or call (519) 830-8743.

GUTS
Guelph Union of Tenants and Supporters
[email protected]
http://www.guelphtenants.com

[ 12 March 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: Parkdale! | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 March 2006 09:53 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If the charges are true, this is indeed disgraceful, sickening and frightening.

These charges must be fully investigated. It sounds as though there were a lot of witnesses, including other officers.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 12 March 2006 10:54 AM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've been trying to find some corroboration via Goggle. Even the GUTS yahoo group is silent.
From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 12 March 2006 11:48 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I've been trying to find some corroboration via Goggle. Even the GUTS yahoo group is silent.

No corroboration, and yet the thread title and the OP are asserting unequivocally that a particular individual commited sexual assault?

I mean, I'm not a libel lawyer, but...


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 March 2006 11:56 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by voice of the damned:
No corroboration, and yet the thread title and the OP are asserting unequivocally that a particular individual commited sexual assault?

I mean, I'm not a libel lawyer, but...


Yeah, I think the name and badge number needs to be taken out of that post, pronto, until it's confirmed. If GUTS wants to take a stand and print this allegation as fact against this officer on their web site, then they can decide for themselves to do that. But I do not want rabble to be open to a libel suit.

Here is where GUTS has posted that notice in its entirety.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 12 March 2006 02:46 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
At no time were Ms. Freeborn’s rights read to her during the arrest process.

I don't believe that's actually a requirement of Canadain law--Miranda is a USSC decision.

In Canada, you have the right to remain silent and to contact a lawyer, but you don't have the right to be informed this.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
NWOntarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9295

posted 12 March 2006 03:20 PM      Profile for NWOntarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:
In Canada, you have the right to remain silent and to contact a lawyer, but you don't have the right to be informed this.

False.

Article 10 of the Constitution Act, 1982:

quote:

Everyone has the right on arrest or detention

(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.



From: London, ON | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 12 March 2006 03:54 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The police will circle the wagons in order to protect "the good name of policing" just as they always do because to the policing bureaucracy their image is always far more important than public safety or the human rights and dignity of Candian citizens.

I would suggest that, if this is to be fought in the media it should be emphasized that a MAN sexually or otherwise assaulted the woman on Women's Day. And only after the gender issue is on the table and the media inquire who the MAN was, then identify the offender as a cop.

In other words, keep the focus on male arrogance first and foremost. This is something the police hierarchy will have a lot harder time covering up and obfuscating. The important thing is to get this into court.


From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mick
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2753

posted 15 March 2006 02:11 AM      Profile for Mick        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sex assault allegation probed (Guelph Mercury)
quote:
MAGDA KONIECZNA

GUELPH (Mar 14, 2006)

The chief of police is conducting an internal investigation into allegations of sexual assault by a Guelph officer against a member of the Guelph Union of Tenants and Supporters, known as GUTS.

GUTS member Nicole Freeborn alleges she was assaulted while she and four others were being arrested during a protest at a hearing of the Ontario Rental and Housing Tribunal last Wednesday.



From: Parkdale! | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mick
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2753

posted 21 March 2006 12:09 AM      Profile for Mick        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
[Post removed because unfounded fears of a lawsuit by a heavy handed moderator]

[ 21 March 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

[ 22 March 2006: Message edited by: Mick ]


From: Parkdale! | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 21 March 2006 10:35 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So is it now okay to identify the officer by name and badge number, as done in the above post?

[ 21 March 2006: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 21 March 2006 11:25 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I believe babble is exempt from Canadian libel laws because we're doing God's work by exposing these fascist police. Also, the fascist city of Guelph.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
molly-tov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8121

posted 21 March 2006 11:29 AM      Profile for molly-tov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
fascist police.

backed!

From: hali | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 21 March 2006 11:38 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Uh, joking there. Good grief.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
molly-tov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8121

posted 21 March 2006 12:02 PM      Profile for molly-tov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
haha just teasing
From: hali | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mick
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2753

posted 21 March 2006 12:12 PM      Profile for Mick        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by voice of the damned:
So is it now okay to identify the officer by name and badge number, as done in the above post?


I don't care about protecting the abuser's reputation, if babble wants to stand in solidarity with the blue wall of silence that's their decision to make.

If anyone were to be sued by the cops over this, it wouldn't be rabble, it would be GUTS, or Ms. Freeborn. People who have a lot less resources to fight a lawsuit than rabble does. If they have the courage to name names and speak the truth I think that rabble could too.

Besides, this is posted on a bulletin board, it's not like it's published by rabble.ca

Any law nerds want to comment on how likely it is for rabble to get sued based on this post?


From: Parkdale! | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076

posted 21 March 2006 12:32 PM      Profile for Tommy Shanks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Nice of you to make that decision for them and comment on their resources, Mick. However I don't think this is a case of either/or.

And while I don't think I'm a law nerd, I would suggest that, if and when this situation is clarified, and the courts side with the cops, rabble could be on the hook for knowingly publishing a falsehood. And that's not a comment on this individual case. I wonder if that could be passed on to individual posters?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 21 March 2006 12:44 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If babble / rabble.ca folded because of it, that would be a kind of cost all users would pay for.
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 21 March 2006 12:47 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
if babble wants to stand in solidarity with the blue wall of silence that's their decision to make.

So babble's two choices are either chance libel, or "stand in solidarity" with the Man?

With you or agin' you, eh? Grow up.

quote:
Any law nerds want to comment on how likely it is for rabble to get sued based on this post?

How about the moderator who asked you to remove the name in the first place? Will she do in lieu of a "law nerd"? I'm sure you believe she's in the Police Chief's pocket and all, but still... what part of "I think the name and badge number needs to be taken out of that post, pronto, until it's confirmed" needs clarification for you?

Skdadl: you're usually up on the need to not expose babble to libel suits, and you're usually one of the first to point this risk out. Any particular reason why you said nothing in this case? Or should I guess?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 21 March 2006 12:50 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just a thought: what's to prevent a troll from posting libellious information here in an attempt to bring down the board/forum? I mean, do the mods read every post?

ETA: since it hasn't happened yet, one must assume there are adequate safeguards in place, no?

[ 21 March 2006: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
RP.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7424

posted 21 March 2006 12:51 PM      Profile for RP.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mick:
Any law nerds want to comment on how likely it is for rabble to get sued based on this post?

How about this, maybe you want to guarantee that rabble wouldn't be sued, and promise to personally pay their costs if they are, if you're so sure?

[ 21 March 2006: Message edited by: RP. ]


From: I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 March 2006 12:58 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mick:

I don't care about protecting the abuser's reputation, if babble wants to stand in solidarity with the blue wall of silence that's their decision to make.

If anyone were to be sued by the cops over this, it wouldn't be rabble, it would be GUTS, or Ms. Freeborn. People who have a lot less resources to fight a lawsuit than rabble does. If they have the courage to name names and speak the truth I think that rabble could too.

Besides, this is posted on a bulletin board, it's not like it's published by rabble.ca

Any law nerds want to comment on how likely it is for rabble to get sued based on this post?


How about this, Mick - you pony up several tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees for rabble to fight a potential libel action, and sign a contract that you'll be good for the rest of the money should the legal fees go even higher than that. And then you can keep it up.

Until then, this is your last warning. If you post his name again in this thread, you will be banned. Period.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 21 March 2006 01:00 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
ETA: since it hasn't happened yet, one must assume there are adequate safeguards in place, no?

Yes: posters let moderators know about stuff like this by e-mailing them directly.

I'll also add that everyone who signs on to babble agrees to obey the law.

quote:
You will not post material that is inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy or otherwise violative of any law ...

You remain solely responsible for the content of your messages, and you agree to indemnify and hold rabble.ca and its staff harmless with respect to any claim based upon transmission of your message(s).


It's a drag on the revolution and all, but a life of subverting power can be oh-so-complicated.

Then again, I'm one of the unclean: I've been assaulted and accused by the true believers of radical whatever that I didn't respond in the correct manner, compromising myself by colluding with the forces of capitalism by writing about it.

That, and my partner should have beat the guy up if I had really been attacked ... he shouldn't have used my name when publicizing the assault ... we didn't ...

Bully-boy diktats aren't cool - from police, or from those who are supposed to be working in solidarity with women.

[ 21 March 2006: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 March 2006 01:03 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Magoo, that comment about skdadl was completely unnecessary. She might not have noticed, but she certainly hasn't objected to my request.

Mick, as for rabble's supposed resources - just so you know, there aren't any. It's a struggle all the time for the site to stay afloat, and a libel suit would sink us. And I'm not going to let you risk our site in this way. However, you're quite free to get yourself some of your own web space and open yourself up to libel suits instead if you wish.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 21 March 2006 01:05 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If anyone were to be sued by the cops over this, it wouldn't be rabble, it would be GUTS, or Ms. Freeborn. People who have a lot less resources to fight a lawsuit than rabble does.

Not true. Lawyers will go where they think the money is.

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 21 March 2006 01:07 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Magoo, that comment about skdadl was completely unnecessary.

I respectfully disagree. I thought I had the right to point out her inconsistencies, as she and anyone else will point out mine. You can remove it if you wish, but I don't see how it's out of line.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 21 March 2006 01:10 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I thought I had the right to point out her inconsistencies, as she and anyone else will point out mine.

You mean like being all righteous while engaging in petty nastiness at the same time? You go, girl.

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 21 March 2006 01:11 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What?

Suddenly I have become the issue?

Please go back and read the first clause that I typed into this thread. It is a subordinate clause, and it is both principled and significant.

I wrote it that way for a reason.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 21 March 2006 01:13 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
PS: Furthermore, I haven't been reading babble this morning, hadn't seen what had happened here, and I really resent the notion that we are taking attendance here.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 21 March 2006 01:14 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

How about the moderator who asked you to remove the name in the first place? Will she do in lieu of a "law nerd"?


Heck, how about the moderator who CHANGED the original post.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 21 March 2006 01:22 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Please go back and read the first clause that I typed into this thread. It is a subordinate clause, and it is both principled and significant.

My question was why you didn't remind Mick, and the rest of us, that you can't make libelous posts on babble. You usually do this when someone has, for example, begun to speak of someone who has not yet been tried as though they had been, and had been found guilty.

Pardon the accusation and all, but I had to wonder whether you didn't do that in this case because you didn't want to rain on Mick's parade, or what?

Did you notice? You're an honest person, so I'll accept your answer, if you give one. In fact, if you really, honestly didn't notice the officer's name and badge number in Mick's original post, I'll be happy to edit mine.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
RP.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7424

posted 21 March 2006 01:22 PM      Profile for RP.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, never mind.

[ 21 March 2006: Message edited by: RP. ]


From: I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 21 March 2006 01:26 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Huh? I wssn't referring to whether Skdadl herself made any allegations. I'm aware that she was careful in what she said. Read my post above.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 21 March 2006 01:30 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

My question was why you didn't remind Mick, and the rest of us, that you can't make libelous posts on babble. You usually do this when someone has, for example, begun to speak of someone who has not yet been tried as though they had been, and had been found guilty.

Pardon the accusation and all, but I had to wonder whether you didn't do that in this case because you didn't want to rain on Mick's parade, or what?

Did you notice? You're an honest person, so I'll accept your answer, if you give one. In fact, if you really, honestly didn't notice the officer's name and badge number in Mick's original post, I'll be happy to edit mine.



Ferchrissakes!

I haven't been back here? Ok?

I was one of the first people to read Mick's first post, and I was uncertain enough about it to write carefully. Then people raised good cautions, and that was ok by me.

And then I have just never been back since - until I saw my name being taken in vain on TAT.

Look, Magoo: we all know that you have personal problems with me. But I don't consider that I need to punch any time-clock that you're setting. If you're still bothered, I suggest you find a shrink, frankly.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 21 March 2006 01:42 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This thread is painful to read.

Out of curiosity, why is it okay to remove the aggressor's name, but not the victim's? If the story is false, the victim could sue rabble/babble just as easily as the Guelph police, no?

Was anybody able to find out if there is any truth to the story?


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 21 March 2006 01:43 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Speaking of that policy:

quote:
You agree to avoid personal insults, attacks and mischievous antagonism (otherwise known as trolling).

Cheaply egging another babbler on seems to have become all the rage lately. As a result, important discussions are derailed by you-said-I-said crap.

Unfortunate.

Responding to ephemeral: I think it's assumed that, because the individual in question is part of the organization that has publicized the accusation using her name, she must be okay with it. That said, I think it's a good point to raise. Not for legal reasons, but for ethical ones.

[ 21 March 2006: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 21 March 2006 02:14 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by writer:
Yes: posters let moderators know about stuff like this by e-mailing them directly.

I'll also add that everyone who signs on to babble agrees to obey the law.


quote:

You will not post material that is inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy or otherwise violative of any law ...
You remain solely responsible for the content of your messages, and you agree to indemnify and hold rabble.ca and its staff harmless with respect to any claim based upon transmission of your message(s).
-
Thanks. I'm sure I read this introductory stuff when I joined just over a year ago now, but always good to be reminded.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mick
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2753

posted 22 March 2006 02:58 AM      Profile for Mick        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You have shown me the error of my ways, I will help in the quest to protect any and everyone from sueing rabble by posting comments to posts which violate the rules. So far I have flagged posts that include libelious accusations against George Bush, Wayne Gretzky, and Ashley MacIssac. Rabble will be safe from libel lawsuits under my watchful eye. If anyone wants to further comment on libel and whatnot as it relates to babble the "rabble reactions" section seems the appropriate forum.

Now we can return this thread back to the original topic, which, hello, was about a cop (xxxxx badge# xxxxx) accused of sexually assualting a woman protester.

[ 22 March 2006: Message edited by: Mick ]


From: Parkdale! | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 22 March 2006 03:24 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 


So... how 'bout them Cubs, eh?

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 March 2006 05:20 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, I tend to support Mick here.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 March 2006 05:23 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Perhaps rather than going after the moderators though, or the board in general, you might want to tone it down a little. They stated the reason that they had a problem, and then went so far as to link to a source where the pertinent details you edited out are included, so, a little more understanding might be appreciated.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 22 March 2006 11:29 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Or work to change libel laws so that allegations presented as fact are protected speech.

Or for that matter, strike down all that bourgeois crap about "innocent until proven guilty". What a load of centrist nonsense that is! Clearly it's just another law intended to protect the rich and oppress the masses.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 22 March 2006 11:38 AM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mick:
So far I have flagged posts that include libelious accusations against ... Ashley MacIssac.
OH MY GOD NOOOOO! Not Ashley! To what levels will those ev-il babbalonians stoop to next!! Does the profaning off all that is sacred never end!!

From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 22 March 2006 10:54 PM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
While babble's moderators are perfectly within their rights to muzzle potential libelious posts on the bulletin boards, it is highly unlikely that they would have to defend an actual libel suit. There has never, ever been a case in Canada regarding cyberlibel. That said, since jurisprudence in this area is so unclear in Canada, and since similar cases against bulletin boards in the US have shown that in some cases, bulletin board providers (particularly those that are community based, with moderators, and specific guidelines against libel...sound familiar?) have been defined as publishers, and thus a guilty party in a libel case, it's probably a good idea to err on the side of caution.

Mick, I certainly respect your action here. As skdadl sai, if it's true, something must be done. But such an action does not require public libel. An inquiry is absolutely called for, but you don't need to publish the name or badge number of the officer for that to happen. Even GUTS hasn't published much in the way of proof, like testimony from the alleged witnesses, or personal action from the victim herself. Also, the daages libel causes to people such as George Bush are far less severe than those to a working-class policeman. If he committed this sickening crime, he should be fired, and there should be apologized. But it's not too much to ask for proof first.


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca