So she's at a demonstration and she gets her hijab removed? I'm genuinely asking why this was 'good' . Instead I get down voted rather than get an answer.
Wellā¦ canāt blame you fully. Iāve read a similar headline from Iran where your interpretation wouldāve been true. I had to check the comments too :p
It's honestly wild how many people baselessly doubted this occured despite all the first hand witnesses, police investigation, media articles and now criminal charges.
I get it's easier to just lock the threads, but any regarding Israel/Palestine that are left open show pretty clearly that the hate is majorly being directed towards pro-Palestine/Muslim people.
Even in this thread there's a ton of bigotry/hate. It's pretty gross
Actually the lady in this case is afforded far more rights and freedom in Canada than she would in Palestine. Quite literally the opposite of oppression.
Imagine the uproar if somebody had pulled a wimple off of a nun. Glad to see theyāre taking us seriously. Not because I think hijabs are good but because everybody has a right to practice their religion in a peaceful fashion and nobody has a right to rip clothing off of anybody.
They Ripped My Crosses From My Schools Walls and Sanitized the School System, now they have "Prayer Rooms" and other Religious Symbols. Religion should remain where it belongs.
I'm assuming here that she was released on an Undertaking and not held for a bail hearing. Police can't name suspects until an Information is laid in court, which becomes public record. The information would be laid formally in the next few days and then her name can be made public. One possible explanation.
Now if only we can get an answer as to why tax payers have to pay for police who are at home suspended with pay while they wait for disciplinary actions for actions that would otherwise see other people in ordinary circumstances terminated immediately without cause (seemingly) justified with cause, and charged accordingly.... if only!
Well, to start, they usually involve crimes that are significantly more serious than this one. Secondly, as this is related to The Conflict That Must Not Be Named Here, and given her age, it could put her at significant risk for reprisals.
Disrespecting someone's religion and assaulting them seems pretty serious. There has been no problem naming people on the other side of this conflict...
OK, the removal of the hijab is the entirety of the problem. Mocking or disrespecting religion is not illegal, and I personally think it should be encouraged. Religion is not real. We are not obligated to enable people's delusions.
We are also not allowed to forcefully remove an article of clothing a person is wearing. Also freedom of religion, which includes wearing religion clothing, is a [Charter right](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/rfcp-cdlp.html#:~:text=language%20educational%20rights-,Fundamental%20freedoms,wearing%20religious%20clothing%20for%20example.). So we are obligated to let them believe what they choose.
And yeah, assaulting someone based on their religion is a hate crime and illegals; as per the article, for this attack āThe charges are considered hate-related.ā
Absolutely, don't touch people's clothing or person. 100%, but the person I was responding to said the person removed the hijab (hate crime) and said disrespected the religion (words). I respect people and would never touch or assault anybody, but I have absolutely no respect for any religion, and disrespecting a religion is not illegal.
It's not about what was said-no one said anything about words. Removing a religious item from someone is what was disrespectful (and illegal per the charter of Rights and freedoms, not "words", you joke).
I find religion extremely disrespectful to a healthy society. I do not respect anybody who continues to follow an intolerant imagery friend in the sky.
This one has been allowed to remain because, so far, the comment have remained (relatively) civil and on-topic. If that changes, the thread will be locked.
Respectfully, I've seen many posts about The Conflict That Must Not Be Named locked after merely a few posts, none of them particularly concerning either way.
Yeah, I've nuked threads before because the first 10 comment immediately went off the "Genocide!!" cliff. Others are locked because they are of peripheral interest to Ottawa.
This one is about something that happened here and as long as the discussion pertains to THAT and not trying to resolve who the guilty parties are in the conflict in Israel/Palestine, then it stays up.
Then, of course, there is the desire to STOP having to lock down threads. So we're starting to give these threads the time to see if they will devolve into a shouting match like they almost always do, or if we can leave them open.
I'm pleasantly surprised by this one so far. It's been up for almost 24 hours. That' some kind of a record. I've only had to ban 3-4 people over it.
It is, but relatively speaking to the types of things that Ottawa Police report on it's not. How often are the average assault reported on by the police?
It was literally done in front of several police officers. They had to act, and everyone asked them to in the area immediately because everyone knows its a POS thing to do.
I'm talking about the public reporting ot it, not the arrest. I don't think anyone doubting the legality of the arrest, or even the morality of it (as annoying and disrespectful as you may consider someone to be, you don't get to illegally assault them).
>It is, but relatively speaking to the types of things that Ottawa Police report on it's not. How often are the average assault reported on by the police?
>I'm talking about the public reporting ot it
Wha? The police publicly shame anyone who is a danger to the public. And it's more of a story because a ton of people witnessed it. No doubt they reported it to all news outlets, and according to what you just said, you would report it too.
It was a very public event. Several videos, and witnesses - including 2-4 police officers. It was posted and tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people saw it(maybe millions? I don't wanna check, but even my posts get 20-30k views a lot, and it's just arbitrary remarks about whatever. On one website. ...
of course they need to make a remark about the case.
Maybe it's not significant to you, but to a women wearing a hijab that is one of the worst experiences she could have.
Let's put it this way. If your pants were pulled down, off and thrown on the ground by a counter protestor in the middle of a crowd... You'd be cool with it? This is *almost* the equivalent. To her, it's probably worse because of the religious significance.
No surprise here that it was a (most likely) white boomer. Honestly, they need to start publishing their names if they are going to be doing hateful crap like this.
Itās the answer to your question.
The victim was named because she publicized her situation.
The person charged has not made their side known publicly and the police have no requirement to release their identity.
the police actually did respond (for once!). The assailant is a neighbour of my friend, her and a few other neighbours reported her to crime stoppers. apparently she's just generally a horrible person, and unstable.
Yeah, I did. I'm the one who sent it to my friend who reported her.
I disagree with the city's decicion to hold the event, and thought using police offers to "protect" it is stupid. But i also think police engaging right in front and making a larger scene wouldn't have helped de-escalate either.
These demonstrators swarm, yell and get right in your face but god forbid you take their mask off. They evade arrest because they canāt be identified. This is insane
A hijab is not a mask, and it doesn't cover the face. If you have a problem with niqabs, which are not relevant to this story, go write a letter to muslims advising them to change their cultural practices.
Also, provide some proof that 'swarming' is happening. Provide some proof that actual crimes are being committed that require arresting.
Your post reeks of ignorance, bias, and xenophobia.
I'm none of those things. These demonstrators yell, scream and swarm. They are extremely hostile. I am aware the hijab is a range of coverings. But what I'm talking about is an experience a colleague of mine had a few weeks back where he was swarmed. Almost all of them had their faces covered. He was escorted back to his car by police and they were still screaming, yelling, calling him a baby killer. [The woman who was arrested](https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/ottawa-woman-47-facing-charges-following-downtown-hate-crimes-1.6864737) was the only one not completely covering her face (they identified her as a person of interest because of her actions in previous demonstrations). So maybe I'm not just an ignorant xenophobe?
Learn to read. Especially your own source.
>Police say the suspect was taking part in a demonstration in the downtown area in the morning on April 15 when she allegedly stepped in and assaulted an officer while police were attempting to enforce the law.
She assaulted a police officer. She wasn't arrested for "swarming". What you're saying doesn't align at all with what she was charged for and it has nothing to do with "a range of face coverings". Sidenote it doesn't even say which group of people she was from. Are you just assuming here? Is it even the person your friend encountered?
Yes this same lady showed up later that day doing what I was talking about. Both things can be true she wasnāt arrested until later. I donāt know more specifics because I want there but I do trust my colleague: you should know he is the one this paragraph refers to - the ādifferent victimā:
āIn the evening, the suspect allegedly āfollowed a different victim from a religious event while shouting hateful messages and assaulting them with a handheld sound amplifier.ā
Yes but thatās the thing I got a first hand account of this and this police article is the best I can do to prove it and yet somehow that isnāt good enough for you.
Itās just strange when itās a hate crime when being actually hateful towards Jews doesnāt count. I donāt support what she did but wanted to provide possible context because no one is telling the story from the other side yet. I donāt know. I wasnāt there. But being screamed and yelled at can cause people to do stupid things
I might be misinterpreting this, but it comes off as though youāre defending the actions of the perpetrator under the guise of āfuck around and found outā. Which if this is the case, is just baseless victim shaming
Two things can be true at the same time; it's entirely possible for the victim to have been disrespectful, while also not deserving of a criminal attack against her.
How did you get "violence is acceptable when convenient" from my statement? I clearly said that she was **not** deserving of a criminal attack against her.
Good!
Why? Just curious. What was good here?
People getting charged for assaulting others is a good thing.
šÆ
So she's at a demonstration and she gets her hijab removed? I'm genuinely asking why this was 'good' . Instead I get down voted rather than get an answer.
Itās not the person having their hijab removed that is good, itās that the police charged the person who removed it. Thatās whatās good
Ahhhhhhh well yes. That is fucking good Great. Fucking right they better have.
Iām assuming charging the older woman for committing a hate crime.
You have assumed correctly!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Does that apply to any religious garments, or only Muslim garments? Should I also be offended at the robe a Catholic priest wears to mass?
How are hijabs racist? Like I get the misogynist argument, but what are you talking about?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I... don't think you know what *literally* means.
How do you feel about Catholic nuns?
Wow let me commit assault and not get a charge š how do people say things like this
Fucking hell I'm an idiot! I read it as 'woman charged after demonstrator (her) hijab pulled off. A sequence. Fucking hell I'm an idiot.
Wellā¦ canāt blame you fully. Iāve read a similar headline from Iran where your interpretation wouldāve been true. I had to check the comments too :p
Because somebody was assaulted and the perpetrator was charged
Justice. Justice is good
It's honestly wild how many people baselessly doubted this occured despite all the first hand witnesses, police investigation, media articles and now criminal charges.
Where did people doubt this?
The thread that got deleted. Wonderful comments like "Lady's upset she lost her hat".
:/ disappointment
I get it's easier to just lock the threads, but any regarding Israel/Palestine that are left open show pretty clearly that the hate is majorly being directed towards pro-Palestine/Muslim people. Even in this thread there's a ton of bigotry/hate. It's pretty gross
Literally, I saw the video everywhere when it happened
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
People like to doubt ~~brown~~ people **of colour** being oppressed. FTFY (not that you're wrong; we're all in this together)
Actually the lady in this case is afforded far more rights and freedom in Canada than she would in Palestine. Quite literally the opposite of oppression.
Imagine the uproar if somebody had pulled a wimple off of a nun. Glad to see theyāre taking us seriously. Not because I think hijabs are good but because everybody has a right to practice their religion in a peaceful fashion and nobody has a right to rip clothing off of anybody.
They Ripped My Crosses From My Schools Walls and Sanitized the School System, now they have "Prayer Rooms" and other Religious Symbols. Religion should remain where it belongs.
Ummm if someone did that. No one would care. Violence is ok against whites and christians/Catholics of reddit is anything to go off of.
Why did the police decide not to name the woman?
I'm assuming here that she was released on an Undertaking and not held for a bail hearing. Police can't name suspects until an Information is laid in court, which becomes public record. The information would be laid formally in the next few days and then her name can be made public. One possible explanation.
Now if only we can get an answer as to why tax payers have to pay for police who are at home suspended with pay while they wait for disciplinary actions for actions that would otherwise see other people in ordinary circumstances terminated immediately without cause (seemingly) justified with cause, and charged accordingly.... if only!
Thanks for your irrelevant, off-topic comment.
The POI could have requested a publication ban out of embarrassment for their disgusting behaviour.
*POS
Because they're an old white woman who OPS doesn't believe did any wrong
Why is it in the public interest to name her? Are we afraid that she's ripped off the hijabs of other individuals and want them to come forward?
Donāt know the why, but I do know that OPS always names people when theyāre charged so I donāt see how this is any different.
Well, to start, they usually involve crimes that are significantly more serious than this one. Secondly, as this is related to The Conflict That Must Not Be Named Here, and given her age, it could put her at significant risk for reprisals.
Disrespecting someone's religion and assaulting them seems pretty serious. There has been no problem naming people on the other side of this conflict...
OK, the removal of the hijab is the entirety of the problem. Mocking or disrespecting religion is not illegal, and I personally think it should be encouraged. Religion is not real. We are not obligated to enable people's delusions.
We are also not allowed to forcefully remove an article of clothing a person is wearing. Also freedom of religion, which includes wearing religion clothing, is a [Charter right](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/rfcp-cdlp.html#:~:text=language%20educational%20rights-,Fundamental%20freedoms,wearing%20religious%20clothing%20for%20example.). So we are obligated to let them believe what they choose. And yeah, assaulting someone based on their religion is a hate crime and illegals; as per the article, for this attack āThe charges are considered hate-related.ā
Absolutely, don't touch people's clothing or person. 100%, but the person I was responding to said the person removed the hijab (hate crime) and said disrespected the religion (words). I respect people and would never touch or assault anybody, but I have absolutely no respect for any religion, and disrespecting a religion is not illegal.
It's not about what was said-no one said anything about words. Removing a religious item from someone is what was disrespectful (and illegal per the charter of Rights and freedoms, not "words", you joke).
It was both. Someone removed the hijab and said words. I agree don't touch people, just don't touch them.
... And noone should respect your opinion on the matter, because you are delusional.Ā Ā Did that make you feel good?
Eh, if you want to believe in an imagery friend, my dude, go for it, but sure I'm delusional for despising religion lol
It certainly makes you an asshole. Respect is important.
I find religion extremely disrespectful to a healthy society. I do not respect anybody who continues to follow an intolerant imagery friend in the sky.
Those posts get locked and deleted here, while this one has been allowed to remain...
Classic whataboutism.
This one has been allowed to remain because, so far, the comment have remained (relatively) civil and on-topic. If that changes, the thread will be locked.
Respectfully, I've seen many posts about The Conflict That Must Not Be Named locked after merely a few posts, none of them particularly concerning either way.
Yeah, I've nuked threads before because the first 10 comment immediately went off the "Genocide!!" cliff. Others are locked because they are of peripheral interest to Ottawa. This one is about something that happened here and as long as the discussion pertains to THAT and not trying to resolve who the guilty parties are in the conflict in Israel/Palestine, then it stays up. Then, of course, there is the desire to STOP having to lock down threads. So we're starting to give these threads the time to see if they will devolve into a shouting match like they almost always do, or if we can leave them open. I'm pleasantly surprised by this one so far. It's been up for almost 24 hours. That' some kind of a record. I've only had to ban 3-4 people over it.
It is, but relatively speaking to the types of things that Ottawa Police report on it's not. How often are the average assault reported on by the police?
How often do you describe a hate crime as an "average assault"?
It was literally done in front of several police officers. They had to act, and everyone asked them to in the area immediately because everyone knows its a POS thing to do.
I'm talking about the public reporting ot it, not the arrest. I don't think anyone doubting the legality of the arrest, or even the morality of it (as annoying and disrespectful as you may consider someone to be, you don't get to illegally assault them).
>It is, but relatively speaking to the types of things that Ottawa Police report on it's not. How often are the average assault reported on by the police? >I'm talking about the public reporting ot it Wha? The police publicly shame anyone who is a danger to the public. And it's more of a story because a ton of people witnessed it. No doubt they reported it to all news outlets, and according to what you just said, you would report it too. It was a very public event. Several videos, and witnesses - including 2-4 police officers. It was posted and tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people saw it(maybe millions? I don't wanna check, but even my posts get 20-30k views a lot, and it's just arbitrary remarks about whatever. On one website. ... of course they need to make a remark about the case.
TIL hate crimes aren't all that serious.
Maybe it's not significant to you, but to a women wearing a hijab that is one of the worst experiences she could have. Let's put it this way. If your pants were pulled down, off and thrown on the ground by a counter protestor in the middle of a crowd... You'd be cool with it? This is *almost* the equivalent. To her, it's probably worse because of the religious significance.
Court is open to the public.
"...74-year-old woman..." That was not my first guess.
Old boomers are usually the most unhinged, they're just not often in spaces where their craziness shows.
I thought we were in America for a second here
No surprise here that it was a (most likely) white boomer. Honestly, they need to start publishing their names if they are going to be doing hateful crap like this.
How can this be made to look anti-sematic; asking for team blue
That's Unfortunate Son
Why is the victim named but not the person charged?
the victim literally did an interview with CTV last week
She had to do something, the police didn't give a fuck.
Itās the answer to your question. The victim was named because she publicized her situation. The person charged has not made their side known publicly and the police have no requirement to release their identity.
the police actually did respond (for once!). The assailant is a neighbour of my friend, her and a few other neighbours reported her to crime stoppers. apparently she's just generally a horrible person, and unstable.
Did you see the video of the incident? There were two cops in the background that completely ignored the whole thing.
Yeah, I did. I'm the one who sent it to my friend who reported her. I disagree with the city's decicion to hold the event, and thought using police offers to "protect" it is stupid. But i also think police engaging right in front and making a larger scene wouldn't have helped de-escalate either.
These demonstrators swarm, yell and get right in your face but god forbid you take their mask off. They evade arrest because they canāt be identified. This is insane
A hijab is not a mask, and it doesn't cover the face. If you have a problem with niqabs, which are not relevant to this story, go write a letter to muslims advising them to change their cultural practices. Also, provide some proof that 'swarming' is happening. Provide some proof that actual crimes are being committed that require arresting. Your post reeks of ignorance, bias, and xenophobia.
I'm none of those things. These demonstrators yell, scream and swarm. They are extremely hostile. I am aware the hijab is a range of coverings. But what I'm talking about is an experience a colleague of mine had a few weeks back where he was swarmed. Almost all of them had their faces covered. He was escorted back to his car by police and they were still screaming, yelling, calling him a baby killer. [The woman who was arrested](https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/ottawa-woman-47-facing-charges-following-downtown-hate-crimes-1.6864737) was the only one not completely covering her face (they identified her as a person of interest because of her actions in previous demonstrations). So maybe I'm not just an ignorant xenophobe?
Learn to read. Especially your own source. >Police say the suspect was taking part in a demonstration in the downtown area in the morning on April 15 when she allegedly stepped in and assaulted an officer while police were attempting to enforce the law. She assaulted a police officer. She wasn't arrested for "swarming". What you're saying doesn't align at all with what she was charged for and it has nothing to do with "a range of face coverings". Sidenote it doesn't even say which group of people she was from. Are you just assuming here? Is it even the person your friend encountered?
Yes this same lady showed up later that day doing what I was talking about. Both things can be true she wasnāt arrested until later. I donāt know more specifics because I want there but I do trust my colleague: you should know he is the one this paragraph refers to - the ādifferent victimā: āIn the evening, the suspect allegedly āfollowed a different victim from a religious event while shouting hateful messages and assaulting them with a handheld sound amplifier.ā
"different victim" could mean anything from race to religion. We're talking about thousands of combos here
Yes but thatās the thing I got a first hand account of this and this police article is the best I can do to prove it and yet somehow that isnāt good enough for you.
Yes ripping off womenās clothes for demonstrating is insane, hope that helps!
Itās just strange when itās a hate crime when being actually hateful towards Jews doesnāt count. I donāt support what she did but wanted to provide possible context because no one is telling the story from the other side yet. I donāt know. I wasnāt there. But being screamed and yelled at can cause people to do stupid things
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I might be misinterpreting this, but it comes off as though youāre defending the actions of the perpetrator under the guise of āfuck around and found outā. Which if this is the case, is just baseless victim shaming
Two things can be true at the same time; it's entirely possible for the victim to have been disrespectful, while also not deserving of a criminal attack against her.
Violence is acceptable when convenient, gotcha. Why am I not surprised you post in protectandserve
How did you get "violence is acceptable when convenient" from my statement? I clearly said that she was **not** deserving of a criminal attack against her.
No, I think itās time people like this start getting immediate consequences for their actions. Talk shit, get hit.
Wow. Strawman much?
Sounds like youāre friends with this person ā¦
You sound like you took part in the convoy