Eidos Employee Fired Over "Hate Speech" on Facebook
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Ah Quebec the one place in Canada were people really do care about their politics.
They just have odd ways of showing it.
But honestly that guy deserved to be fired.
Calling for the death of a democratically elected leader, is not going to win you any points.
My sympathy goes out to the poor guy who died just doing his job and the one who got injured.
Not the moron who got fired at all.
Please Buddha/Thor/Whoever it is up there DONT let another FLQ crisis happen. Harper is just the kind of PM to use martial law too.
Good thing I live two provinces away at least. -sigh- Pass the poutine
They just have odd ways of showing it.
But honestly that guy deserved to be fired.
Calling for the death of a democratically elected leader, is not going to win you any points.
My sympathy goes out to the poor guy who died just doing his job and the one who got injured.
Not the moron who got fired at all.
Please Buddha/Thor/Whoever it is up there DONT let another FLQ crisis happen. Harper is just the kind of PM to use martial law too.
Good thing I live two provinces away at least. -sigh- Pass the poutine
Good.
The gaming industry need far, far less of these subhuman, socially inept troglodytes, and more people who's empathic, thoughtful and willing to examine an issue beyond their first lizard-brain reaction to an issue.
Oh, and if you read this article and your immediate reaction was to slaver about free speech and politically correctness, please disconnect your internet.
The gaming industry need far, far less of these subhuman, socially inept troglodytes, and more people who's empathic, thoughtful and willing to examine an issue beyond their first lizard-brain reaction to an issue.
Oh, and if you read this article and your immediate reaction was to slaver about free speech and politically correctness, please disconnect your internet.
Okay. I've made a lot of jokes in the past about Quebec being Canada's Texas (due to extreme state/provincial pride and separatist rhetoric), but I didn't expect things to go so far as an attempted public assassination with a gun. C'mon, Canada, you're supposed to be the sane ones in our relationship!
As far as the consequences- I agree with the firing. Facebook is basically public speech, and if you say something your employer finds objectionable, you can expect them to react. The investigation is probably more of a procedural thing if anything; I'd be surprised if charges were in fact filed.
As far as the consequences- I agree with the firing. Facebook is basically public speech, and if you say something your employer finds objectionable, you can expect them to react. The investigation is probably more of a procedural thing if anything; I'd be surprised if charges were in fact filed.
It was on the front page of the New York Times and USA Today websites within a few hours of it happening.Timnoldzim said:
Look. Let me break things down for you. We won BY A MINORITY. Quebec's sovereignty will not and will - never - be brought up for debate under those conditions. The province's parliament still is largely occupied by Liberals and the PQ's forced alliance with the CAQ is going to make any talks of referendums by initiative absolutely impossible to maintain.aceman67 said:
Go back to 1995 and move forward from there. You'll see that most of those in my generation fail to connect with René Levesque's project for the province. Separating made sense in the sixties, back when we were the "White Niggers of America", so to speak. You couldn't speak a lick of French on Sainte Catherine Street in the middle of downtown Montreal, and francophones were being serviced the way Americans treated Blacks. You had institutions for the French and institutions for the English because, hey, we're obviously all Lower Canada scum, amirite?
We used to need to fight to protect our language and culture. That no longer applies, mostly because everyone's bilingual to a certain degree and because we *have* achieved a certain amount of international recognition on our own, without seceding from Canada. Ubisoft Montreal? There's a boatload of us frogs in there. Same with Eidos Montreal and, soon enough, Warner Bros. Montreal. That goes without mentioning our contribution to arts and culture in general. Bombardier, the guy behind Skidoo and Sea-Doo? Also a good ol' Québécois.
The overpass incident really is proof enough that Quebec - under any government whatsoever - cannot adequately handle its roads. I won't dispute that. I also won't dispute the fact that this incident happened under *Liberal* rule, a solid eight years marked with a general contempt for public services across the board.
So please, don't spew ridiculous accusations like that. If Pauline Marois were guilty of high treason, we've have heard about it on my side, and her being elected would have IMMEDIATELY resulted into a political shitstorm. It didn't. The assassination attempt against her wasn't the work of some hyper-motivated freedom fighter, it was the work of an unhinged guy whose career depended on certain government prograns which are now in jeopardy. Rather than wait to see what would become of his applications to make his piece of land private, Bain jumped to conclusions, got himself a rifle and figured he'd wrest justice out of Marois' hands for himself - and supposedly others - at gunpoint.
Newsflash. Politics don't work that way. Ottawa might bring up the law of eminent domain, but if you've studied the country's history, you should be well aware that a good chunk of the country's land used to be a French possession. I can't claim to be able to grasp the fufll particulars of how eminent domain could be countered in this case, but I'm pretty sure that in a hypothetical and highly unlikely case where sovereignty would be attainable, some sort of means to counter it would be brought up in short order.
Also, concerning your associated image?
That was some seriously bad taste, dude. Honestly.
Whoa, there. Yes, some of us have trouble learning English or can't put up with it. Every culture has its share of crazy-ass zealots who wouldn't mind starting shit. In our case, the FLQ more or less burned itself, seeing as killing a government official made everyone understand we weren't up for any kind of aggressive or lethal means of acquiring sovereignty. You'll always find the occasional Left-wing extremist in some college campus, but we're in 2012. Most of us know killing others won't bring us any closer to having a country all our own.DoomyMcDoom said:
You could also tell that to anybody who's inordinately hateful of people who don't agree with their own opinions. I don't see much of a difference between the occasional pseudo FLQ nutjob and some American right-wingers who cheerfully demand Obama's head on a platter.
Plus, consider that the generation gap is important in determining who does and doesn't speak English. My mother was born close to Gaspé, a chunk of Quebec where you had more odds of bumping into Elvis Prestley reborn than someone who speaks English. Naturally, once she moved to Montreal with my father, she started having trouble adjusting.
My father, on the other hand, is a born-and-bred Montrealer. Being from the sixties, he didn't exactly learn English in class, but he adapted far better than my mother did. I, on the other hand, ended up taking Bilingual English classes, putting me pretty much at 100% fluency.
Imagine you're a store owner of a certain age. You don't speak a lick of Spanish, and a hardcore Madrid native comes up to you. Wouldn't you have a confused and slightly hostile or defensive attitude? You don't speak Spanish for one bit, after all, so the language might sound pretty freaking weird to you, and probably much too fast for your liking.
It's the same thing, here. A lot of folks past a certain age are more or less a bit late when it comes to getting used to English's idiosyncrasies. My grandmother, bless her heart, is incredibly, even hilariously racist. It's not a case of her being a backwoods redneck French Canadian - she was just raised in a context where you didn't *need* to learn more than French to get by. That's changed, and she can't adjust properly. Hence, her racism.
Hmm, well I think this is a sign we need free speech protections online, either that or incresed guarantees of anonimity. When you start seeing companies firing employees for speaking their mind, even in an extreme way, that strikes me as being a problem.
See, in this case as I understand it we have a politician pretty much declaring open revolution against the rest of their country (Quebec becoming independant from Canada). With a position like that, it's not shocking that it inspired violence, and that there are people who actually approve of taking this leader out at any cost. Me, I'm more Pro-Canada and it's unity than anything myself given that Canada is an ally of the US, so take that for what it's worth. In an extreme situation like this taking action against the employee is wrong, and kind of shows support for the other side of the fence.
I know my opinions are doubtlessly those of a minority, but honestly I think Canadians who don't support this whole "Free Quebec" thing might want to consider writing in letters to Eidos the same way, protesting the desician.
To be brutally honest I think this is gradually getting bigger than just this kind of incident, it's been brewing for a while, I think Canada needs to get it's house in line, and understand that this kind of revolution really isn't the kind of thing you can resolve with dialogue. Especially when that dialogue is already leading to divides between Canadians and French-Speaking Canadians that are increasingly large. A few years ago they did that whole "Cube" car promotion and it was somewhat contreversial that they split the Canadian winners into "French" and "non-French" at that end. That's trivial, but it's how things like this progress, and when you have revolutionary parties getting leaders elected like this... yeah. Not good, and absolutly hideous to put down.
See, in this case as I understand it we have a politician pretty much declaring open revolution against the rest of their country (Quebec becoming independant from Canada). With a position like that, it's not shocking that it inspired violence, and that there are people who actually approve of taking this leader out at any cost. Me, I'm more Pro-Canada and it's unity than anything myself given that Canada is an ally of the US, so take that for what it's worth. In an extreme situation like this taking action against the employee is wrong, and kind of shows support for the other side of the fence.
I know my opinions are doubtlessly those of a minority, but honestly I think Canadians who don't support this whole "Free Quebec" thing might want to consider writing in letters to Eidos the same way, protesting the desician.
To be brutally honest I think this is gradually getting bigger than just this kind of incident, it's been brewing for a while, I think Canada needs to get it's house in line, and understand that this kind of revolution really isn't the kind of thing you can resolve with dialogue. Especially when that dialogue is already leading to divides between Canadians and French-Speaking Canadians that are increasingly large. A few years ago they did that whole "Cube" car promotion and it was somewhat contreversial that they split the Canadian winners into "French" and "non-French" at that end. That's trivial, but it's how things like this progress, and when you have revolutionary parties getting leaders elected like this... yeah. Not good, and absolutly hideous to put down.
Hate Speech is protected speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. There is no exception for it. In fact, I cannot think of another country that has free speech the way Americans understand it. For his speech to not be protected in the United States, a prosecutor would have to prove it was a serious or imminent threat. I don't think there is enough there, to be honest. Saying someone should die isn't the same as saying you are going to cause their death.MelasZepheos said:
Keep in mind, Americans do not have a constitutional list of freedoms, because that would cheapen them. Legally establishing such a list is not consistent with how our government is supposed to function. We have a list of things the government can do, and a list of things the government cannot do, which includes any and every power not specifically granted to it.
As long as Quebecers* consider the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois are considered to be legitimate political parties (as opposed to fringe or joke parties, like the Marijuana party or the Rhino Party), the question is not "if Quebec separates" as much as it is "when Quebec is independent". Either Quebec will actually vote to leave or the rest of Canada will vote to kick Quebec out, with the second option gaining far more strength as the Conservatives consolidate popularity and power in Canada.Talvrae said:
*This is a general statement as is not intended to imply that you as an individual support either the Bloc or the PQ.
re: Free Speech in Canada
We don't have the same sort of Freedom of Speech in Canada as there is found in the USA. It's sad but true - if One Eyed One Horned Flying Purple People Eaters were a recognized race, and I were to say "Someone should just shoot all those OEOHFPPE's and have done with it.", a OEOHFPPE could take me to a human rights commission for infringing on their human rights. And the likelihood of the HR Commission taking my side in the matter is quite low, since the OEOHFPPE wouldn't have to pay for their side of the legal action - but I would have to pay for mine.
It's a rather large bone of contention among many politically active Canadians, particularly Conservatives, and one of the few area's that I align myself with them. Get rid of the stupid commissions! If the speech is dangerous, take it to the legal system, not some bureaucratic commission.
re: This Twit.
I'm glad the company fired him. I'm even more glad that they consulted their legal department first to make sure they could fire him before they fired him. I may consider the PQ and Bloc to be the lowest form of Canadian political life, but the distance between my disdain for their actions and their politics, and any hint of outright murder of Bloc or PQ elected officials is so vast I would vote for one before I suggested their deaths.
calm down now buddy, my post was a joke, not sure about the other guy's. I also agree with you on the whole "Employer has a right to fire you" thing.Mr.Tea said:
Separatists? Assassination? Canada is the last place I would have looked for political intrigue.
Seriously, I am more interested int eh Separatists than this guy, that sounds interesting.
Seriously, I am more interested int eh Separatists than this guy, that sounds interesting.
I read his first quote and thought 'he got fired for what was obviously a joke? That is ridiculous' then I read his follow-up comment and thought 'ohhhhhh, he's a nutter.'
What a stupid dick.
What a stupid dick.
Quebec city might look extreamly beautiful, but you can't run a country on a pretty city... and Montreal.Soviet Heavy said:
I didn't even know the french still wanted to rebel.
OT: He could've gone to Ubisoft Montreal, they atleast think of good assassins. *Slaps knee*
I seriously could never imagine the concepts could be so alien, but if it has to be broken down to this point I will try to assist for the clarification.(so here we go, killing not only a clown explaining a punchline, but an afternoon =/ ) First I will address your points.Trilligan said:
It is dark. Looking at it as sociopathic is inferring your own context on the situation. It might be misanthropic, but far from sociopathic.
You said it, I underlined and bolded it. Its you missing the punch line all together. Notice you didnt quote either joke from either line?
It IS aparent. While the concept might be alien to you what is stopping you from seeing it is you are assuming everything he says is to be taken literally, and it clearly isnt. That is the problem and misunderstanding.
NO. Again this is an incomplete understanding. Sure slapstick is a light hearted form of Shadenfreude, but that is NOT what it genuinely talking about. Here, some elaboration is in order.
Malicious satisfaction, Enjoyment of evil thoughts, Morose delectation, Sin, Sadism, debauchery, and apparently it is strong enough to piss God off to the point he stops looking at his enemy you are fighting for him to turn his gaze on you for being a prick and liking the killing too much. THIS is the essence of Schadenfreude. It is a wide array of levels with slapstick being pretty entry level. Ill put it in a tldr sort of way to make sure its fully understood.Schadenfreude elaborations said:
Slapstick is to Schadenfreude what a bb gun is to the entire military arsenal of an industrialized nation including intercontinental ballistic nuclear warheads.
Now... If we are seriously going to have to do this, First thing is we have to get this failure to understand literal and figurative out of the way.
Literal said:
Figurative said:
Perhaps the clearest point to look at in examining this failure of understanding is where it happens the most. Religion. For some reason some look at religion and condemn it because they apply their demand for literal context on concepts that have always been figurative.
Examples, For Muslims completing Jihads through sacrifice and being rewarded with 72 virgins. That does not literally mean being rewarded with an abundance of people. It is a figure of speech denoting highly desired rewards beyond mortal capacity. Immeasurable entities that exist for no reason but to satiate your every whim and desire without hesitation or question.
When someone misapplies literal to the figurative, they see something like "God created the heavens and the earth" and envision an invisible man in the sky mixing up a celestial brew in a cauldron or the like, instead of understanding it is a use of figurative language written by people who didnt quite understand the science, but got the gist of "something was created out of nothing" and figuratively precipitated explaining the force of the big bang.
Another common one is Gods Tabula Rasa. Asking for forgiveness absolves you of your sins. If wrongly taken in a literal sense, it means I could shoot someone in the face, go and ask for forgiveness, complete whatever task of absolution and be forgiven and technically free to do it again. That is obviously wrong because it is meant in a figurative means. It basically says if you seek forgiveness, it can be granted. You ask for forgiveness and in exchange you live your life by the moral guidelines laid out which point you to community service, helping and loving others and the world you live in you can be "absolved" of sin. It is not because God strikes it from some imaginary score card that it is holding against you, it is because it is again an understanding of the figurative because if you do something that is regarded as mortal sin, Nothing will ever take that experience away from you. However if there is no hope of undoing past transgressions, why would anyone bother to try? That would mean once you sinned, even by accident, you would always be a evil person. By portraying this in this manner it lets the individual know that while they have made mistakes, if you work hard in outweighing the good you have done in life compared to the evil, that will allow you to mentally cope with the evil you have done as you work to tip your own internal scales back into favor, and takes it out of the individuals hand who may either forgive too easily, or never forgive at all. It is not a real thing, so much as it is a goal to strive for.
Very little in religion is intended to be taken as literal. By focusing on figurative it allows the message of the moral compass to remain relevant when times and circumstances change with the addition of new knowledge. Thats why we see an increasing backlash against religion in this day and age. People are increasingly lacking the ability to comprehend the figurative and recognize it when they see it, so they transpose their own demand for literal understanding and apply it to the figurative of religion which allows the literal to poke holes in religion and failing to have literal validity allows one who doesnt understand the figurative to dismiss the value of religion all together because "its not correct"
Examples, For Muslims completing Jihads through sacrifice and being rewarded with 72 virgins. That does not literally mean being rewarded with an abundance of people. It is a figure of speech denoting highly desired rewards beyond mortal capacity. Immeasurable entities that exist for no reason but to satiate your every whim and desire without hesitation or question.
When someone misapplies literal to the figurative, they see something like "God created the heavens and the earth" and envision an invisible man in the sky mixing up a celestial brew in a cauldron or the like, instead of understanding it is a use of figurative language written by people who didnt quite understand the science, but got the gist of "something was created out of nothing" and figuratively precipitated explaining the force of the big bang.
Another common one is Gods Tabula Rasa. Asking for forgiveness absolves you of your sins. If wrongly taken in a literal sense, it means I could shoot someone in the face, go and ask for forgiveness, complete whatever task of absolution and be forgiven and technically free to do it again. That is obviously wrong because it is meant in a figurative means. It basically says if you seek forgiveness, it can be granted. You ask for forgiveness and in exchange you live your life by the moral guidelines laid out which point you to community service, helping and loving others and the world you live in you can be "absolved" of sin. It is not because God strikes it from some imaginary score card that it is holding against you, it is because it is again an understanding of the figurative because if you do something that is regarded as mortal sin, Nothing will ever take that experience away from you. However if there is no hope of undoing past transgressions, why would anyone bother to try? That would mean once you sinned, even by accident, you would always be a evil person. By portraying this in this manner it lets the individual know that while they have made mistakes, if you work hard in outweighing the good you have done in life compared to the evil, that will allow you to mentally cope with the evil you have done as you work to tip your own internal scales back into favor, and takes it out of the individuals hand who may either forgive too easily, or never forgive at all. It is not a real thing, so much as it is a goal to strive for.
Very little in religion is intended to be taken as literal. By focusing on figurative it allows the message of the moral compass to remain relevant when times and circumstances change with the addition of new knowledge. Thats why we see an increasing backlash against religion in this day and age. People are increasingly lacking the ability to comprehend the figurative and recognize it when they see it, so they transpose their own demand for literal understanding and apply it to the figurative of religion which allows the literal to poke holes in religion and failing to have literal validity allows one who doesnt understand the figurative to dismiss the value of religion all together because "its not correct"
Now, with all that mess out of the way, let us get down to it. First, the joke, and this is to assist everyone who fail to see that this was NEVER intended to be taken as literal. It is so unbelivably simple. You only have to ask one simple question to respond to the very first thing stated.
The question. How long has it been since the time when finding a "good" assassin out of all of the average and mediocre assassins all over the place was not only common, but easy? Thats it. Right there. It is just as simple as that. From a literal understanding, we know that "finding an assassin" is not a common task. They are NOT all over the place. How many people actually know where to go to hire an assassin in this era of history, much less a "good" one? The simple fact is if taken in a literal context, that statement is absurd and illogical. Knowing that, (especially with its reinforcement with an exclamation point) it is a direction to the reader that this statement is not intended to be taken in a literal context because in a literal context it makes no sense. By doing so, that also infers continued figurative context on the followup.
While the preceding statement infers a figurative and not 100% serious context to this statement as well, This statement also makes light of the situation on its own. The author of the statement clearly knows the story of events. They are fully aware of the people injured as well as the people killed. By making the statement "someone with better aim" suggests as if a failing of the shooters aim was the problem and why she wasnt dead as if someone else would have done better. Again this is not intended to be taken literally, but figuratively by making light of the shooters hit ratio. Given that the shooter injured some and successfully killed, from a literal context the shooters aim was obviously not the problem. That is an absurd statement that is not intended to be taken as 100% literally factual. By doing so it again reinforces that the entire statement is not intended to be taken from a literal context, but a figurative one.
So, the author has twice made light of death, desired death and the suffering of the injured by making clearly absurd statements. It represents that this individual is upset by the actions of the targets in this shooting. That is why the author takes schadenfreude from the ideas in this event and why he chose to reinforce that by making clearly absurd statements to vent frustration related to these people, but does so in a figurative and darkly humorous context by making light of the situation in jest that was not to be taken as a literal advocation of the injury or death of these people. Just an angry desire to see them no longer making people unhappy with their choice of actions and prefaced in jest so people would not assume, much as has been, that he was actually suggesting someone else or even himself to go back and get the job done right.
So now that the clown is not only dead, but pummeled to the point that there are not even enough chunks left over to shovel up into a body bag (another example of dark humor) I literally have explained this in every feasible manner. If it is something that is still alien, it may well be something you just simply have to chalk up to being beyond comprehension. Not that it isnt there or it is not blatantly clear, just some sort of block preventing the notice and appreciation of it. So you can respond however you wish, but there is literally nothing more I can do to make it any more apparent and to even try would be a waste of both of our time and effort.
______________________________________________________________________________________
As a secondary note, ive noticed this coming up too. Free speech and the argument of "free speech doesnt grant you freedom from the repercussions of speech" To which I have to say that is completely false and incorrect. Free speech cannot exist with conditions. By applying the expectation of penalizing speech, you effectively limit the freedom of speech under threat of consequence. It is somewhat odd to see people exhibit such a demand for everything to be taken literally, and then see attempts to twist the definition of words and phrases to mean something they do not, nearby. Free speech with consequences ceases to be free speech and becomes limited speech. You may not like how people use that speech, but that is a consequence of free speech that someone will say something offensive. If someone acts on their free speech adversely, then of course action should be taken, and yes their free speech can be used against them in that instance of evidence. But once it is moved from speech to action, it ceases to be speech anyway and thus not protected under free speech.
As a all-out french quebecker, I do support the independence full heartedly. It's not a hateful move, not a rebellion. We don't want it to hurt anglophones, we want it for ourselves. It's a question of pride, culture and identity.
To be perfectly honest, a vast majority of the hate speech comes from the anglophone side these days. It's quite scary and a bit unsettling, it's not like we want to hurt or attack anyone, just to do what we want for ourselves, take charge of our future. Nothing against Canada, it's simply not my country. Been to Ontario, been to BC and the maritimes, great times, it's simply foreign land.
Seriously, Independence is not the end of the world. The Scotts are working on it too, good for them.
About the Eidos thing, you can't blame them, that guy was a fucking idiot. Most gaming corporations established in Montreal are heavily financed and supported by the local government. Having an employee who publicly advocates the murder of the newly elected prime minister (with a healthy dose of sexism ugliness too) isn't exactly good for either business, public relations and internal relationships (a lot of the workers there are quebeckers).
To be perfectly honest, a vast majority of the hate speech comes from the anglophone side these days. It's quite scary and a bit unsettling, it's not like we want to hurt or attack anyone, just to do what we want for ourselves, take charge of our future. Nothing against Canada, it's simply not my country. Been to Ontario, been to BC and the maritimes, great times, it's simply foreign land.
Seriously, Independence is not the end of the world. The Scotts are working on it too, good for them.
About the Eidos thing, you can't blame them, that guy was a fucking idiot. Most gaming corporations established in Montreal are heavily financed and supported by the local government. Having an employee who publicly advocates the murder of the newly elected prime minister (with a healthy dose of sexism ugliness too) isn't exactly good for either business, public relations and internal relationships (a lot of the workers there are quebeckers).
Trilligan said:
Uhm... No that is not true at all. You KNOW what he is saying because the means in which it was delivered. He clearly conveyed that intent with sentence structure, chosen words, punctuation.
If you are driving and pass a pink elephant on the side of the road and didnt notice it. It does not make the pink elephant "nothing"
It most definitely signifies something, and something of great importance that is being entirely too neglected. It seems as if some approach it from a stance of you cannot miss what you never had which points to why there is almost defiant refusal to see it.
You cant make the argument of being overly formal when the mass of words was only for your benefit to fully explain to an insanely detailed level because of the failing in comprehension on an incredibly simple concept that should be second nature and easily identifiable as a result of simplier attempts failing to register.
If you are unable to see how it is a joke, then you are right, logically you would not be convinced it was in anyway a jest. But it is not meant to be taken fully at face value. It was clearly indicated to not do so and not following along with that figurative directive does not erase its figurative nature or open it up for literal interpretation.
As for the add on about free speech. In a way I guess you are right. There is no true freedom of speech. However, with the examples of Libel, Slander, Perjury, what those all boil down to lies. In essence these are verbs and denote an action. The words themselves are not specifically guilty, but the actions are not protected by free speech and in direct violation of laws such as the defense against something that was not legal, which invariably is obstruction of justice and is intended in some way to infringe on the rights of others.
As for threats. Well that is a much more sticky situation. First it is something that case by case must be clearly weighed and balanced against free speech vs level of action, so the freedom of speech is also invariably weighed in the equation. Secondly at least in the US, it is a perversion and outright modification of the protection of free speech that is what? not even 100 years old? It clearly is not what was intended when the free speech was first granted or else it would have in effect made every revolutionary building the foundation of the US system of government in violation of it. Cannot speak for how it was built/developed other places, Only what I have proximal knowledge of. But Just because it is in law does not make it in any less a contradiction of established rights.
Actually hiring assassins these days is a rather simple task and the quality difference is apparent. The attacker in this case is not a professional. He was a man who was angry and decided to attempt to kill her himself. Poor assassins could be hired by simply going into certain bars or clubs in a city, especially in Quebec where there is a lot of organized crime. These people are criminals who will kill for the right price. If you want to hire a good assassin you would need to go to a major organized crime group and be willing to spend top dollar or go onto certain sections of the internet (Hidden Services) and be willing to spend thousands on someone who may never actually attempt to do the job.viranimus said:
In the far past assassins were probably harder to find without proper connections but more recently it was likely easier to get into dealings with organized crime rackets. And in this case especially there would have been groups of trained people who want to prevent the separation of a province and would have likely attempted to prevent this, just like the FLQ (Quebec IRA) assassinated the Liberal leader the last time the issue came up.
This statement can easily be totally serious. The failed assassin was clearly unable to get in and get off the shot he wanted as his goal was to kill the newly elected premier and not some poor audio tech. Just because he killed one person does not mean he has good aim if that was not the person he was actually aiming for. If you walk into a crowd with a machine gun and want to kill one person only but end up cutting down 50 and not killing your target means that you have terrible aim. Out of the 50 kills you made not one of them was your target. You still have a 100% failure rate.
His claim that she will be dead within a month could also easily be seen as a threat or wishing violence upon someone, which is a threat too. Perhaps it does not apply to this person but saying that you want someone dead is just like saying that you want someone to go out and kill that person since your message is advocating their death and anyone who is willing to follow your message could go out and kill them on your behalf.
What people need to understand is that if you say it on the internet there is not a way to make it clear if you are exaggerating the situation for comedy or if you are serious about this. We simply do not have the context to know without knowing more about this man's personality. Perhaps he is like me and enjoys dark jokes about death and suffering but he could just as easily be a sociopath with intent to attempt to end her life at the end of that month if nobody else 'steps up' and completes the task. This is a particularly hot issue in our country because of the effects it would have on every person in the nation. It would not be surprising if angry people took arms against the separatists and this man is clearly supporting that action whether it is as a joke or as a serious belief.
In Canada we take this sort of thing seriously and you do not get to shout for someone's death and then hide behind free speech. Free speech does not and should not cover what you are saying if you are threatening someone else's safety. Her safety is more important than his right to shout hatred just like the safety of the gay community is more important than the right to scream 'death to fags' from your roof. At least it is in Canada and I hope to God it stays that way.
As for your method of replying big words and long winded paragraphs can not elaborate so much on the text he types. You cant know what he was thinking at the moment of posting and you cant really understand even an implied tone from such a short post. You are also rude to those who disagree with you and that is not really conductive to actually discussing this issue.