Watch: Jagmeet Singh followed down street by man who threatens a �citizen�s arrest�

all politicians deserve harassment, as long as it isn't violent. You enter public life, tough shit.

No.

yes

Pretty sure that uttering threats is against the law in Canada. Telling someone that the next time you meet that you are going to have a dance sounds like a threat to me. Seems like this asshat could use some time breaking big rocks into little rocks to adjust his attitude.

Have to side with Tricks here, NO person deserves to be harassed for their chosen profession. No person deserves to be harassed period. As Tricks pointed out it is illegal. You cannot simply "harass" someone because they are a civil servant. That's asinine.

That's what culture has come to. It's perfectly fine to be impolite or even outright hostile to someone you don't like.

Until of course, it happens to you.

Try the same thing with Trump and you get shot.

So what's the standard for who should be allowed to be harassed and why should Canadian politicians be exempted?

As a matter of fact back in the day I was harassed by the unemployed, long haired dope smoking, sandal wearing, VW driving, granola crunching assholes in downtown Vancouver because I wore a military uniform and yet no one said they shouldn't have been allowed to target me because, apparently my chosen profession offended them?

Now, it's the turn of the police, most of whom don't deserve this kind of attention who are being subjected to harassment everyday. Also, in America just a short time ago it was considered quite acceptable to harass and decline service to Trump staffers, officials and supporters when they went out to supper and or shopping. So, where was the outcry when you realise that it was the Representative for California's 43rd congressional district who called for and instigated this retaliation by Democratic Party supporters?

Now for some reason people want the goal posts changed because it's happening to a politician who's policies and actions they agree with or at the very least condone.

I'm sorry but, in this case if Singh, as a politician wants to sell his soul to the sock wearing Satan he deserves everything he gets but and this is a big but, only verbally and in a non physically threatening manner. Personal threats to his or anyone else's physical well being based on their chosen profession or decisions, ethical or not shouldn't be allowed period and should be punished to the full degree of the law. Because if we don't smarten up about how we treat each other we're going to end up just like our Southern neighbours which, isn't a good thing in case you hadn't noticed.

No one should be allowed to be harassed.

Pretty simple.

Honestly, the U.S. is a different animal. It still shouldn't be happening, but it's happening so much from both sides, the horses are kinda out of the barn already.

Someone telling one of the leaders of a federal party that they're going to citizen arrest them (not sure for what exactly) and that next time he sees them they're going to dance... that's pretty much unheard of up here.

If this were O'Toole, Trudeau, or whats his face from the people's party, my response would be the same. They shouldn't be accosted by random people on the street with threats of being illegally detained or being physically assaulted.


Verbal or physical doesn't matter. Both are illegal. Also sock wearing Satan? Be more hyperbolic why don't you.

A better question, is why is this guy still on the streets?

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/dyzw ... in-trudeau

He tried to do this to Trudeau already. He tried to do it to a journalist (who he thought was a Bloc MP). Why is he not in jail?

Unsurprisingly, he's a far right nut job.

Lets also look at what he's threatening, a Citizen's Arrest.
The Canadian Criminal Code does allow for a Citizen to arrest another for a criminal offence, however there are pretty specific circumstances and criteria to do so...

Arrest without warrant by any person

494 (1) Any one may arrest without warrant

(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or
This means the person arresting must witness the offence from start to finish, and the offence be an Indictable or Hybrid Offence
(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes

(i) has committed a criminal offence, and

(ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.
Pretty self explanatory. Person must have committed a criminal offence, and is escaping from and freshly pursued (ie. still being chased) by a person who has lawful authority to arrest said suspect
Marginal note:Arrest by owner, etc., of propertyThis section doesn't apply

(2) The owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property, may arrest a person without a warrant if they find them committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property and

(a) they make the arrest at that time; or

(b) they make the arrest within a reasonable time after the offence is committed and they believe on reasonable grounds that it is not feasible in the circumstances for a peace officer to make the arrest.

Marginal note:Delivery to peace officer

(3) Any one other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver the person to a peace officer.
Forthwith is code for "right fucking now"

Marginal note:For greater certainty

(4) For greater certainty, a person who is authorized to make an arrest under this section is a person who is authorized by law to do so for the purposes of section 25.

In Short, the guy has zero legal authority to arrest, anyway. Were he to proceed and Arrest Mr. Singh he'd face forcible confinement charges.

He'd also be pissing all over Mr. Singh's Constitutional right not to arbitrarily detained, the right to life, liberty and the security of the person, the right to know the reason for arrest or detention and the right to retain and instruct consult counsel without delay.

One adjustment to the above, for finds committing it doesn't always need to be start to finish. For something like shoplifting it needs to be start to finish so that you can ensure they didn't bring the item they're stealing with them. For something like murder, you don't need to see them start repeatedly stabbing, seeing them in the middle of a stabbing spree is good enough. Additionally something like child pornography is always in the process of "committing". So if you were to use a friends laptop and find some kiddie porn, it qualifies as "finds committing".

Either way, this guy in no way has the colour of right to attempt a citizen's arrest of someone, and could easily be sued for attempting it.

Nothing wrong with writing a letter to the editor venting out you gripes in a public forum for others to read and decimate as they see fit.

Nothing wrong with supporting a cause with money.

Nothing wrong with voting for an MP to represent your voice in the house of commons.

What you do NOT have a right to is causing physical confrontations. Publicly assaulting ANY member of Parliament in this manner is an assault on all members and must be seen as such. If not then anarchy will soon follow as ALL members of parliament will be subject to the same attacks and the level of threat that entails. Inevitably someone will get killed.

Anyone who can not understand that is not someone arguing in good faith.

True, for legal purposes we usually preach the start to finish, you are correct; if you come in on someone stabbing someone, yes; you found this person committing an indictable offence. However, I would recommend against attempting the Citizen's Arrest in this case.