https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/niagara-police-deadname-trans-woman-video-1.7067666

The complainant is no more a "woman" than I am but insists on people
pandering to her delusion....

--
Rhino

In article <20231223173125.00005a34@example.com>, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/niagara-police-deadname-trans-woman-vi
> deo-1.7067666
>
> The complainant is no more a "woman" than I am but insists on people
> pandering to her delusion....

She can call herself anything she damn well wants so long as it's not
for purposes of fraud. It's hardly "pandering" to accede
to a trivial request.

A Friend wrote:
>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>>https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/niagara-police-deadname-trans-woman-video-1.7067666

>>The complainant is no more a "woman" than I am but insists on people
>>pandering to her delusion....

>She can call herself anything she damn well wants so long as it's not
>for purposes of fraud. It's hardly "pandering" to accede
>to a trivial request.

You didn't bother to read the article. What you wrote is inapplicable.

Security called the cops to the bus terminal because the person was
videoing and refused to leave, claiming it was public space. The video
was about "hostile architecture" or "defensive design", trying to make
the facility uninviting for homeless people. The benches are
uncomfortable to sleep upon.

She wouldn't leave, claiming it was public space.

Of course the cops were going to ask her name, and that means, asking
for a name to identify her on official records so it's possible to know
her arrest history. I assume in Canada, same as in the United States,
she has no right not to provide it if asked.

What the hell is trivial about making it possible to do a criminal
background check if it came to that? Also, if they're going to issue a
citation, they have to get the name correct. "I call myself [whatever]"
won't cut it if she didn't change her name via a judicial order, or
however it's officially done in Canada.

In the United States, she wouldn't have been trespassing most likely, as
long as she wasn't blocking anybody.

In article <um7rot$28qva$1@dont-email.me>, Adam H. Kerman
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> A Friend wrote:
> >Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>>>https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/niagara-police-deadname-trans-woma
> >>n-video-1.7067666
>
> >>The complainant is no more a "woman" than I am but insists on people
> >>pandering to her delusion....
>
> >She can call herself anything she damn well wants so long as it's not
> >for purposes of fraud. It's hardly "pandering" to accede
> >to a trivial request.
>
> You didn't bother to read the article. What you wrote is inapplicable.

I read it. I didn't take from it what you and some others did.

> Security called the cops to the bus terminal because the person was
> videoing and refused to leave, claiming it was public space. The video
> was about "hostile architecture" or "defensive design", trying to make
> the facility uninviting for homeless people. The benches are
> uncomfortable to sleep upon.
>
> She wouldn't leave, claiming it was public space.

It *is* public space. Moreover, she was committing journalism in that
space. She was investigating whether the facility was trying to
discourage homeless people from sleeping there. Not that anybody asked
me, but I think the facility has a right to do so.

> Of course the cops were going to ask her name, and that means, asking
> for a name to identify her on official records so it's possible to know
> her arrest history. I assume in Canada, same as in the United States,
> she has no right not to provide it if asked.

You're correct. She has to provide her name if asked, even if there
are no grounds to arrest or even detain her. She can also be required
to show ID. She can't be penalized if she has no ID, however.

> What the hell is trivial about making it possible to do a criminal
> background check if it came to that? Also, if they're going to issue a
> citation, they have to get the name correct. "I call myself [whatever]"
> won't cut it if she didn't change her name via a judicial order, or
> however it's officially done in Canada.
>
> In the United States, she wouldn't have been trespassing most likely, as
> long as she wasn't blocking anybody.

The cops had no reason to do a criminal background check. You might as
well have cops seize random citizens in a department store and do that.

A Friend wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>A Friend wrote:
>>>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>>>>>>https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/niagara-police-deadname-trans-woman-video-1.7067666

>>>>The complainant is no more a "woman" than I am but insists on people
>>>>pandering to her delusion....

>>>She can call herself anything she damn well wants so long as it's not
>>>for purposes of fraud. It's hardly "pandering" to accede
>>>to a trivial request.

>>You didn't bother to read the article. What you wrote is inapplicable.

>I read it. I didn't take from it what you and some others did.

Ok.

>>Security called the cops to the bus terminal because the person was
>>videoing and refused to leave, claiming it was public space. The video
>>was about "hostile architecture" or "defensive design", trying to make
>>the facility uninviting for homeless people. The benches are
>>uncomfortable to sleep upon.

>>She wouldn't leave, claiming it was public space.

>It *is* public space. . . .

I'm not disputing her interpretation of free speech and free press, but
Canada doesn't have that. Instead, they have the more restrictive "free
expression".

If this were America, you are forgetting about Lehman v. City of Shaker
Heights 418 U.S. 298 (1974), the case that airport security has
generally relied upon to crack down on Hare Krishnas. The issue at hand
was whether it's free speech if the message were forced upon an audience
incapable of declining to receive it.

Because of this case, I was arrested and charged with trespass to
public property in 1999 -- for leafletting at an "L" terminal. I was
offering but not forcing anyone to take the leaflet, and I wasn't
blocking the entrance to the platform, but the supervisor at the
terminal didn't see it that way.

If Canadian law is at all similar, she may not have had an absolute
right to remain after she was told to leave.

None of this is relevant to the issue at hand of the cop asking her to
identify herself.

>>Of course the cops were going to ask her name, and that means, asking
>>for a name to identify her on official records so it's possible to know
>>her arrest history. I assume in Canada, same as in the United States,
>>she has no right not to provide it if asked.

>You're correct. She has to provide her name if asked, even if there
>are no grounds to arrest or even detain her. She can also be required
>to show ID. She can't be penalized if she has no ID, however.

>>What the hell is trivial about making it possible to do a criminal
>>background check if it came to that? Also, if they're going to issue a
>>citation, they have to get the name correct. "I call myself [whatever]"
>>won't cut it if she didn't change her name via a judicial order, or
>>however it's officially done in Canada.

>>In the United States, she wouldn't have been trespassing most likely, as
>>long as she wasn't blocking anybody.

>The cops had no reason to do a criminal background check. You might as
>well have cops seize random citizens in a department store and do that.

She was issued a citation. If the citation was issued in the wrong name,
she'd be able to contest its validity. That's why the cop asked for her
name on the birth certificate. Now, if he insisted on citing her in THAT
name but she had legally changed her name, she'd also have reason to
contest the citation.

As additional cops came, it's hard to believe they wouldn't have run
wants and warrants on her.

On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 17:31:25 -0500, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/niagara-police-deadname-trans-woman-video-1.7067666
>
>The complainant is no more a "woman" than I am but insists on people
>pandering to her delusion....

It's how low we've sunken as a society.

On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 18:13:51 -0500
A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

> In article <20231223173125.00005a34@example.com>, Rhino
> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/niagara-police-deadname-trans-woman-vi
> > deo-1.7067666
> >
> > The complainant is no more a "woman" than I am but insists on people
> > pandering to her delusion....
>
>
> She can call herself anything she damn well wants so long as it's not
> for purposes of fraud. It's hardly "pandering" to accede
> to a trivial request.

Actually, it *is* pandering and its NOT a trivial request if someone
asks you to deny reality. Megan Kelly actually explained that quite
well in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxB0LHvS4fg

--
Rhino

In article <20231224174330.00001926@example.com>, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 18:13:51 -0500
> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <20231223173125.00005a34@example.com>, Rhino
> > <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/niagara-police-deadname-trans-woma
> > > n-vi
> > > deo-1.7067666
> > >
> > > The complainant is no more a "woman" than I am but insists on people
> > > pandering to her delusion....
> >
> >
> > She can call herself anything she damn well wants so long as it's not
> > for purposes of fraud. It's hardly "pandering" to accede
> > to a trivial request.
>
> Actually, it *is* pandering and its NOT a trivial request if someone
> asks you to deny reality. Megan Kelly actually explained that quite
> well in this video:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxB0LHvS4fg

I'm sure Kelly "explained" it to your satisfaction. To repeat, the
complainant can legally call herself anything she damn well wants, so
long as it's not for purposes of fraud. I don't understand how her
doing so affects you or me or anybody else in any way.

On 12/24/2023 5:51 PM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <20231224174330.00001926@example.com>, Rhino
> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 18:13:51 -0500
>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <20231223173125.00005a34@example.com>, Rhino
>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/niagara-police-deadname-trans-woma
>>>> n-vi
>>>> deo-1.7067666
>>>>
>>>> The complainant is no more a "woman" than I am but insists on people
>>>> pandering to her delusion....
>>>
>>>
>>> She can call herself anything she damn well wants so long as it's not
>>> for purposes of fraud. It's hardly "pandering" to accede
>>> to a trivial request.
>>
>> Actually, it *is* pandering and its NOT a trivial request if someone
>> asks you to deny reality. Megan Kelly actually explained that quite
>> well in this video:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxB0LHvS4fg
>
>
> I'm sure Kelly "explained" it to your satisfaction. To repeat, the
> complainant can legally call herself anything she damn well wants, so
> long as it's not for purposes of fraud. I don't understand how her
> doing so affects you or me or anybody else in any way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBrzAfHM-oA

On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 17:51:02 -0500, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

>In article <20231224174330.00001926@example.com>, Rhino
><no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 18:13:51 -0500
>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <20231223173125.00005a34@example.com>, Rhino
>> > <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/niagara-police-deadname-trans-woma
>> > > n-vi
>> > > deo-1.7067666
>> > >
>> > > The complainant is no more a "woman" than I am but insists on people
>> > > pandering to her delusion....
>> >
>> >
>> > She can call herself anything she damn well wants so long as it's not
>> > for purposes of fraud. It's hardly "pandering" to accede
>> > to a trivial request.
>>
>> Actually, it *is* pandering and its NOT a trivial request if someone
>> asks you to deny reality. Megan Kelly actually explained that quite
>> well in this video:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxB0LHvS4fg
>
>
>I'm sure Kelly "explained" it to your satisfaction. To repeat, the
>complainant can legally call herself anything she damn well wants, so
>long as it's not for purposes of fraud. I don't understand how her
>doing so affects you or me or anybody else in any way.

By that same standard I can call you any name I want, Bob. I mean it
is not fraud for me to call you Samuel, is it?
Anyone can ask for people to call them by a specific name but there's
no requirement there's no requirement they do so. At least if they
haven't bothered to have their legal name changed.

In article <9tehoi9gp4hdlbuovhmoemhfv3a6j2ir29@4ax.com>, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 17:51:02 -0500, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <20231224174330.00001926@example.com>, Rhino
> ><no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 18:13:51 -0500
> >> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <20231223173125.00005a34@example.com>, Rhino
> >> > <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/niagara-police-deadname-trans-w
> >> > > oma
> >> > > n-vi
> >> > > deo-1.7067666
> >> > >
> >> > > The complainant is no more a "woman" than I am but insists on people
> >> > > pandering to her delusion....
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > She can call herself anything she damn well wants so long as it's not
> >> > for purposes of fraud. It's hardly "pandering" to accede
> >> > to a trivial request.
> >>
> >> Actually, it *is* pandering and its NOT a trivial request if someone
> >> asks you to deny reality. Megan Kelly actually explained that quite
> >> well in this video:
> >>
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxB0LHvS4fg
> >
> >
> >I'm sure Kelly "explained" it to your satisfaction. To repeat, the
> >complainant can legally call herself anything she damn well wants, so
> >long as it's not for purposes of fraud. I don't understand how her
> >doing so affects you or me or anybody else in any way.
>
> By that same standard I can call you any name I want, Bob. I mean it
> is not fraud for me to call you Samuel, is it?

Your point?

> Anyone can ask for people to call them by a specific name but there's
> no requirement there's no requirement they do so. At least if they
> haven't bothered to have their legal name changed.

Who said otherwise? People are free to be as rude and stupid as they
like about this. For my part, I think that extending common courtesy
doesn't cost me anything, and I have nothing to prove by deadnaming a
person. It gains me nothing to do so.

Also, no one is denying reality. The reality is that a person is free
to choose the way s/he is addressed.

On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 17:51:02 -0500, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

>In article <20231224174330.00001926@example.com>, Rhino
><no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 18:13:51 -0500
>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <20231223173125.00005a34@example.com>, Rhino
>> > <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/niagara-police-deadname-trans-woma
>> > > n-vi
>> > > deo-1.7067666
>> > >
>> > > The complainant is no more a "woman" than I am but insists on people
>> > > pandering to her delusion....
>> >
>> >
>> > She can call herself anything she damn well wants so long as it's not
>> > for purposes of fraud. It's hardly "pandering" to accede
>> > to a trivial request.
>>
>> Actually, it *is* pandering and its NOT a trivial request if someone
>> asks you to deny reality. Megan Kelly actually explained that quite
>> well in this video:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxB0LHvS4fg
>
>
>I'm sure Kelly "explained" it to your satisfaction. To repeat, the
>complainant can legally call herself anything she damn well wants, so
>long as it's not for purposes of fraud. I don't understand how her
>doing so affects you or me or anybody else in any way.

Representing yourself as a sex that you are not IS fraud.

On 12/25/2023 11:45 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 17:51:02 -0500, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <20231224174330.00001926@example.com>, Rhino
>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 18:13:51 -0500
>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <20231223173125.00005a34@example.com>, Rhino
>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/niagara-police-deadname-trans-woma
>>>>> n-vi
>>>>> deo-1.7067666
>>>>>
>>>>> The complainant is no more a "woman" than I am but insists on people
>>>>> pandering to her delusion....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> She can call herself anything she damn well wants so long as it's not
>>>> for purposes of fraud. It's hardly "pandering" to accede
>>>> to a trivial request.
>>>
>>> Actually, it *is* pandering and its NOT a trivial request if someone
>>> asks you to deny reality. Megan Kelly actually explained that quite
>>> well in this video:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxB0LHvS4fg
>>
>>
>> I'm sure Kelly "explained" it to your satisfaction. To repeat, the
>> complainant can legally call herself anything she damn well wants, so
>> long as it's not for purposes of fraud. I don't understand how her
>> doing so affects you or me or anybody else in any way.
>
> Representing yourself as a sex that you are not IS fraud.

It is IFF you believe -- or indeed intend -- that anyone's deceived.

On 2023-12-24 5:51 PM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <20231224174330.00001926@example.com>, Rhino
> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 18:13:51 -0500
>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <20231223173125.00005a34@example.com>, Rhino
>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/niagara-police-deadname-trans-woma
>>>> n-vi
>>>> deo-1.7067666
>>>>
>>>> The complainant is no more a "woman" than I am but insists on people
>>>> pandering to her delusion....
>>>
>>>
>>> She can call herself anything she damn well wants so long as it's not
>>> for purposes of fraud. It's hardly "pandering" to accede
>>> to a trivial request.
>>
>> Actually, it *is* pandering and its NOT a trivial request if someone
>> asks you to deny reality. Megan Kelly actually explained that quite
>> well in this video:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxB0LHvS4fg
>
>
> I'm sure Kelly "explained" it to your satisfaction. To repeat, the
> complainant can legally call herself anything she damn well wants, so
> long as it's not for purposes of fraud. I don't understand how her
> doing so affects you or me or anybody else in any way.

Watch the video, then you'll see too.

--
Rhino

On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 23:50:53 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>What the hell is trivial about making it possible to do a criminal
>background check if it came to that? Also, if they're going to issue a
>citation, they have to get the name correct. "I call myself [whatever]"
>won't cut it if she didn't change her name via a judicial order, or
>however it's officially done in Canada.
>
>In the United States, she wouldn't have been trespassing most likely, as
>long as she wasn't blocking anybody.

If it's private property then she can be asked to leave. If not that's
a problem. If it's public property then maybe maybe not. (I once
encountered 3-4 mountain bikers changing their gear in my driveway
when I arrived home. I told them in one minute I was parking in my
driveway and that if their gear was still there I was truly very sorry
- they vamoosed.)

I suppose that could be considered a threat - but a threat to property
not a person so presumably even in SF not a problem. I do have the
right to consider any item left on my driveway or lawn to be trash and
to "take out the trash"

I certainly wouldn't sanction an officer who responded to "I call
myself..." with a follow-up question.

In any case I lived in SF as a small tyke (no real memory of it) and
from what you folks are saying am glad its history not the present.

On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 06:19:12 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>She was issued a citation. If the citation was issued in the wrong name,
>she'd be able to contest its validity. That's why the cop asked for her
>name on the birth certificate. Now, if he insisted on citing her in THAT
>name but she had legally changed her name, she'd also have reason to
>contest the citation.

Surely if one had legally changed one's name but her ID said
differently she would have an obligation to disclose that when
presenting ID.

I would have no problem with obstruction of justice charges if one
knowingly withheld such rather material facts.

On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 18:18:33 -0500, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>By that same standard I can call you any name I want, Bob. I mean it
>is not fraud for me to call you Samuel, is it?
>Anyone can ask for people to call them by a specific name but there's
>no requirement there's no requirement they do so. At least if they
>haven't bothered to have their legal name changed.

Oh? Has Caitlin Jenner sought charges against anybody using the name
"Bruce"?

Is someone committing a crime by selling (or even playing) the very
old game Microsoft Olympic Decathlon which is basically a hymn to the
glories of Bruce Jenner?

no_offline_contact@example.com wrote:

> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/niagara-police-deadname-trans-woman-video-1.7067666
>
> The complainant is no more a "woman" than I am but insists on people
> pandering to her delusion....

You misspelled "his delusions".

HTH!

--
Let's go Brandon!