The PETA Merged Thread

[Fusaki]

Not real justice, but poetic justice none the less:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2010/01/29/nl-seal-pie-012910.html

Now thats comedy! ;D

 

[frostvelun]

I'm not sure 'creampied' is really the term you are looking for here. Just sayin'

 

[mariomike]

hahaha I was waiting for someone to say that!

When Anita Bryant was "pied" on TV by gay rights activists, she quipped, "At least it was a fruit pie."
I was amazed her husband didn't punch the SOB out. She prayed for him instead. A very gracious and beautiful woman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmJUdLUo8HQ



I must admit, I had never heard of Ms. Shea until this was reported.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Re: Creampie vs Terrorism.

Don't go too far and don't go into a paranoiac state.  A cream pie is harmless.  At best, it's funny, at worst, you have to wipe your face clean.  It's just a mean to bring up someone's point across and there is no violence involved.  Just like a protest. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Re: Creampie vs Terrorism.

Don't go too far and don't go into a paranoiac state.  A cream pie is harmless.  At best, it's funny, at worst, you have to wipe your face clean.  It's just a mean to bring up someone's point across and there is no violence involved.   Just like a protest.

I don't care how trite you try make it sound, when you invade someone's space without their consent, and lay hands on them, it's violence. No matter how trivial you seem to think it is.

 

[NL_engineer]

Here is a link from K-ROCK on their part

 

[eurowing]

Re: Creampie vs Terrorism.

Don't go too far and don't go into a paranoiac state.  A cream pie is harmless.  At best, it's funny, at worst, you have to wipe your face clean.  It's just a mean to bring up someone's point across and there is no violence involved.  Just like a protest.

I would consider someone doing that to me as a personal attack.  Much like a beer thrown in your face.  It is not harmless, it would precipitate a return punch!

 

[SupersonicMax]

Then me touching you, so to speak, can be considered violence.  Then I am considered a terrorist for touching you and infinging on your personnal space.  I think people are getting too paranoid about the whole terrorist thing...  If someone treatens to or try to kill other people, I can understand.  If someone smacks a creampie in your face, I wouldn't say it is terrorism...

Tell me, except for the ego, how did it harm the person?

As a side note, I think that by making everything "terrorism" and being overcautious is, by itself, a victory for the real terrorists, the kind that want to change our way of life by killing us.

 

[eurowing]

I think it all depends on whether the touch is meant to be antagonistic, so a pie delivered to be devoured is distinctly different that one shoved in your face.  I would still consider a pie in the face as an assault.  Your mileage may vary of course.

 

[OldSolduer]

Before any of us go too far in what is an assault, look up the Criminal Code of Canada. A creampie in the face in which the recipient of said creampie is the victim of an assault, no matter if she/he was harmed or not.
Eons ago, a pat on the rear was accepted social behavior....seriously....it was. Now, the victim can have the police charge the perpetrator with assault.
The creampie is an assault, pure and simple. The perpetrator should be arrested, charged, found guilty and sent packing.

 

[Fusaki]

Re: Creampie vs Terrorism.

Don't go too far and don't go into a paranoiac state.  A cream pie is harmless.  At best, it's funny, at worst, you have to wipe your face clean.  It's just a mean to bring up someone's point across and there is no violence involved.  Just like a protest.

According to Technoviking's <a href=http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/91802/post-907290#msg907290>post</a>, where he linked to the definition of terrorism according to the criminal code, you're right and you're wrong.

Putting a creampie in someone's face is violence, and I think a case can be made for charging the perpetrator with assault.

But,

That act, while violent, does not endanger anyone's life, could not cause serious bodily harm, or pose a serious risk to public health and safety.

So, while creampie attacks cannot be considered terrorism, it is not because they are not violent, but only because they are not violent enough.

 

[OldSolduer]

Personally, I think the good Minister should have decked the creampie thower. Her defence for decking said creampie thrower?
Self Defence, pure and simple.

Much the same as Jean Chretien choking out that twirp on Parliament Hill. >

 

[mariomike]

Eons ago, a pat on the rear was accepted social behavior....seriously....it was. Now, the victim can have the police charge the perpetrator with assault.

That is a bygone era, Big Silverback. The "hands-on" approach is now frowned upon. Maybe it always was?
Remember P.M. John Turner's friendly "handshake" of Iona Campagnolo? Politicians are encouraged expected to "press the flesh", but perhaps the P.M. showed a little too much jocular exuberance. Some felt his actions were assinine, others felt he got a bum deal from the press.
Another high ranking female party organizer remarked, "It can be surprising [as a greeting], but everyone has their style"
The P.M defended his touchy-feely nature by saying "I'm a very tactile politician."

 

[mariomike]

Much the same as Jean Chretien choking out that twirp on Parliament Hill. >

Is that what they call "a Shawinigan Handshake"?


Edit to add:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawinigan_Handshake

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Is that what they call "a Shawinigan Handshake"?

The difference being Bill Clennett never physically accosted ' le p'tit thug de Shawinigan'. In actual fact, it was Cretin that assaulted Clennett.

 

[OldSolduer]

Is that what they call "a Shawinigan Handshake"?

Why yes I do beleive it is!!

By the same token, the PETA activist who was pied by a pro seal hunt activist should have been arrested and charged as well.

 

[OldSolduer]

The Criminal Code states:

1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.

IMO Jean Chretien was justified in using force. This twirp was threatening, so Jean took matters into his own hand.....pun intended!

The Minister would have been justified in using no more force than necessary to defend herself. A good punch in the nose would have sufficed.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

IMO Jean Chretien was justified in using force. This twirp was threatening, so Jean took matters into his own hand.....pun intended!

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over Cretin, but suffice to say, I don't agree he was threatened in any way. Well, maybe his massive ego, but that doesn't count in the big scheme of things.

 

[ballz]

Why yes I do beleive it is!!

By the same token, the PETA activist who was pied by a pro seal hunt activist should have been arrested and charged as well.

errr... why?

If the PETA activist that pied the minister should be charged for assault, shouldn't the pro-seal hunt activist be charged for assault too?

 

[OldSolduer]

errr... why?

If the PETA activist that pied the minister should be charged for assault, shouldn't the pro-seal hunt activist be charged for assault too?

Sorry that's what I meant. My brain is on Master Yoda setting....