You have a legal right to photograph anything you see in public, assuming you are also on public property. Do you lose this right if you happen to see a religious person who objects to being photographed for religious reasons? You shouldn't, but apparently you do in Toronto.
According to Toronto photographer David Menzies, Toronto police let a Muslim woman assault him because she had "religious objections" to his taking photographs in public that might include her. Apparently, her desire to break his camera was part of what made her violent physical assault legal.
Suddenly, a woman wearing a hijab ran toward me. She was part of a group that included two women wearing full face-covering burkas. She was screaming: "We are Muslim! You do not take pictures of us!" (Odd. I can't find the "no photos" rule in the Qur'an.)
I informed the lady I was in a public square in a democracy. I can actually take pictures of whomever I please.
And then: Ka-pow! Her fist collided with my face. Worse, she almost knocked my new camera from my hands.
My son and I were then surrounded by a mob of about 20 people, many of whom were speaking Arabic. One kept demanding I surrender my camera to him.
Source: Toronto Sun
David Menzies got hopeful when he saw police nearby, but to his disappointment he found that the police weren't the least bit interested in protecting him or his legal rights. Instead, they were more interested in protecting the "rights" of crazy religious bullies to... well, to be crazy religious bullies:
After the officer took my statement, he went over to the offending woman. Another constable was inexplicably miffed I was (legally) taking photos in the first place. The irony: Just above our heads a Toronto Police Service sphere was videotaping the activities.
The officer interrogated the woman. She was still hysterical. Good. The constable would encounter firsthand what I had been forced to deal with earlier.
The cop walked back to me. No charges would be laid, he said, because he believed the woman's story -- namely, she was merely trying to knock the camera out of my hands.
Got that? Apparently, attempted property damage is OK. If a face gets in the way of a would-be vandalizing fist... hey, accidents happen.
This is exactly how bullies get their way: inch by inch as responsible authorities turn a blind eye to their violent outbursts and increasingly cede to them the power to determine what happens in public. After enough people get assaulted for exercising their legal rights and without those rights being protected by the police, you can be sure that fewer and fewer people will dare to exercise them.
Soon, the bullies win the ability to control others and hold them to the bullies' regressive, authoritarian religious dogmas. The police don't merely stand mute, but actually become accomplices by telling the victims of bullying and assault that they are to blame for behaving so provocatively. At that point, your "rights" exist at most on paper and nowhere else. It's not a real or genuine "right" if you can be assaulted for exercising it and the "police" won't protect you.
So beware the next time you have the misfortune of finding yourself in Toronto. If a crazy religious bully assaults you for doing nothing out of the ordinary -- like, say, if you're a tourist taking pictures on the street -- you can't go to the police or other authorities for help. In fact, you might count yourself lucky if you're not locked up yourself for hitting someone's fist with your face.
Police in a wide variety of places in the USA have come out as determined anti-camera zealots, and I’m sad to see same attitudes echoed in Canada. Pictures and video from citizens in public are often graphic evidence in police abuse and brutality cases, and privacy laws are being stretched beyond belief (or new ones written) to make it criminal to photograph or video police.
While this case doesn’t directly relate police at work, police cultural concerns about being photographed help explain the “inexplicable” hostility towards taking pictures in a public square.
!? …that just about sums it up!
This is how our rights are eroded.
Police officers too lazy to lay a charge or not educated about peoples rights, or afraid of offending a religious group. Whichever the reason the result is the same, now 20 muslims think they have a right to assault someone taking pictures of them in public.
From a UK point of view, this is disgusting. The law is the same here. There is no law against taking pictures of anything or anyone in the street or on public land. Why the hell should she get away with what appears to be attempted criminal damage and assault just because she is Muslim, as appears to have happened here? Sounds as if the police were afraid of her playing the race card. Even if we believe the story of “she was just attempting to knock the camera out of his hands”, why should THAT be condoned, ignored and not followed up by the police? Does the religious aspect excuse the woman from her action? Since when has attempted damage to one’s property been legal because of a religious bent? Despicable story. If the cops won’t take it up, civil action needs to be instigated (that’s if her identity can be established through the religious garb).
Making a molehill out of a mountain? Perhaps so. For your information many minor incidents are handled every day around the globe. Policemen make decisions and every time they handle a situation it does not result in a ticket or handcuffs. You are free to do what is legal be it annoying or distastefull. I must ask did you insist on an arrest? I bet not,that would not make for a very good story.
I guess you have enough ground to sue, both the woman and the police. If you do, it will be a great service to society.
Yes, the identity of the officer is available. A lawsuit is in order. How about aiding and abetting a crime? Dereliction of Duty? Cowardice in the face of hostile gang members?
Grandpa
Islam is incompatable with a secular state, but so is Evangelical christianity
Cecil wrote: “Islam is incompatable with a secular state, but so is Evangelical christianity.”
I agree with both.
Nonsense. Pure, unadulterated nonsense.
I think the photographer should file a complaint with the police department. It looks like the officer did not fulfill their duties, and complaining about that incident could send the right message to others in the police force.
I think there is a possibility that the police made a choice that day not to arrest the woman to avoid causing a ruckus within the local muslim community. Maybe they were worried about their families or their own personal well being? I think this is a definite possibility.
Doesn’t make this right, but the officers may have acted in their best interest by not arresting the woman.
Police officers don’t have a right to choose their own best interests; police officers are required to uphold the law and defend citizens.
If you can get the badge of the policeman who did not do his duty, maybe other policemen will do their duty when this occurs again. It will occur again and again, due to the attitude of thes insane people.
Good luck suing if you can’t identify her.
Do you mean the cop or the other vandal?
Grandpa
This is making a mountain out of a stupid molehill.
1. The only source for every detail is David Menzies, who has a history of being a bigoted a**hole and an attention whore.
2. The police investigated and laid no charges.
3. Much, if not all, of the backlash against this is coming from racist a**holes who just want another reason to hate.
Because physical assault is such a trivial matter…
Believing that your religious beliefs are a bunch of dangerous nonsense is not a bigoted belief.
This is not making a mountain out of anything, what should happen is the video evidence should be looked at and then a decision should be made on whether charges are laid or not. Your opinion of Mr. Menzies has no bearing on the issue and your comments seem to suggest that you have anger issues.
So violence is okay, if started by a muslim and targeted against a westerner?
Violence is bad enough, but you dhimmi’s who keep protecting these violent people are must certainly even worse.
“So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb. “
What you think of David Menzies as a person or a journalist has no bearing in this case. A crime was clearly committed as it was witnessed by Arabic speaking Syrian couple who also heard unpleasant things said by the mob who surrounded Menzies. It was the Toronto police who failed to do their job. Menzies should at least have been informed by the police that he had the right to press charges by going to the justice of the peace.
Good thing for her you were slightly on the pacifist side. If she had tried that on me I just might have decked her. Woman or not. Then let the courts decide if self defense is allowed. Perhaps we need an opposite version of the ’slut walk’. Have anyone carrying a camera in public take photos of burkha-clad figures. How are we to know if they are female ? Too bad they don’t seem to realise this sort of behaviour poisons the thinking of Canadians re muslims blending into our society. I hope he files charges against both the woman and the police.
My son and I were then surrounded by a mob of about 20 people, many of whom were speaking Arabic
Decked her? I doubt that.
@No: “The only source for every detail is David Menzies, who has a history of being a bigoted a**hole and an attention whore.”
I’ve not come across David Menzies before. Can you give us an example of him being a bigoted a**hole please?
Living near Toronto, this completely outrages me. If I were to punch a photographer because I went to a catholic school I would be suspended, charged and held without bail seeing as I am a 20 year old white male.
The freedom of panorama, press, and speech rights we have in this world are slowly being taken away. It is NOT illegal to videotape or photograph somebody in a public area, especially the police. If you are photographing someone to make sure they are preforming their job correctly, you have every right to do so, if you get assaulted, keep recording, take it to the supreme court.
I DEMAND this be dealt with, if not I will be writing constant and formal complaints to the TPD, as they operate about as efficiently as Belleville police department. (Sarcasm)
Religious people inventing new rules as they please should be opposed wherever they are. Maybe the people of Toronto, who don’t like to be bullied into respecting this nonsense should take their cameras and photograph everyone who is (provokingly?) flashing his adherence to his or hers religion (or his or hers interpretation thereof). Do not take one picture, but take hundreds. Overwhelm them until they stop.
Good point and good tactic!!
Why don’t you just sue her? I presume her information is on the police report. Just because the state wants to evade their duty doesn’t mean you have to sit quietly by. Unless, Canadian law varies substantially from US law in this case (which I doubt very much) you should have several causes of action depending on the extent of damage to yourself or your equipment. I suggest seeing a lawyer.
The guy should sue this woman. Police have the record of the affair and her data. That should be clean case in court. Nobody can in public place assault you, beat you in your face and damage your property. David Menzies, just go to court and show them the power of the law. You can also consider suing Police, however I would advise the lawyer first.
I would do it on your place just to show the point.
Turning a blind eye to incidents like these is exactly what makes the religious/Islamic diminshment of Western values an actual possibility rather than a philosophical one.
I don’t know about Canada but in the US he could have made a citizen arrest for assault and battery.
The police have to carry out the arrest or you can charge them with dereliction of duty and file suit against the officer and the dept.
These religious fools have a choice don’t bitch about someone possibly taking their photo or don’t go out into public places.
Very American of you, like my very good American friend. Straight talk is always a welcome fresh air.
Having read the Toronto Sun article and the comments, I note that most of the attention is directed at the reaction of the police and the legal ramifications of this assault.
I think another issue to be considered is the intensity of the emotions expressed by the Muslim woman. It is common knowledge that Islam is a male dominated patriarchal religion, in dire need of feminist liberation. Christianity went through this during the period of the enlightenment but Islam has lagged behind.
It seems to me that these are the origins of feminism within Islam. In my view, Women, Muslim women, will bring Islam into a state of Enlightenment as happened in Europe. For a Muslim woman to admit to herself that she is being abused and consider the immense ramifications of removing the scarf covering her face, to actually achieve equality with men, requires incredible courage and perhaps this woman wasn’t quite ready to take the step. She did what what could be described as denial. Also, what needs to be considered is the fact that she was surrounded by a crowd of Muslims, many of whom, I will guess,,,, were men, Muslim men..
What? Are you serious! She is a religious fanatic who had the manpower to back her up. She physically assaulted someone in the presence of his 9-yr old child. The men surrounded him and his child, demanded his camera saying they would ‘let him go’ when he complied. They did NOT have the right to do that. He had to force his way out of the crowd to get to the police WITH HIS CHILD and you think this is acceptable behaviour under the guise of feminist empowerment. That child must have been traumatized, his father must have been terrified for the safety of his son, and he WAS assaulted to boot, whether or not she was ‘only trying to knock the camera out of his hands’, she committed assault under the definition of the law! She was able to get away with this because the cops did not want to have her screaming RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE and RACISM at the top of her lungs. There were witnesses that came forward on their own accord and CCTV cameras. I hope he sues her and the police force.
Thanks for this.
I basically agree with what you say with the exception that I interpret the fact that the men about her (not the police) were there to keep her in line and to make sure she tells it like they want her to say it.
I say this based on my understanding of the nature of Islam which is patriarchical and denigrating to women. Now. obviously I wasn’t there and I don’t really know many details of the incident.
Menzies had a previous run-in with the Toronto police in Dec. 2010. He was innocent then, too, but he probably talked on the radio show that he frequents about the Dec. 2010 story and the way the police treated him. I believe the police decided to get a little payback when his name came up in their computer in this August, 2011 episode.
I think people are bending over backwards to make sure they do not appear to be biased against muslims. This is a problem. I was recently in an airport waiting to check in. The line was long and I got there 2 hours in advance. A woman in a burka was in line ahead of me. She had no ID that could be verified and 14 bags to check and none had tags etc. The rest of us had to stand in line while she had everything done for her by the woman at the counter. This took over 40 minutes. Those of us who followed the rules were kept waiting and then had to run to catch our flights just so this woman would not feel she was being discriminated against. This is very wrong.
Whether it is political correctness run amok, or racism of lower expectation or fear or simple laziness in taking the line of least resistance, what befuddles in such cases is that the people apparently just meekly waiting in line without complaint about an obvious breach of airport security happening right before their eyes, or unfair service, or sheer inconvenience.
Complaining at the airport only gets the complainer kicked off the flight as numerous news stories show us every day. Unfortunately, if one needs to fly, one cannot take the chance that legitimate gripes will only provoke the TSA bullies into retaliation. For the record, I sent an email to the airline about what occurred but have yet to receive a reply.
So religious beliefs, even those not supported in that religion’s text, supersede personal rights and the law, and the damage to persons or property from someone claiming a religious foundation for their actions will be considered acceptable?
The KKK should be thrilled to know that they now have such a haven, even if it means learning a different accent…
So, am I allowed to carry a gun and attack muslims as a preemptive measure? If they are free to attack, I am free to attack also. You give religion special rights, you owe special rights to all people.
Once again a Muslim, this time a woman, uses ‘Religious reasons’ for not having her photo taken. What absolute rubbish. Just like using ‘religious reasons’ for women having to wear the burqa. Nowhere in the Quran does it state that women must be covered from head to toe in an all encompassing mode of dress, with only the eyes showing.
But it does say that women are only worth half the value of men and that a woman who has been raped needs the testimony of four male witnesses.
Correct me if I’m wrong but her religion cites the word of Allah as given to his prophet and is therefore incontrovertible. I’m still trying to find where cameras are involved therefore giving rise to her ‘religious reasons.
All over the non Islamic world, Muslims continually cite religious reasons for their never ending demands and to mitigate their terrorist activity.
It’s about time they were reminded of whose countries they chose to live in, the laws, culture and values of those countries to which they should be subjected and be forced to leave if they do not comply.;
“But it does say that women are only worth half the value of men and that a woman who has been raped needs the testimony of four male witnesses.”
NO, this is not true, when a man and a women is accused for adultery, 4 men witnesses are needed for verification because mercy advances the penalty in Islamic law.
“I’m still trying to find where cameras are involved therefore giving rise to her ‘religious reasons.” IF a Christian person refuses to eat meet, will you try to ask the same question?
you are demanding too much than Muslim. you always want to find reason for why Muslim behave in such and such.. live and let live.
Mercy for the rapist rather than justice for the victim. Thus it prefers men over women, treating men as more valuable than women – exactly what you’re trying to deny.
Tell that to the Muslim woman who assaulted someone for taking pictures in public.
I solidily condemn her hysterical act! But should not forget the other side of the story. The democratic country gives you the right to shoot anything in public, but being a pupil of democratic country, she has right to protect her privacy. Forget the religious factor.
It happens in India always (the biggest democratic country in the world) but you can’t still shoot in public to whomever you please! If anyone request you to not take her|his picture, you should obey it. The court rules always in favor of the victim. In this case you are not a victim, instead you are provacanist! You are a violator of her privacy, her vandal act may be justified!!
There is no “other side” here.
Not in public.
FYI, the laws in India aren’t the same as the laws in Canada and the United States. Here, you have a legal right to photograph anything you can see in public.
Why?
You have no “privacy” in “public” – the two are mutually exclusive.
People, you are very nice and friendly out in the streets, but when you are behind your computers, you turn to evils. I will not say because you are Christians, NO, because religion has nothing to do with the way you are behaving with the others. the same should apply to the women, if the guy has the right to take photo, the lady has the right to refuse. FREEDOM is to do whatever you want but by doing so, you do not interfere with other people freedom.
is it the first time that someone refused or attacked a photographer for taking photo in public? or because in this case a Muslim lady is involved? THINK PEOPLE,
She has a right to object, because she has a right to express herself. She does not, however, have a right to refuse – anyone out in public can be photographed by anyone else and they have absolutely no recourse.
And no one has any right or freedom to not be photographed when in public.
No, it’s not, and in every instance the right to photograph has been upheld. This was just an unusually absurd instance because the woman was claiming a religious-rights-basis to a right to not be photographed. A basis that does not exist in any free nation.
Indeed, and before you weigh in on a matter you really should stop to look at what the law says.