Insulting police online banned by Granby, Que., bylaw

Quebec town already has bylaw under which anyone who insults municipal officials could be fined.

Insulting a police officer or municipal official on the internet has been made illegal in the town of Granby, Que., after the council voted unanimously tonight in favour of beefing up an already controversial bylaw.

In Granby — a town situated about 80 kilometres east of Montreal — it was already illegal to insult a police officer and other municipal officials​. Offenders could face fines ranging from $100 to as high as $1,000.

Tonight, the town council strengthened that bylaw to include online insults.

“In my opinion, if I threaten you via my keyboard, it’s as though I am making that threat right in front of you.… For me, it’s the same thing,” said Robert Riel, Granby’s deputy mayor.

The move comes after town officials discovered a Facebook page called Les policiers zélé de Granby — The Zealous Police of Granby.

Fascists…

‘Vulgar’ undies Comfyballs denied a U.S. trademark

Apparently following the precedent of an ice cream being banned for referencing testicles in its name…

A Norwegian underwear brand that caused controversy in the US and was denied a trademark is making its way to the UK.

The US Patent Office would not allow the brand to be trademarked due to the use of the word ‘balls’ in the company’s name, which is deemed to be vulgar.

Interestingly, the trademarks Nice Balls and I Love My balls have recently both been approved by the USPTO.

The USPTO likened the Comfyballs’ application to ice cream maker Ben & Jerry’s attempt to market an ice cream flavor called Schweddy Balls.

Interest group One Million Moms responded with outrage, and managed to stop such marketing.

So, because of the precedent of a proposed ice cream name they rejected, they will reject a brand of underwear (which is worn under one’s pants, not out in the open, so the ‘vulgar’ name can’t even be seen)?

Yet they approve “Love my balls” – even for outerwear…

Bureaucratic tyrants! Banning things entirely on whims, without rhyme or reason; allowing one thing but denying something similar, for no logical reason.

Virginia DSS Sued for Removing Children from Home on False ‘Medical Child Abuse’ Charges

Virginia DSS Sued for Removing Children from Home on False ‘Medical Child Abuse’ Charges.

The situation began in 2012 when Lane and Susan Funkhauser took their two children, a boy and a girl, to a doctor as the children had not been feeling well, but was unable to diagnose the problem. As the children remained ill, the Funkausers decided to homeschool their children while they sought further medical help so that they would not continue to miss school.

School officials soon filed truancy charges, which were dismissed. However, as a result, the Clarke County Department of Social Services soon became involved in the matter, and social worker Michael Austin accused Susan of having Munchausen Syndrome by proxy, a mental illness in which a parent invents, induces or exaggerates their child’s illness in order to draw attention to themselves.

During this time, the Funkhausers obtained a diagnosis from another doctor, who determined that the children had a combination of strep throat, parasites and a serious and contagious bacterial infection called C. Diff. (short for clostridium difficile) which kills over 14,000 Americans a year. As laboratory tests proved the presence of the C. Diff. infection, the doctor sent the Funkhausers to the hospital, where they were treated and released.

Nonetheless, in July 2012, the Funkhauser’s children were removed from the home by Clarke County DSS. They were taken to the emergency room, where it was confirmed that the children had C. Diff.

However, building off of Austin’s theory, social workers from the neighboring Shenandoah County DSS also became involved and placed the Funkhauser children in foster care. The county went to court over the matter, where a judge allowed them to continue to investigate and interrogate the children.

 

Ten Commandments Display in Texas May Violate ‘Highway Beautification Code’

Bureaucratic tyranny…

Will S.' Culture War Blog

Culture war, or is it just a cash grab?

A display of the Ten Commandments on private property may be in violation of the Highway Beautification Transportation Code of the Lone Star State.

In Sabine County, Texas, a pastor who placed a Ten Commandments sign on her property near a highway might have to remove the display or pay for a permit to maintain its present location.

Jeanette Golden, pastor at Word of Truth Family Church in Hemphill, was told by the Texas Department of Transportation that she would have to pay for a permit for the sign.

Last August, Golden placed the Ten Commandments sign on the edge of her 28-acre property, near Highway 21, according KTRE ABC 9.

“About three months later, she got a certified letter from TxDOT informing her to take the sign down,” reported ABC. “[Last week] the state said a permit was necessary. Total…

View original post 30 more words