Via Nealenews, this disgusting spectacle:

Furious veterans are renewing their demands that the National War Memorial be guarded to protect it against "disgusting" assaults after young men were caught urinating on it during Canada Day festivities.

A retired major snapped digital pictures of several people relieving themselves on the monument around 11 p.m. on Saturday, as thousands poured into the streets following the fireworks.

Most cheered and laughed when they were photographed using the memorial as a toilet on the nation's birthday.

Most cheered and laughed? Fine. Most of them were drunk and stupid (and remember, in the morning, they'll be sober, but no smarter). But what of the rest? Where was the big strapping fellow who could grab this idiot by the scruff of his neck and pull him off the monument. Maybe the guy relieving himself would accidently piss on the big guy's shoes, providing a perfect excuse for a thorough thrashing.

But we live in enlightened times. Now we see something disgusting, we hope the police will come take care of it one day, maybe soon.

Let's consider less enlightened times. Consider 1285, in particular:

At common law, a hue and cry (Latin, hutesium et clamor) was a process by which bypassers were summoned to assist in the apprehension of a criminal who had been witnessed in the act of committing a felony.

By the statute of Winchester, 13 Edw. I cc. 1 and 4, (1285) it was provided that anyone, either a constable or a private citizen, who witnessed a felony shall make hue and cry, and that the hue and cry must be kept up against the fleeing felon from town to town and from county to county, until the felon is apprehended and delivered to the sheriff. All able bodied men, upon hearing the shouts, were obliged to assist in the pursuit of the criminal, which makes it comparable to the posse comitatus. It was moreover provided that a hundred that failed to give pursuit on the hue and cry would become liable in case of any theft or robbery. Those who raised a hue and cry falsely were themselves guilty of a felony.

Now public urination is not a felony, but then desecrating a grave is in many jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, desecrating the grave of a veteran is a special case and considered a felony and not a misdemeanor.

In any case, urinating on a grave could reasonably be considered a hate crime at the time, even if subsequently it turns out the perpetrator was just a drunk.

In 1285, criminals weren't likely to be armed with handguns, but then neither was this drunk. It might have been nice to see disgusted Canadians actually acting on their disgust, instead of just waiting for the taxpayer to take care of it for them.

But then would I have done anything about it myself, had I been there? Probably not. Unlike England in 1285, had I laid a hand on the fool, I would have been charged with assault, and probably get slapped with a civil suit too.

Looks like Kate has similar thoughts on the matter, though more succinctly put.

Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary

Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords

Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!