• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

If she weighs the same as a duck...

attempt5001

Muse
A
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
848
Location
Canada
Wasn't sure what topic this fit into best, but figured this would do. Interesting times in Canada with a woman being charged with "Pretending to practice witchcraft", a law that will be removed from the criminal code later this week.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/cana...om-law/ar-BBRagy1?li=AAggFp5&ocid=mailsignout

I often find old laws give interesting historical perspectives, as do the reasons they are maintained or eventually officially removed. In this case, they claim the law remained useful for persecuting certain specific criminal behaviours, though I would have thought laws pertaining to fraud would have covered this long ago.

Any other thoughts on this or example of other similarly strange laws? Anyone ever found themselves on the wrong side of some archaic law?
 
I think a law more specific to psychic frauds is actually preferable, perhaps even necessary. Where the defrauded person paid money for a specific service - a ritual to "banish a curse" - showing that s/he performed the requested ritual is enough for the psychic to avoid a fraud charge I should think. A law declaring the whole business baloney for legal purposes is extremely useful, because then the psychic can have performed all the rituals they want, it doesn't get them off the hook.
 
attempt5001 said:
Wasn't sure what topic this fit into best, but figured this would do. Interesting times in Canada with a woman being charged with "Pretending to practice witchcraft", a law that will be removed from the criminal code later this week.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/cana...om-law/ar-BBRagy1?li=AAggFp5&ocid=mailsignout

I often find old laws give interesting historical perspectives, as do the reasons they are maintained or eventually officially removed. In this case, they claim the law remained useful for persecuting certain specific criminal behaviours, though I would have thought laws pertaining to fraud would have covered this long ago.

Any other thoughts on this or example of other similarly strange laws? Anyone ever found themselves on the wrong side of some archaic law?
Click to expand...

I rather like the practicality of this law; I think it is (or was) similar in England. If a witch were able to prove she could perform magic to the court's satisfaction then she could not be convicted.

Historically in England (as opposed to many other countries) being a witch was not a crime, practicing witchcraft was not a crime, but you could be convicted of assault or murder by witchcraft. This was not easy to prove! For most of legal history (apart from short periods usually associated with civil unrest) witches in England were either not convicted or got trivial punishments.
 
How about a law that states that you cannot do business if you cannot prove that you can actually perform what your business promises to do.

If I'm an electrician I take a test and prove my knowledge. Your lights work when I leave your home.

If I serve food my place is inspected so that I provide actual food that is safe. You can eat it and see that yes, I do actually make food.

If I charge people to fix their computer/car/anything and I don't actually work on it, I can go to jail for fraud. Often I will need a certificate proving I can actually fix these things as well.

Psychics and such? I am performing a fake service, don't believe what I tell you, but it's $450 per hour. This product is not FDA approved, it does nothing, but buy it anyways you stupid moron.

I dunno man, sometimes I hate these frauds and sometimes I'm just as angry at the dimwits who keep them in business.
 
My favorite old law is in the damn Constitution. It grants Congress the power to deputize civilians to be pirates. The US hasn't issued a Letter of Marque to a seagoing vessel since 1815 (although, in 1941, a privately-owned Goodyear blimp was armed with a single rifle, making it technically a pirate). Congress still has the authority to do it and the US did not sign the 1856 Paris Declaration that basically ended the practice.
 
My mother, as a young girl, was cursed by a witch.

"May all your children be born naked!"

Damed if we weren't.
 
mgidm86 said:
How about a law that states that you cannot do business if you cannot prove that you can actually perform what your business promises to do.

If I'm an electrician I take a test and prove my knowledge. Your lights work when I leave your home.

If I serve food my place is inspected so that I provide actual food that is safe. You can eat it and see that yes, I do actually make food.

If I charge people to fix their computer/car/anything and I don't actually work on it, I can go to jail for fraud. Often I will need a certificate proving I can actually fix these things as well.

Psychics and such? I am performing a fake service, don't believe what I tell you, but it's $450 per hour. This product is not FDA approved, it does nothing, but buy it anyways you stupid moron.

I dunno man, sometimes I hate these frauds and sometimes I'm just as angry at the dimwits who keep them in business.
Click to expand...

I fear a lot of business would fail that litmus test, at least from time to time. And not just the obvious fraudsters or paddlers of placebos. Doctors, educators, dieticians and psychiatrists all might fail regularly. ;)
 
In Ontario, Canada, it used to the law that there was no legal limit to the number of passengers in a commercial vehicle, so long as all the available seatbelts were in use. So you could pile your buddies into the back of your pickup or pile most of the hockey team into the back of a van. I just found out last week that this law was changed years ago to restrict passengers to the number of seatbelts. Oops! :/
 
attempt5001 said:
In Ontario, Canada, it used to the law that there was no legal limit to the number of passengers in a commercial vehicle, so long as all the available seatbelts were in use. So you could pile your buddies into the back of your pickup or pile most of the hockey team into the back of a van. I just found out last week that this law was changed years ago to restrict passengers to the number of seatbelts. Oops! :/
Click to expand...


Absolutely true story: When I was a senior in college, my parents passed down to me their old Chrysler minivan. But they weren't stupid people. They worried that I might end up bussing around six of my friends. So they took the back bench and seats out. What they didn't realize was that this allowed me to actually fit even more people. I think we maxed out at 19.
 
Dancing David said:
Removing a curse is hardly the basis for a sound business practice
Click to expand...


You have to secretly curse people yourself and then offer curse removal services. Kind of like an undertaker who becomes a serial killer to drum up business.
More cynically, that could actually work in some communities. I remember an episode of one of those small-claims court TV shows many years ago in which a woman was suing her neighbor for throwing away a package that was delivered to her address by mistake. The neighbor was a first- or second-generation immigrant and she claimed that when she opened the package, the contents made her think that someone was trying to cast a spell on her.
 
Checkmite said:
I think a law more specific to psychic frauds is actually preferable, perhaps even necessary. Where the defrauded person paid money for a specific service - a ritual to "banish a curse" - showing that s/he performed the requested ritual is enough for the psychic to avoid a fraud charge I should think. A law declaring the whole business baloney for legal purposes is extremely useful, because then the psychic can have performed all the rituals they want, it doesn't get them off the hook.
Click to expand...


Could have some interesting ramifications if applied to churches.
 
Checkmite said:
I think a law more specific to psychic frauds is actually preferable, perhaps even necessary. Where the defrauded person paid money for a specific service - a ritual to "banish a curse" - showing that s/he performed the requested ritual is enough for the psychic to avoid a fraud charge I should think. A law declaring the whole business baloney for legal purposes is extremely useful, because then the psychic can have performed all the rituals they want, it doesn't get them off the hook.
Click to expand...
Why is that a good thing? No fraud should mean no charge.

Do we really need a nanny state government to rule on what is a valid and what is an invalid service to seek?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom