Difference between revision 3 and current revision

Summary: ''Content moved from VorTexSucks. This discussion took place in April 2004, regarding some comments posted in February 2004'' The head of . . .

No diff available.

Content moved from VorTexSucks?. This discussion took place in April 2004, regarding some comments posted in February 2004

The head of security at the bar, Gilles, is not on a power trip. He just does a thorough job and enforces the rules. For example, there was a man in leather attire. That was fine. He took off his jacket and was basically shirtless. He couldn't enter Moby's since they served food. That's not the bar's rule. It's the law. (Ever enter Swiss Chalet shirtless? lol). And with the uniform, that is no issue. The only issue was the apparently real RCMP crest on the patron's arm. So, powertrips? No. Doing their job? Yes. The rent sign can also go on if they liquor board closes them down. :)

With regard to Officer Dick. Uniforms, etc. are welcome to my knowledge. Always have. And Vortex is actually hosting a Fetish Ball with, I assume, costumes and uniforms galore. I was there that night. You had an police uniform on which was NOT the issue. The issue was the RCMP crest on your arm... giving the illusion that it wasn't just a uniform fetish, but that you worked/part of the REAL RCMP. That was the issue. And your complaint to Carl Maxwell (who didn't know about it) and complaining to others was misleading.

Ok people - why is this issue being discussed again??? It was cleared up long ago. But one thing to note on the uniform comments recently posted over the last 24 hours: There was nothing illegal going on in regards to a crest being sewn on a shirt, it was a case of the security guy going overboard on a uniform wearer and it WAS NOT his place to do so. The NSLC isn't going to close down a bar over that topic and the health rules were sort of followed in regards to the other person not being allowed in Mobys without a shirt, but ever notice the food has to pass through Votex' hallway to enter the lounge so they would still have been in violation of the Health Act if someone wanted to persue it.

OfficerDick writes: I agree, why is this being discussed again? My last post on this page is above, dated February 13. It's been 2 months, I don't really feel like having this whole debate over again. Some people have too much free time... :(

Some people can't tell what reality is! The issue was an apparently real RCMP crest... hence, Gilles acting on the issue of impersonating a peace officer (drinking in uniform). That was it! And bottomline... it's a private establishment.

OfficerDick responds: Apparently, some people can't read, either.

Let's see what the Criminal Code has to say about the topic:

In other words, it's got nothing to do with shoulder patches. If someone was wearing that outfit in the middle of the street, attempting to pass himself off as an officer, he's obviously breaking the law. But in one of Halifax's GayBars, surrounded by GayPeople, where it's understood and accepted that there's something called UniformFetish, just down the street from ToolBoxEast which was hosting Uniform Night? It isn't the same thing. If you were there that night, you would know that I was let in (which involves getting past two security people, plus the coat check), relieved of $5.00 cover, and was served. I was there for about 15 minutes, and when I left (of my own free will), I was followed out of the bar by Gilles, who went into this big spiel about how the outfit was illegal, etc. etc. In case you missed my post the night this hapened (it's a few paragraphs up), I'll reiterate that this was several months after I sought advice from a VERY competent criminal lawyer on the topic.

Carl has indicated, not only to myself but to DragQueens and LeatherMen that Vortex does not have a dress code. Yet it's a known fact that I, along with DQ's and LM's have all encountered problems with the bar's security staff.

I'll also reiterate that I complained to Carl about what happened, and that he apologized. At that point, I considered the issue to be settled.

One last comment: If you're going to attack other people, get your facts straight. Or at least have the balls to put your name on what you're writing. Arguing with AnonymousCoward types isn't exactly my favourite pastime.

Hey OfficerDick - I'll bet money that you can link the recent anonymous postings with a certain person in the Peter Moll section, seeing as he (the anonymous poster) is the almost shirless leather guy mentioned a few paragraphs above. Just my thoughts on the matter.

Dominque Richard - Hello... just to put my two cents in... as a former lawyer (if there is such a thing... lol). Section 130(b) is rather interpretive. I would be careful as it would entirely depend on the local police and crown. I doubt it would be an issue they'd pursue, however, if they did, a judge would be in the lucky position of having to issue a judgement with some lack of precedent. And as with most criminal code matters, mens rea (intent) is key, not just actus reus (the act itself). So, bottomline... it's on the fence. Hope I've been of some assistance.

OfficerDick replies: Dominique, thanks for your advice. It's pretty the same as the opinion I sought last summer, i.e. lack of fraudulent intent, context, etc. (minus the Latin...I thought you wrote actus rectus for a minute...lol)...thanks again.