Mob Outrage

In another outstanding National Post (June 19) blog piece of investigative journalism, John Ivison treated his readers to a red flag hoist warning of mob outrage relating to the criticism of our vulnerable Governor General, known in some circles for his shock of white hair and past hockey prowess. One can only assume that Ivison’s assimilation is complete into Canadian society as an original Scot immigrant who has a burrr under his saddle and now feels it his patriotic duty to warn his fellow Canadians that criticism of the Queens representitive for an acknowledged faux pas is now outrage by the mob!

Thank god, those critics who in great numbers criticized the critics of the Governor General’s original statement are not┬áby Ivison’s rigorous standards , considered part of the mob.

Please note: Possible source of Mr. Ivisons application of mobbing.Just guessing!

Mobbing (Scots law)

From Wikapedia

Mob

In HM Advocate v Robertson (1842) 1 Broun 152, at 192 to 193, Hope L.J.-C. said in his direction to the jury:

An illegal mob is any assemblage of people, acting together for a common and illegal purpose, effecting, or attempting to effect their muncer purpose, either by violence, or by demonstration of force or numbers, or by a species of intimidation, impediment, or obstruction, calculated to effect their object.

He went on to say:

It is not necessary that the purpose or object of the mob should have been previously concerted, or that they should be brought together and congregated with the view previously formed of effecting the object subsequently attempted. It is enough, that after they have been so assembled and brought together, finding their numbers, and ascertaining a common feeling, they then act in concert, and take up and resolve to effect common purpose. There must, however, be a common purpose and object, for which they are combined and acting in concert, after they are congregated and operating as such throughout the acts alleged to be acts of mobbing. That object or purpose must be unlawful.

These passages were approved by the High Court, as an accurate statement of the law, in Hancock and others v HM Advocate 1981 SCCR 32.