The True North Times
  • Ineligible for the Supreme Court
  • The only thing that Andrew Coyne DOESN'T hate
  • Winnipeg? There?
  • It's Dynamite!
  • Yet to be castrated by Margaret Wente
  • Exporting Beaver Hides to the Metropol since 1608
  • Now with 60 minute hours!
  • Peter Mansbridge’s bathroom reading material
  • First to podcast with Wilfrid Laurier
  • For the sophisticated hoser

The Supreme Court of Canada Friday issued a ruling that police officers need to get one of those warrants to gets personal information from Internet Service Providers (ISPs), which does not bode well for the Conservatives’ new anti-cyberbullying bill. Wait, what? Why is there a connection between cyberbullying being bad and hitting up ISPs for juicy customer data?

At it’s core, Bill C-13 (Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act), is an anti-online crime bill. Notably, it has anti-revenge porn provisions, meaning that under the bill, you wouldn’t be able to post nudes of your ex to get back at them, because that’s totally a dick move (sometimes literally).

The rub is the enforcement provisions. So how do you catch these revenge pornographers after identifying them? For the Justice Minister, it’s letting police officers give Bell, Shaw, and Rogers a call and asking for all those sweet IP address and names, and then throwing these perps in prison, provided, of course, “reasonable grounds for suspicion,” otherwise known as the ‘pinky-swear provision’.

 

Would this man ever lie to you?Chris Wattie

Would this man ever lie to you?
Chris Wattie

 

In Canada we seem to have this notion that if you have evidence, good hard evidence, you go to a judge, convince the judge that you need a little bit more, and get the warrant to get the extra bit of info you need. That’s real police work. Whereas what this bill proposes is that when it comes to online activities, everyone should be accountable for everything because…gathering evidence is hard? And rights are overrated.

The Supreme Court ruling would seem to help shape the bill, but given how MacKay has treated SCC rulings in the past, it’s likely it’ll be trivially considered, but mostly avoided.

Trudeau, Mulcair, and the hippy train of anti-Harperites have proposed a reasonable idea: Split the bill in two, leaving the criminalization bill to pass easily, and the enforcement bill to be the subject of further debate.

However, it’s likely that Justice Minister Peter MacKay would rather bludgeon the opposition by asking if they’re opposed to protecting victims, and asking the privacy commissioner if he would “disagree with the police?”

After all, none of us would ever want to disagree with the police, especially not when they want to make it easier to arrest us. It’s their job to rob us of our privacy, and our duty to baa like sheep.

  • Justin Flontek

    No one is saying all of Bill c-13 is bad. The parts about revenge porn are good, but the parts allowing police to invade privacy, without a warrant are not acceptable. In fact, they are a violation of our rights.

    It’s pretty obvious that the author of this article is nothing but a fascist, trying to give Canadians’ rights away. Well I’ve got one thing to say to the author, go f*ck yourself!

    • ronpaulfan1976

      tg

      • RonPaul4Pres

        we don’t need the state to tell us revenge porn is bad. if it was good we’d all already be doing it 24/7

    • ronpaulfan1976

      the police only rob us of our privacy the fascist pigs fuck

  • Snuffo Laughagus

    Surely you meant that “Justice Minister Peter MacKay would rather bludgeon the opposition by asking if it will ‘stand with us or with the revenge pornographers’… Hmmm, didn’t I hear that before? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZjRf4mysx0

  • Lovelle Miles

    Bullying remains a public concern. What we want for our children is that, we want them to have the assertiveness skills necessary to feel confident and able to stand up for themselves and, equally important and difficult, to be able to stand up for their peers. As a mother, I always teach my children ways to feel good about themselves, how to get along with others, and how to treat each other with respect and dignity. I would like to share this link, about a service on how to protect your children: Check it out it’s interesting: http://safekidzone.com/?a_aid=514ae252c9f64

    • Snuffo Laughagus

      Yes, bullying is a concern. But if you listen to Carol Todd, the mother of Amanda Todd for which this bills is supposedly written, she very clearly states that it is not worth losing our privacy for: “I don’t want to see our children to be victimized again by losing privacy right” http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cyberbullying-victims-parents-divided-over-privacy-concerns-in-online-bill-1.2641104

      In the end, it’s up to us as parents to empower our children to be themselves and never be bullied by ANY authority, even that of their parents or teachers. THAT is the difference between a humanist upbringing and a fascist one that turns people into submissive sheep. When my son was bullied in school as a kid, he defended himself and beat his oppressor and he was able to do so because we instilled in him a healthy sense of self-worth instead of the fear authority is so often keen to instill from a young age into future citizens. So when the school board reprimanded him and called us to complain about his ‘improper behaviour’, I quickly let them know they were wrong and that dignity sometimes demands drastic action, and let my son that he did the right thing and let him know that he will experience times when society will disapprove of him and to stand up for what is right. As a result of this altercation, he was never bullied again and the kid who bullied him got a great life lesson and did not end up as a jerk.