Vic Toews parses himself

by Aaron Wherry

In an interview with CTV, the Public Safety Minister maintains there’s a difference between saying someone “stands with” child pornographers and saying someone is a child pornography “sympathizer.”

Speaking with the CBC yesterday, Mr. Toews similarly complained when it was suggested he had said opponents of the government’s legislation supported child pornographers.

Evan Solomon: That’s pretty explosive language, minister, do you think anyone who disagrees with this legislation is standing with child pornographers?

Vic Toews: You know, I said that in the context of a vote in the House of Commons. But the point is, even your introduction, you indicated that I had used the word “support,” which was misleading. I think we have to be very clear. You torque up the rhetoric in order to make a point. And that’s unfortunate, so let’s…

Evan Solomon: With all due respect, minister, when you say you either support, or stand with us…

Vic Toews: No, I didn’t, see you said it again…

Evan Solomon: You said, you either stand with child pornographers, you stand with child pornographers. I just showed the quote. Isn’t that, aren’t you the one that;s torquing the rhetoric up, not me?

Vic Toews: No, you just, in fact what you indicated was to try to slide it into another issue. The issue
of supporting child pornographers is an entirely different issue. And I’m glad you played the full quote. At least you played the full quote, so that Canadians could see exactly what I said and why I said it.

Evan Solomon: But minister, my point here is in a sensitive issue that has to do with judicial oversight, by using that kind of language, standing with child pornographers, does it all of a sudden polarize an issue and mean that we cannot have a dispassionate discussion because you are calling the opposition to this standing with child pornographers? Meaning, delegitimizing some legitimate questions about this bill.

Vic Toews: Look, we will entertain any concerns or legitimate questions about this. But it is clear that presently the legislation does nothing to stop the proliferation of child pornography, which is a huge problem in this country. It’s a huge problem worldwide. Canada, in fact, is out of step. What we are doing is bringing legislative framework into place that places us exactly in the same place that the Americans are in and that the Europeans are in, in order to deal with an international problem.




Browse

Vic Toews parses himself

  1. Mr. “Torture is cool” is still a piece of Peter Kent.

  2. we do not want, need or will stand for government interference. there must be a better way for finding those sick bastards stalking children than spying on us all. Frankly what I do is none of your damned business. If I thought it was, I’d tell you.

  3. The other country’s include a “Warrant” in the legislation.  That make a difference.  Making it sound as though the Canadian law would be the SAME is misleading.  Canadians are smart, they know the difference.  Gee

  4. What evidence does he have that selling out the privacy rights of Canadians and opening them up to inevitable police abuse will do anything to protect children from child pornographers? Why can it not be achieved through a process that requires warrants to access private information?

    A government that insists on the people’s right to own firearms without oversight is advocating stripping Canadians of their online privacy and turning Canada into a police monitoring state.

  5. bye bye Cons.. your doing it to yourself

  6. The link between hate speechers and anti-hate speech laws is far far stronger than the link between child pornographers and internet surveillance. Very shortly the house will debate repealing hate speech laws.  Will Vic Toews proudly admit he stands with white supremicists and violent anti-semites on the issue?

    (of course he won’t. he is a liar.)

  7. Sounds like something Egypt would have liked to have had in place a little over a year ago.

  8. You know, if we’re going to be throwing extreme rhetoric around it’s worth noting that China and Iran like to monitor their internet too. Guess now we know why the Conservatives were eager to silence Richard Fadden’s accusations of excessive foreign influence on politicians.

    • It’s also worth noting the Hugo Chavez down in Venezuela.. does not.

  9. it is going to be sweet watching evan solomon sell cars or coffee next year when the CBC is gone. what a spineless dweeb.

    • You do realise you are a Jack*ss, don’t you?

  10. when this law passes will i have to login for a time to cut my grass or when i can take a leak.this is a further attempt to control the masses  and enforce police state.

  11. To be clear, according to the Conservatives:
    - Gun registry bad, too intrusive
    - Census bad, too intrusive
    - Internet monitoring regime good, if you don’t like big government intruding into your email then you’re friends with a child molester.

    It’s a sad reflection on Canadian voters that these morons were ever elected.

  12. OMG! W(here)TF am I going to move now? Anyone know a place where there is a lot of land for sale that I can create my own country for people to live a free life without government dictatorship? It sure as hell isn’t North America anymore! When are the people actually going to take these countries that are ruled under “martial law” back? Should have bought Iceland when it was going cheap!

  13. What is ironic here is that with this freedom for police to get any citizens private information, the gutting of the census and the abandonment of the gun registry are empty gestures. 

    Why require citizens to give you information when you can just take it anyway?

  14. Totalitarianism is coming to Canada, the purpose of this legislation is to suppress dissent.  That is the way to establish tyranny.

  15. And, in fairness, there is a difference between standing with and supporting.  Child Pornographers, amongst others, are against government having the ability to track their online presence.  They stand on one side of the line.  If a person is also against the government having that ability, then they stand on the same side of the line.  Standing on the same side of an argument IS different than supporting child pornographers.

    • The leadership of China favours tracking its citizens’ online presence so I guess the Tories stand with the Communists.

    • True, there is a difference between split hair and split ends.

    • That reflects a bad attitude on the part of Vic Toews. How is it in any way conducive to discussion to make the statement that opponents of the bill are standing with child pornographers? How is this loose relation between opponents to the bill and child porn in ANY way useful or meaningful? It is a vague, ad hominem attack with just enough wiggle room to say “I didn’t say what everybody thinks I said!” And yet the very fact that he said it at all (whether ‘support’ or ‘stand with’) reveals his intent to paint the opposition and child pornographers with the same brush.

    • Semantic bullshit that means nothing when you’re dealing with how people actually use the language.

    • So, in fairness then, people who like chocolate stand with the child pornographers.

      That’s much better then.

  16. I guess you don’t need a gun registry anymore if you can just track peoples’ movements through their cellphones.  If Bob went down to the gun shop, he probably wasn’t buying a hamburger.

    • It’s difficult to tell if this reply is sarcastic or not, but in case it is serious, the number of times one visits a gun store would have little to do with the number of guns one has in their possession.  On each trip an individual could purchase none, one, or more than one gun.

      • Regardless, in any case the government shouldn’t be able to track how many times you went to the gun store.  CERTAINLY not without a warrant.

        Let’s not lose the forest in the trees.

  17. With Toews twisted logic, we can extrapolate that he supports Hitler.

    Adolf Hitler himself, referring to such tactics, wrote:

    “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. ” -Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403 

    • Well, if not actually supporting him, then at least STANDING with him.

  18. Typical politician, will say anything to get the reaction he wants, will do anything to stay in power.

    We all need to realize that cell phones can be easily hacked, just look at the news agencies in the UK. These are just the guys that got caught, I believe this sort of thing goes on all over, and anyone that put personal info on the net is an idiot.

  19. the truly crazy part is when he gets huffy with the interviewer for “torquing up” rhetoric. My mind would be blown were it not for the six year history of these losers in office.

  20. “Let’s not talk about statistics, let’s talk about danger… I want people
    to be safe.”

    Incredibly, that was Toews just last week, shamelessly fearmongering a different, equally poor piece of legislation. You gotta wonder about a guy who can polish a turd with such enthusiasm.

  21. It is a problematic piece of legislation, for all of the reasons offered up here and elsewhere.  Furthermore, if it does not invoke the “notwithstanding” clause, it has no hope of surviving beyond the year or two before a court tosses it for infringing the Charter.

    Harper must surely understand this – he may eat kittens for lunch, but he is not dumb.  Therefore, the real question here is why are the Tories pushing this?  The quick and dirty answer is that it’s more red meat for the base and it will eventually give them another occasion to rail against judicial activism.  However, as one of the base, I’m quite content with the meat we’ve already been tossed and the judicial activism issue will presumably become less so with four more years of appointment power.  So what Harper hopes to accomplish with this is frankly a mystery, to me at least.

    • Why do kittens keep coming up so much lately?

      I keep telling people, there’s no evidence that I’ve seen that Stephen Harper eats kittens.  DALTON MCGUINTY is the “evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet”.

    • I’m quite willing to be demonstrated incorrect, but reaching back into the mists of educational time, I seem to remember that one of the keys to being able to sign the trade agreement is that we need to substantially harmonize our Privacy regime with that of the European Union. If I remember correctly, they’ve had similar legislation on the books (something about a Directive and 1980 with subsequent updates during the 1990s) for around thirty years now. 

      Clearly, I don’t know the specifics of their Lawful Access regime, but I’m reasonably sure that they have one and we are to have one too (“Substantially Similar”, like PIPEDA) if we are to sign the trade agreement with the EU. It also goes without saying that the United States would also like it if we did. In both cases, it has more to do with making it easier to catch violators of Intellectual Property rights or individuals suspected of terrorism.

      If this is indeed the case and my memory is correct in this instance, I’d rather it be brought up in this fashion rather than making it a “with us or against us” or a “think of the children” morality play. Again I stress, that I could be grossly misremembering.

  22. All those who were dismissed as paranoid when they claimed the Harperites had a “hidden agenda”? You can come out now, you’ve just been vindicated.

  23. False positives! Look it up Vic. It can happen to you. Or anyone.

  24. He seems VERY interested in the issue of child porn.

    IF you know what I mean…………….

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *