Is Harper exploiting cyberbully panic to reboot the Internet spying bill?

Jesse Brown notes familiar phrasing in the PM’s latest thinking

In the face of Canada’s incomprehension, grief and anger over the Rehtaeh Parsons case, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was characteristically calm and reasonable — at first.  In his initial reaction to the tragedy, he said the following:

“I think we’ve got to stop using just the term ‘bullying’ to describe some of these things. Bullying to me has a kind of connotation … of kids misbehaving. What we are dealing with in some of these circumstances is simply criminal activity.”

Sober words. Rape is a crime. Threats and defamation are crimes. Harassment and invasion of privacy can be crimes. We have laws that clearly define these offences and their punishments. What happened to Rehtaeh Parsons was (as Harper put it), sickening, and we should not for a moment tolerate it. But let’s not use a reductive, juvenile and hazy term like “bullying” to describe it. Instead, let’s learn the truth, enforce our laws and punish anyone who has committed a crime against this girl.

Her case has been re-opened by the RCMP, but while we’re waiting for justice to be done the Prime Minister has shifted his focus. Here’s what he had to say when the Rehtaeh Parsons case came up yesterday in the House of Commons:

“… one of the difficulties here is that investigative tools for our police officers have not kept pace with the Internet age. That must change.”

What a strange thing to say. It’s hard to imagine that it has anything to do with the RCMP’s investigation into the case. We’ve heard nothing of legal obstacles standing between the cops and an arrest. As the RCMP has itself documented, Internet providers require no warrants from police in cases of child endangerment.

So what is Harper talking about?

If his phrasing sounds a bit familiar, that’s because it’s cribbed from old Conservative talking points used to push Bill C-30, the infamous and failed attempt to expand warrantless police surveillance of the Internet. Here’s how Vic Toews’ Public Safety Ministry defended his ill-fated “Protecting Children From Child Predators Act”:

“While technology has advanced significantly over the past four decades … investigative processes available to law enforcement … have not kept pace with this evolution.”

It’s been long-rumoured that the Conservatives intend to revive C-30 and sneak the most objectionable aspects into some new, less controversial, piece of legislation. With the public clamouring for some kind of “anti-cyber bullying” law, will Harper get over his well-reasoned resistance to the “bullying” label and instead seize the opportunity to smuggle surveillance into Canadian law? Justice Minister Rob Nicholson is already suggesting some kind of new legislation. Will this be the smokescreen for C-30 2.0? How long before he makes like Vic Toews and tells us that we either stand with him or with the cyber bullies?

Do I sound paranoid, or am I right in suspecting that Harper just tipped his hand? We’ll learn that in time, but for now what I want to know is this: exactly what new “investigative process” is Harper contemplating, and how would it have made a bit of difference for Rehtaeh Parsons?

If it wouldn’t have, then I can’t help but wonder if the Prime Minister is exploiting the suicide of a teenage girl to revive a political initiative.

Follow Jesse on Twitter @JesseBrown




Browse

Is Harper exploiting cyberbully panic to reboot the Internet spying bill?

  1. Jesse, there was a young woman in Calgary. She and her boyfriend split. She received threatening tweets on her phone from his account. The police would not act because they said there was no way to prove the boyfriend sent the tweets. Now the boyfriend is standing trial for kidnap and murder of the girl. He actually had sent a tweet saying something to the effect that after that day she would be no more. I think perhaps that the “police have not kept up with the evolution of the technology”. I am not sure that we can assume that they will be randomly looking at people’s accounts so much as looking at them when people bring evidence of harassment and threats to them.

    • And ten years ago they would’ve said they can’t do anything about harassing phone calls and she should just ignore them ’cause he’ll go away.

      Issue remains that police and prosecutorial priorities and resources, and burden of proof don’t line up with what most people believe they do. I work in communications and we offer a call tracing feature that the customer themselves can initiate and then contact the police. In theory, the police can then get the information from us with a warrant as long as the trace completes. In practice, from my experience speaking to customers, in absence of any other credible information they will often explain why they’re unlikely to get to or be successful in court, can’t do anything about it and take no action whatsoever to even get the information.

      Now, in the case of the tweets, the issue is less that they can’t find the sender and more that unless they can catch him in the act of tweeting the messages in question he can always argue in court there’s no evidence he was the one that sent them: (ie: the burden of proof is too high to convict with just an IP trace alone). Changes to access to trace information won’t change that and I’m not sure anyone wants a law on the books that says “if it came from your device, you’re the guilty party” because that could not be subject to abuse at all.

      The thing that gets me about the latest crimes though is that the suspects are being dumb enough to provide the police with photographic/video evidence (which can be linked to a specific device if you know where to look), of the crimes in question and they’re still not acting.

      Which raises the question: why? Are we still locked in a boys will be boys mindset when it comes to young kids? Do we not want to “destroy” the poor kids who “just made a mistake”? Are there still people who think it’s the girls “own damned fault” for getting drunk and passing out at a party in the first place? Maybe we should answer those kinds of questions and ensure those procedures and policies have been fully corrected first before passing a reactionary law that won’t do anything to prevent this from continuing to happen. I’m willing to bet that for every one of these cases that make the news there’s at least one we don’t know about because the girls or boys are simply suffering in silence or no one knew what actually caused their deaths to happen.

      • I work in an industry where computer charting is done and of course it is confidential so your sign-on and your password are “your signature”. If you give it out, you are responsible for a breach in confidentiality and liable to get fired. Everything that is traced back to your sign-on is assumed to be “you”. I am not saying that they could prove in a court of law that a certain person didn’t give out their sign on and password but I am saying that the inability to prove this in a court of law shouldn’t stop authorities from approaching people who they suspect are threatening and bullying people using devices or cutting off their accounts. It is a privilege to have an internet account. If you are using it or you are letting someone else use your account to torture others, your account should get shut down.

        • I do appreciate your concern with what is happening with society in terms of these young people but I have no confidence that this sort of behavior is going to change anytime soon. Several years ago in Calgary 4 teenage males beat up a 5th boy so badly with a 2 x 4 that he ended up in ICU. The judge in the case gave them a sentence of house arrest. One of the parents begged the judge to allow their son to go on a trip to Europe to represent his school sports team. How can we expect to see a change in the values of youth when parents see no need for a change? In some cases, parents are actually behind the cyber-bullying. Perhaps you have heard of the crazy behavior that adults exhibit at youth hockey games? It would be nice to think we could change the behaviors but that is not likely.

          • I feel strongly against child abuse, as I’m sure most rational people do. I want to see it end with every fiber of my being. But that doesn’t mean I would want to see cameras placed in every home that has children, mine included, with the intent of ending child abuse or catching abusers at the cost of privacy to nurturing, law abiding parents.

            Believe me, I want law enforcement to have the tools to be able to stop abuse, harassment and other crimes etc efficiently and swiftly. But, in all honesty, I am not willing to do so at the cost of my own rights and freedoms, as well privacy. With bill c-30, those in a position to access these powers to gather information also have the ability to abuse this power. They are no different than anyone else, subject to the same fears, paranoias, emotional distresses, angers and so on, so the potential for abuse is very high. Imagine someone going through a messy divorce having access to these powers of obtaining information.

            Much like the gun registry the current gov’t abolished it because it was an “invasion of privacy” and made law abiding gun owners subject to scrutiny as if they were criminals. Bill c30 does the same, yet here is that same gov’t using basically the same argument as those that wanted to keep the gun registry: “if you’re not breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about”.

            In my opinion, this doesn’t make society safer or better, just bitter, and maybe a bit paranoid.

            Bill C-30 needs a lot of work before it comes back to Parliament because in it’s current form it’s simply terrible, unnecessarily intrusive and ripe for abuse.

          • I am not saying I am in favor of C-30. I am saying if someone is sending threatening messages or bullying via a device and a complaint comes to police, the service should be interrupted. Anyone who gives out their sign-on and password should take on the responsibility for the messages sent. If harmful messages are sent, the privilege to use the service to send messages is over. My guess is that we would see a whole lot less crap being sent.

          • I’m sorry, I wasn’t meaning to imply your were in support of c-30 – although I see how it could be taken that way. My apologies. While I understand what you’re saying there is still the possibility a person was hacked and never did give out there sign-on and password info or absent mindedly left an email, facebook account for example logged in while on a public connection – a library comes to mind. Now, interrupting the service would help to stop the messages coming from that specific account (even secure it for the actual owner), it doesn’t prove who was sending them, nor stop those who were sending them from continuing to do so on a newly created or stolen account. In the end, the absent minded person is punished for it by having their priviledge removed, until and unless they prove they are not guilty of doing it.

            Not all online harassment is done by people using their own home, work or personal accounts.

          • Well in the cases that have come up recently, the online harassment was done by social peers.
            Another interesting case of the internet and social media used for illegal exploitation of minors was the case of the alleged pimping by teenage girls. They were on a popular social media site sending messages to one another and hooking up with Johns. These people who have done these things have been exactly sophisticated in their activities. It doesn’t seem they have bothered to hack into anyone else’s account. There hasn’t been a need to because everyone is so sure that they can’t prove who sent the messages, they don’t even bother to try to shut down the sites.

          • All troubling, no doubt. So we have a percentage of people that use a social media sites for illegal activities and the solution is the site should be shut down? What consideration is given to those who use it responsibly, legally and get much enjoyment from doing so? In the end the people committing these acts just move onto the next social media site and continue doing what they are doing. The same could be said about newspapers – I can open my local paper right now and see ads for escorts. Should the newspaper be shut down? Seems a bit extreme.

            Personally, in my opinion, much like the entertainment industry (film/music etc) law enforcement has been lax on keeping up with technology. Instead law enforcement and gov’t would rather focus on more laws, less privacy and rights for everyone in hopes of catching those breaking the law. Hardly a fair and just system in my books. As we’ve seen recently, when focus is put on the actual crimes things happen. As we learned this time last year, near 95% of ISP’s willing give up info on customers committing illegal activities. When the police focus on the crimes and present relevant evidence (best they can without jeopardizing a case) they are met with no resistance all without breaching law abiding citizens rights and freedoms. All the tools are there for law enforcement, they just have to want to use them and follow through.

            I’m not saying more can’t be done, of course more can and needs to be done. I’m just not a believer that it can only be done by chipping away at our charter.

          • No, you miss understand me. I am saying the evidence is quite easy to see once the police look. Also, there is no need to shut down a site but once a person has used social media and and the internet to commit a crime, I think they have lost their right to use the device. In the 1980′s if a person was making repeated harassing calls to your residence and you reported it to the phone company, they would put a trace on your phone. Once they found the responsible party, they cut off their phone service. It didn’t matter if a neighbor was sneaking in using the phone…because that is an improbable likelihood. These are people who have the gall to use their own devices with their own sign on and their own password. When they harass someone and get caught because their is a complaint to police, there will be no need to breach any rights and freedoms. The evidence of their crime is right there. The police just need to shut down the ability to carry on harassing people.

          • There are many places in the work place where your employer can transfer you to a less appealing positions, make outrageous comments about your family and threaten you. We need third party investigations into any corruption.

          • Really?
            Where?
            When?
            Who?
            Why?
            Welcome to Sesame Street.

          • It is documented with the Ontario College of Teachers. Just ask Jacque Tremblay, he was there. You know the guy who wrote “Sexteen.”

          • Then attack the Premier of Ontario.
            The Prime Minister of Canada has nothing to do with your wild phantasms.

          • The Criminal Code of Canada is Federal. Read a book, take a civics class.

          • All these troubles of which you speak are not the faults of true Canadian Federalism or the Prime Minister of Canada.
            Because some Provincial Administrations must also share some of the blame–administrators of the morbid eastern establishment as well as the Quebec Regime in Ottawa, 1968-2006.
            They are the faults of political and economic irrationalism in Canada–asymmetrical federalism.

          • LOL Blah blah

          • That is your rational argument?

          • …and what are you going to do give up your job and expose the corruption. What is wrong with you?

          • I prefer oatmeal to filet mignon when it comes to corruption.
            I prefer to rot than betray the Canadian People.
            What is wrong with me?
            I took the hard road.

        • Private Industry is not a court of law though; in this case your work/personal relationship is governed by your contract of employment. So, yes, a place of work is entirely within their rights to fire someone if they violate that contract and said contract these days frequently includes a requirement that you protect your access codes to systems.

          However, as you note, they’d need additional proof to send you to court.

          Finally, wrt to your last sentence, I’m also not sure you want to be in a position where the allegation of abuse is all it takes to force companies to withdraw services. Again, laws are written in such a way as to ensure both parties are protected under the law: the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is something worth protecting. If it is going to be invalidated – and this has happened – it should only be done by a court of law with sufficient evidence presented to determine that the threat of continued access even before a trial is real.

          But, again, you need to get someone willing to treat the issue with importance first.

          • I work in the public service.
            As for the removal of service because you or someone you have given your password to is abusing the service. This has actually happened in telephone service. They removed service to people who made nasty calls that they traced. I used to work for a telephone company in the 1980′s. It wouldn’t be “alleged abuse”, the proof of the abuse is there. What’s alleged is who is the abuser. As soon as you give away your sign-on and password, you’ve allowed someone to take on your identity.

          • As much as I would like to agree with you, my experience has been far from the ideal you suggest here.

        • A young dedicated teacher was brutally sadistically murdered near Windsor. As I recall dozens of people in the Hospital were fired because they had violated privacy regulations and electronically open her file. Not one administrator was fired for allowing this outrageous computer system that made the temtaption to find out what happened to the poor woman…. What those employees did was terrible violation of that woman’s dignity after her death. What is even worse is hospital administration being paid over a million dollars and then not being fired for such an out outrageous open computer system.

          • James, when we are hired as healthcare providers, we are completely aware that we will have access to computer files of people who might be of interest to us but ultimately are “none of our business”. The reason the system is “open” and “accessible” is so that a physician who is working in another area of the hospital or is at home and is consulted to work with the patient, can look up information on the patient including all test results, etc. This also applies to the pharmacists and other experts who are not actually physically on the unit where the patient is located. You cannot blame the system for people who cannot resist the temptation to look at files that they have no right to see and only have seen them because they happen to work in an institution where a person was housed for a period of time. Would you want an acquaintance or family member looking at YOUR files? Electronic records are the way of the future. If you should travel to another province, they will at
            some point a hospital there to see everything about your medical history so you can be treated appropriately. Do not blame the system for the failing of human beings. We in healthcare know the rules.

          • I certainly agree with you but more then 20 people were fired. That suggest to me that far to many people have too much access to information. Now the other side of the coin…. in the area of Law enforcement the limits on who can use the information is terrible. One part of law enforcement can not share information with other departments…at least from what has been reported in the news papers. Currently police enforcement has caught all kinds of people doing strange things between Canada and the US, Why do we have to re-invent the laws when the very same laws will become obsolete in a few months. The criminal law is very clear. You knowingly harm a person you have caused an assault. The sexual assault law is clear too… Why are we literally spending millions on a enforcement service while little can be done to stop the sexual assults on a 15 year old girl? The question that is being covered up is very simple. What has stopped the police services from laying charges when they had witnesses and even pictures? Very troubling… Who knew about the abuse and did nothing? I have found it shocking to learn we have over 600 foster kids who have died in Foster Care. Who is policing them? We clearly need a third party investigation in hospitals, schools, and the police forces.

          • Name names.
            And then tell all of that to McGuinty’s crew.

          • Name name…and what are you going to do give up your job and expose the corruption. What is wrong with you?

          • I already told you.

          • Don’t be so damn dense. You really think most of us actually like McGuilty after the mess he made of the economy anywhere east of Toronto? Oh yeah, we’re totally doing fine, guys.

          • How do you make italics?

          • you put a bed, a male italic, and a female italic in a dark room with a bottle of wine, and let nature take it’s course.

          • You are a funny character.

          • Name names please.

          • You really are clueless aren’t you?

          • You are a funny man.

          • Thank you. The joke is on you!

          • Really?
            How so exactly?

          • I respectfully urge you to give it up, James. You might as well be arguing with a fence post. People like Christopher not only miss the forest for the trees, they’re barely aware that they’re even outdoors. You can point out what’s clearly obvious to almost anyone else, and they’re going to argue your use of punctuation. You’ll provide proof, and they’ll demand that you get it notarized. The very thing you’re arguing could be happening directly to them, and they’ll not only deny that anything’s happening, but they’ll simultaneously demand that you stop doing it to them (and they’ll happily move between both contradictory positions while calling you vile names). Orwell called it “double-think”, and he was pretty darn accurate — with one exception: you don’t need sharp mental acuity or any real intelligence to do it.

    • They just haven’t kept up on how to use the new technology. Anonymous has no trouble tracking down pedophiles, rapists and bullies online. Maybe the cops should start subbing out some of their computer based investigations to Anonymous.

      • Too true! You know how computer companies like Google, etc. hire all these very young brilliant computer “geeks”. That is what the cops need to do. However, it would likely blow the budget.

        • I think Anonymous would do it for free, if the cops asked nice.

  2. It may be about Bitcoin and the sleeper story of the millennium: the crypto currency uprising ;)

    • Being tied to cash, BitCoin is doomed to suffer the same fate as our modern currencies (control by the few at the expense of the many). That’s if it ever gets off the ground — states hate nothing more than anything challenging their sovereignty, and BitCoin challenges that. Alternative cash systems have been attempted, and crushed, many times before — if the state can’t control it, it’ll destroy it.
      Not that I’m against BitCoin (quite the opposite, in fact), I just don’t think we should get starry-eyed about it.

      • The governments would have to go to war against everyone in the world to stop crypto currency, and that is NOT going to be allowed. They simply do not have the agility to control this. If they had been able to stop BitTorrent, I may be inclined to believe otherwise. However, the internet has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the willful cooperation of the people surpasses any and every power on this Earth.

        When crypto currency becomes easier than fiat, customers will flock to those who accept it.
        Those who don’t accept crypto will simply crumble to dust by the simple fact that they’ll be forgotten by the masses. Effortlessly.
        Don’t let this happen to your business!
        This includes bank, guys. Bitcoin users don’t actually need banks.

  3. Jesse says: “Do I sound paranoid, or am I right in suspecting that Harper just tipped
    his hand? We’ll learn that in time, but for now what I want to know is
    this: exactly what new “investigative process” is Harper contemplating,
    and how would it have made a bit of difference for Rehtaeh Parsons?”

    But Jesse, your mind has already been made up thinking that the government’s mind has already been made up! (Re-read your article!) What’s there further to talk about? The Conservatives and PM Harper cannot be trusted from the get-go. So much you have made clear. No need to drag out this debate any longer. You’ve just managed to set the tone. Now let’s wait for the lyrics to this tune to be filled in! Come on, boys and girls, all together now!

    What is the point of hoping for a fair minded debate on this topic to ensue when the fair minded part has already been undermined?

    Nothing changes in Canada. It’s still the same old, same old pro-active approach taken: Harper and his government cannot be trusted! Harper and his government have secretive motives in mind, to be sure. There: You’ve said it. Now let the games begin!

    • “The Conservatives and PM Harper cannot be trusted from the get-go.”
      Without the rational distinction between what can or cannot be the road to actuality is very long indeed.
      Why?
      Because appearance is not reality.
      Where is your rational argument?
      Do you work for the secret service?
      Are you trying to attract mentally ill people in order to spy on them?
      Repondez a la question s’il vous plait.

  4. Rehtaeh Parsons was not primarily a victim of “bullying”, she was a victim of rape and she was blamed for that while her rapists were acquitted. As her own father said, after the rape trial she “died of disappointment”. Why is bullying the go-to story line on this when she was the victim of an actual, understand crime?

  5. CSIS and the RCMP require more money to spy on evil people that use the internet to commit crimes and prepare terrorist attacks.
    They require budget increases of at least three times the present rate.
    They require pay scales of at least 15 percent more than the present rate.
    They also require special service medals.
    And they require bonus pay when the enemy is crushed–at least 8 to 30 thousand dollars for each of the agents involved and points for their retirements.
    This is my policy.
    Why?
    Because we live in the age of terror and we will avoid another 9/11 and Boston Bombing.
    God bless the Prime Minister and Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada

    • In these times of economic hardships how do we pay for such expenditures without an increase in Federal taxes or rise in the national debt?
      End or decrease the subsidies and transfer payments to French-Canada.
      Separatism is dead thanks to Stephen Harper and Jean Charest.
      Quebec is the largest and richest province in Canada.
      Let the inferior ruling class of French-Canada solve its own problems.
      And very soon it will be replaced by the superior ruling class.
      This is the lesson of the exact historiography of the civilisation of the Western people.

      • Who is this guy ? Is he for real ? Am I the only one who’s confused by his digital version of mumbling non-sense?

        • No, but you might be the only one who stops to read it any longer. This one is fairly new, but obviously a jerk and/or nutbar. I just skip over the ones known for spouting nonsense all the time. Some may think my posts fall into that category, and they are welcome to skip my posts too (but they never do: they insist on responding, even though they are dead to me). It is very freeing, and I highly recommend it.

          • Wake up and smell the coffee.

        • I am Christopher Richard Wade Dettling.
          That is my real name and photo.
          What is your real name and where is your real photo?
          And that is all the difference.

      • Any agent who physically lays hands upon and arrests or disables or liquidates in the line of duty any terrorist shall thereby receive the Order of Canada and the sum of 30 thousand dollars as well as a promotion of two ranks. The family of any agent that is killed in action against the terror shall receive the Order of Canada posthumously and a full military funeral as well as the payment of 1 million dollars. All agents that are gravely wounded in the war against the terror shall receive the Order of Canada and payments of 250 to 500 thousand dollars plus the family payment plus a promotion of three ranks. Agents that are lightly wounded in the war against the terror shall receive the Order of Canada and a payment of 100 thousand dollars plus a promotion of one rank. All medical expenses shall be entirely assumed by the Government of Canada. No agent necessarily shall be released from the services because of injuries or disabilities sustained in the line of duty in the war against terrorism.
        This is my policy.

    • Seriously, stop trying to use false flag terror attacks (look it up; there’s overwhelming evidence that the FBI staged Boston) as an excuse for your poster-boy utopian fascist dictator Stephen Harper to spy on the PRIVATE communications of Canadians. And reading your below comment you are already in violation of the Charter. Discrimination isn’t good.

      • Are you trying to attract mentaly ill people?

  6. “–I can’t help but wonder if the Prime Minister is exploiting the suicide of a teenage girl to revive a political initiative.”

    No need to wonder — Steve is probably testing the water to see if he has credible cover to once again cater to the more paranoid of his core supporters.

    • Which logicians do you follow–the sophists?

      • Wow — how erudite! Actually my logic is based on Steve’s previous behaviour

  7. Well if he is, and I can believe that he’s at least thinking about it, Canada is just going to have to smack it down for a second time. Maybe then Canada will wake up and see the cons as the hacks they are.

  8. The Criminal Code is very clear. The Law on abuse is very clear. The Law on rape of a child is very clear. The Laws on child porn is very clear. NOW they have to enforce the laws, not add to the 1000,000 laws we have currently on our books. Mr Prime Minister please do your job and make the laws work to defend against the abuse of children. Third party investigation of police departments and government agencies must be the norm. Stop playing with the life and death of a child. In Ontario over 600 children have died in Child Services….. When any one is sexually abused under the age of 16 the Law is clear. We just had a court system give the penalty of house arrest to a Foster parent who sexually exploited a child and got her pregnant. Make the system work and stop passing meaningless laws that will do nothing but give the appearance of action.

    • If this isn’t the current law let me know……..

      The Criminal Laws of Canada are very clear. …

      “151. Every person who, for a sexual
      purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an
      object, any part of the body of a person under the
      age of 16 years

      (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is
      liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years and to a minimum
      punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; ….. ”

      or

      “153.1 (1) Every person who is in a position
      of trust or authority towards a person with a mental or physical disability or
      who is a person with whom a person with a mental or physical disability is in a
      relationship of dependency and who, for a sexual purpose, counsels or incites
      that person to touch, without that person’s consent, his or her own body, the
      body of the person who so counsels or incites, or the body of any other person,
      directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, is guilty of

      (a) an indictable offence and liable to
      imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or…”

      ” 163.1 (1) In this section, “child
      pornography” means

      (a) a photographic, film, video or other visual
      representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,

      (i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as
      being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as
      engaged in explicit sexual activity, or….”

      ” 264.

      (1)

      No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is
      harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in
      conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably,
      in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known
      to them.

      Prohibited conduct

      (2)

      The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of

      (a)

      repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to
      them;

      (b)

      repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person
      or anyone known to them;

      (c)

      besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or
      anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or

      (d)

      engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of
      their family.

      Punishment

      (3)

      Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of

      (a)

      an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
      five years; or

      (b)”

      • Put your law books away and start reading logic.

        • There is no logic in politics, where did you go to school?

          • That is a sophism of political and economic irrationalism.
            Where is the rational proof Albert?
            Perhaps reason is also a delusion?
            And no doubt I am dreaming all this too.

          • Lots of double talk. You must be a graduate of a law school in Ontario.

          • Doubletalk?
            Really?
            Why?

          • Law School in Ontario?
            Is it really that bad?

          • “There is no logic in politics.”
            James Black

        • Reading logic? Obviously you have no ability to understand anything!

          • Obviously?
            Why do you attack the Prime Minister of Canada?

          • maybe because Harper is a lying, scheming second rate dictator with delusions of godhood?

            that’s more or less my reason for disliking the man. his may be different.

          • Why may be?
            You dislike people based upon conjecture or phantasm?
            I am very sorry for you.
            “There is no logic in politics.”
            Haha haha ha ha
            Where is that old troublemaker Junior?

    • Why do you not send those statements to the Premier of the Liberal Government of Ontario and use the same tone?
      Because you might lose your job?
      In other words, do you have the balls?
      We will see or we will not see.
      I am betting you are a political eunuchoid.
      How much?
      Anyway, how do you enforce the laws when the prisons are overcrowded?
      Put convicted felons into imaginary cells?
      The bleeding heart liberals give many convicted felons a slap on the wrist.

      • Who has Balls? Not you obviously.

        • I am back from 60 Minutes and CNN.

        • You are exactly like Junior.

        • That is Junioristic phraseology.

      • I have sent the Statements to the Premier. So what?

        • Where did you send them?
          Come on where is the dope?
          Take a photo of the documents and post them.
          Show me the email.
          N.B.

          • Stop going to bat for Stevey. If you can’t see the shit he’s put Canada through then you’re one of those losers who blindly votes for him without considering consequences.

          • Consequences?
            Elaborate, if you please.

    • I’d like to suggest that the purpose of such laws has nothing to do with either stopping or preventing the crimes for which they’re stated. The provisions in Bill S-7, for example, have been in force for a number of years and although they’ve been used numerous times, not a single one of those times had anything to do with terrorism or related charges. The Harper agenda is quite transparent if one stops listening to his rhetoric and starts observing his actions.

  9. Let him bring it on and Canadians will lay the smackdown on him once again!

  10. I highly doubt Harper cares about Rehtaeh Parsons a rape victim (which we have laws against, often not enforced by our legal system). This is political exploitation to give the government control over the internet. Its no different than the Boston bombing be used to pass CISPA after its previous failed attempt because Americans don’t want government/corporations spying on them. These criminals will use any reason take our rights away.

    I’m really getting tired of signing petitions against the same bills that Canadians don’t want. Please stop this criminal and his party from exploiting a crime our law legal system failed to prosecute with existing laws that make rape illegal.

  11. If Harper passes the spying bill; He, the CPC, RCMP and CSIS will have to live with the civil-cyberwar they have created.

  12. It’s very much the Vic Toews “you’re either with us or your with the child pornographers” mentality. In fact, Toews used a press conference announcing a major child porn ring bust to show just how ineffective current laws were at catching such criminals. The only thing worse than Toews’ expectations that Canadians are stupid enough to accept that kind of idiotic argument, is that there actually ARE people out there that accept it — no questions asked.

  13. O.K. I’ve read all your criticisms? What’s the solution to this incessant bullying? It is what it is, severe bullying. Obviously something has to be done. So let’s get some ideas instead to get ahead of this bill. Any practical and valid ideas out there?

  14. what a terrible, environmentally irresponsible, secretive, scheming, manipulative and untrustworthy government we have in Canada today,

  15. “As the RCMP has itself documented, Internet providers require no warrants from police in cases of child endangerment.” The issue Jesse, as you well know, is that police have absolutely no control and an inability under any Act or statute to hold the Internet providers accountable in an emergency situation where judicial authorization in the form of a warrant is too slow.

    The ISPs can provide this information VOLUNTARILY under PIPEDA (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act). There has been more than one documented occasion where private companies, who exist for profit and not the protection of society, are making life and death decisions, and police can only continue to plead to their good nature. One example is in Kingston, Ontario where detectives had online evidence about a suicidal youth and made an appeal to the ISP, who denied them the subscriber information required to track this person down and possibly save his or her life.

    I understand the need for police accountability and oversight, but law enforcement is falling behind with the tools and judicial authority to do their jobs in certain situations (not necessarily in this case). Let’s all reasonably assess these situations. Yes, the Conservative government often pushes for too much, too fast (or shoots itself in the foot with telling people they’re siding with the child pornographers), but those who are so far left protecting their own rights and those of the criminals, are often forgetting there are real victims who are being further victimized because we’re not keeping pace with technology.

  16. SCENE- Principal’s office in a school somewhere in Ottawa,
    Ontario.

    Intercom buzzes: female voice “Principal Smith, Mrs. Harper
    is here for her appointment.”

    Principal Smith “Send her in Bridget”.

    Door opens, principal walks over, greets woman, motions her
    to sit down and closes door.

    Principal Smith “Mrs Harper, may I call you Laureen.”

    Mrs. Harper “yes you can.”

    Principal Smith “Laureen, you’re probably wondering why I called you in on such short notice. Its about your daughter Rachel. Her home room teacher has caught her – well-
    cyber-bullying. She’s been posting insulting photos and messages about a new
    girl. Here, let me show you. Look at this. It’s a very bad picture and that comment is nasty. Then there’s this one, its from a musical production the new girl was involved with at her old school. That is cruel and beyond the line. And then there’s this- a series of
    pictures taken of the new girl which she was much younger, sucking her thumb
    and crying, with the caption, Justine, just a big baby.”

    Mrs Harper “Hmmmmmm.”

    Principal Smith “ You understand we have a very strict
    policy against this sort of behavior and we can’t allow it to continue.”

    Mrs. Harper “ My husband Stephen and I will talk to Rachel
    tonight. We’ll make it clear that vicious and malicious public attacks
    conducted online and through the media are wrong. That any sort of bullying is
    not acceptable behavior.

    Principal Smith “Laureen, if I may be candid, maybe you
    better leave Stephen out of the discussion. Just a matter of credibility.”

    Mrs. Harper “Good point.”

    The End.

  17. This bill is about spying on citizens. The Conservatives are using the the Rehtaeh Parsons case to bring back C-30.

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