Bill C-13 Does Not Address Online Bullying

In spite of the Harper Government's public claims to the contrary, Bill C-13 has very little to do with online bullying.

It talks about a whole lot of things, but only a small fraction has anything to do with online bullying.  At its core, it adds a few changes to essentially broaden the definition of child pornography and pornography by creating a definition for "intimate images".  This is not particularly meaningful in the realm of online bullying.

The very definition of an "intimate image" is highly problematic at the best of times:

162.1 (1) Everyone who knowingly publishes, distributes, transmits, sells, makes available or advertises an intimate image of a person knowing that the person depicted in the image did not give their consent to that conduct, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave their consent to that conduct, is guilty 

(a) of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or(b) of an offence punishable on summary conviction. 

Definition of “intimate image”(2) In this section, “intimate image” means a visual recording of a person made by any means including a photographic, film or video recording,(a) in which the person is nude, is exposing his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts or is engaged in explicit sexual activity;(b) in respect of which, at the time of the recording, there were circumstances that gave rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy; and(c) in respect of which the person depicted retains a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time the offence is committed.

Fundamentally, this sounds like an attempt (and a very bad one) to define what constitutes an "obscene" image rather than an "intimate" image.  Using this definition, some of the pictures we have seen of Rob Ford could be construed to be "intimate images", and yet the publication of those very images have provided valuable public insight into the character of this man who would be mayor and claims further to have designs on the Prime Minister's office.  Does Rob Ford peeing on a bush in a parking lot have a "reasonable expectation of privacy"?

Perhaps more troubling is the fact that this law gives the police extraordinary powers to seize people's computers "on the balance of probabilities", among other things.

Further, this law is actually remarkably naive in terms of its provisions regarding the removal of an image from websites.  Once an image is posted in a public forum, it can spread through the internet in  a completely untraceable manner.  Simply put, once the picture is posted, the damage is done.  Further, while you can request that an image be removed from a specific site, outside of Canada the Canadian government has very little ability to enforce removal orders.

What I find even more troubling is that the law does very little to address the notion of making harassment a criminal offence.  While Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons were victimized by people passing around pictures of them, the government seems to have overlooked that it is not just the picture which is the issue, but the messages that were associated with those pictures and the context in which they were distributed and whether they were directed at these unfortunate girls.

These girls did not kill themselves over the pictures, but over the treatment that they received at the hands of those who accessed those pictures and then addressed them.  The Internet is a harsh place, and it is one which will continue to be so, regardless of this law.  A quick search through the legislation mentions "harass" exactly once.

372. (1) Everyone commits an offence who, with intent to injure or alarm a person, conveys information that they know is false, or causes such information to be conveyed by letter or any means of telecommunication. 

Indecent communications(2) Everyone commits an offence who, with intent to alarm or annoy a person, makes an indecent communication to that person or to any other person by a means of telecommunication.Harassing communications(3) Everyone commits an offence who, without lawful excuse and with intent to harass a person, repeatedly communicates, or causes repeated communications to be made, with them by a means of telecommunication.

In many respects, this is the only part of the legislation which begins to address the kinds of behaviour that actually turn into bullying.  Unfortunately, I don't believe that this is an effective tool in the management of bullying in part because it is at the same time both overly broad in terms of the kinds of communication and overly narrow in that it specifically talks about it being "knowingly false".

Bullying is a very subtle social behaviour, and it often operates on the principle of "wrapping a lie with just a little bit of truth".  Remember that people often say things which get turned against them by the bully - it may be perfectly true as a statement, but when couched in the right words can be used as a tool against that person.

Further, the bill itself appears to do very little to identify the form and structure of bullying practices in the world of the internet.  Perhaps even more unsettling is that it also fails to recognize that much of the bullying often involves youth.  (and certainly the high profile cases do)

Sadly, Bill C-13 seems to be more of a resurrection of the kind of overreaching legislation that made Toews' "Internet Surveillance" Bill C-30 so unpalatable to Canadians.  Ultimately it expands the powers of the police to engage in search and seizure of people's activities while doing precious little to effectively identify the kinds of activities which comprise bullying behaviour.

... and more detailed analysis by a lawyer is here:  http://blog.privacylawyer.ca/2013/11/some-comments-on-new-canadian.html

July 1 BC Terrorists Arrested In Canada

On Canada Day, the RCMP arrested two people in Surrey BC on charges of "home grown terrorist conspiracy".

At first blush, I didn't think much of it beyond being "another nut job was stupid enough to get caught".  More or less, the story seemed to be of very little interest beyond being yet another example of ineptitude being crossed with a reasonably diligent investigation by our country's police force.

But then yesterday, we started getting stories about "how he became a terrorist", along with the media being allowed in to photograph the basement suite that the pair shared.

At this point, I started to get very suspicious.  First of all, it is very unusual for the media to be allowed in to photograph a crime scene - even after the police have done their initial pass through.  While speculative pieces about high profile criminals do show up in the media after a major event such as an arrest, I started to think that something was fishy about it.

The first part that got my attention was the revelation that the RCMP had been following this pair for an extended period of time.  

Police said the investigation has been ongoing since February but at no time was the public safety at risk and that the devices were “under RCMP control.”

The accused are Canadian-born, police said, and said they had no contact with international terrorist organizations but were “inspired by Al-Qaeda.”

Two things about this seem more than a little suspect, in my view.  First is the timing of the arrests.  It's quite clear that the RCMP knew full well what was happening, and further were allowing the plot to proceed forward while they allegedly were undermining the effectiveness of the explosive devices being created.  The second point is the fact that this gets publicized on Canada Day, and shortly afterwards, reporters are getting access to the accused's residence.

Arguably, the first point suggests strongly not only that the RCMP had plenty of opportunity to shut things down earlier than they did but also that they may have in fact been encouraging this pair to continue with their plans.  I'm no expert in the law as it applies to police investigations of this nature, but this does not seem entirely above board.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if part of the defence strategy is to claim that the RCMP engaged in entrapment of some form.

The sudden access to the rental suite shortly after the police have been through the property seems fishy as well.  Splashing a bunch of pictures around the internet showing an apartment full of the detritus of people's private lives ... after the police have been through the place ... seems not only sensationalist, but it also violates the fundamental tenet of assuming the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

Instead, it appears that the media has already convicted them even though their stories carefully use the language of "accused".

We already know that the Harper Government has been playing a propaganda game with Canadians on a number of fronts, including criminal justice and terrorism.  This entire story strikes me as having been timed quite specifically to scare Canadians so that they will be more receptive to legislation such as Toews' "Spy on Everybody" bill earlier.  While Bill C-30 is officially dead, it is no secret that the Conservatives want to introduce it in a different form sooner or later (likely buried in the midst of another omnibus bill where it cannot be fully debated).

Signals In The CETA Negotiations

Harper has often revealed bits about his intentions when he is engaged in foreign affairs.  What has recently emerged during the CETA negotiations is particularly troublesome.

It seems that the Harper Government is objecting to a clause that ties back to the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

The language on human rights in the Canada-EU framework is apparently very similar to the EU deal with Colombia and Peru, which allows either party to revoke any trade and investment benefits in the event of a serious breach of human rights by the other party. Canada objects to the idea that CETA, an economic agreement, could be suspended for violations of the political framework agreement.

The first article of the EU-Colombia/Peru agreement states:

Respect for democratic principles and fundamental human rights, as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and for the principle of the rule of law, underpins the internal and international policies of the Parties. Respect for these principles constitutes an essential element of this Agreement.

Article 8.3 of the treaty says:

Without prejudice to the existing mechanisms for political dialogue between the Parties, any Party may immediately adopt appropriate measures in accordance with international law in case of violation by another Party of the essential elements referred to in Articles 1 and 2 of this Agreement. The latter Party may ask for an urgent meeting to be called to bring the Parties concerned together within 15 days for a thorough examination of the situation with a view to seeking an acceptable solution. The measures will be proportional to the violation. Priority will be given to those which least disturb the functioning of this Agreement. These measures shall be revoked as soon as the reasons for their adoption have ceased to exist.

If you are puzzled by this roadblock, so are others.  Apparently, The Harper Government is objecting on the basis that this somehow an "infringement" on sovereignty.

The first thing that goes through my mind on this is that Harper is full of nonsense.  Canada has always been a supporter of the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is considerably broader than the UN Declaration.  To say that a trade agreement which contains a clause that obliges the signatory governments to actually abide by those human rights principles is an infringement on sovereignty is silly.

Unless you are Stephen Harper, of course.  We should note that Harper has always viewed the Charter as something of an impediment, especially with respect to the Conservative "tough-on-everyone-but-Conservatives" crime agenda.

Should Canadians be wary?  Oh yes, they should.  Harper has already passed quite a bit of legislation which is, at best, sketchy with respect to the Charter.  Is he moving to erode rights and freedoms?  Absolutely.  Remember Vic Toews' internet spying bill?  I don't think it's entirely dead within Harper's designs.