Category: Pornography/Prostitution

Posted on

Bill S-210: Age Restricting Pornography, Yukon Status of Women Council Opposed

This is a follow up to the previous article, which covered Women’s LEAF, the Women’s Legal Action and Education Fund. It’s not the only group opposed to this legislation. Bill S-210 passed through the Senate in the Spring of 2023, and has yet to undergo Third Reading in the House of Commons, after the hearings concluded. It was introduced by Quebec Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne.

The Bill itself is titled: An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material. As the name implies, the substance is about age restricting access to pornography. Quite simply, this is to limit the access of minors to this content.

The Yukon Status of Women Council (YSWC) is the group that sent in this paper in opposition to Bill S-210. The majority of it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

One of their current efforts is SWAPY, Supporting Worker’ Autonomy Project Yukon. While claiming to be against human trafficking and exploitation, they call for support and legalization of sex work, which is inherently exploitative.

They note that:

“It is critical to note that sex work and exploitation and trafficking are often conflated, which has far reaching impacts on policies and services which cause harm to those engaging in sex work, which is consensual (vs. exploitation, which is not consensual). Part of our work aims to counter these misconceptions and increase safety and options for peers.”

The argument is beyond the scope of this article, but it’s also irrelevant here. It’s also repeated in their submissions to the House of Commons. Bill S-210 is about implementing an age-restriction regime for accessing adult content. It’s about whether or not there should be some sort of screening to prevent minors from getting access.

While this seems broad, the Bill does have a “Defences” section within.

Defence — legitimate purpose
(2) No organization shall be convicted of an offence under section 5 if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence has a legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or the arts.

To be clear, Bill S-210 puts in a number of exemptions, such as: (a) science; (b) medicine; (c) education; and the “arts”. While the exact definitions are not spelled out, at least the first 4 are pretty obvious. It’s more subjective as to what “the arts” would encompass.

YSWC states several times that it’s trying to refute the narrative which conflates “consensual work” with overt “trafficking and exploitation”. It’s unclear how that applies here. Minors shouldn’t be permitted access, which is the goal of Bill S-210. Whether or not there’s exploitation at the other end is beside the point.

“The impact of this censorship extends beyond mere content moderation, affecting the livelihoods and autonomy of those who rely on online platforms for income and community building. Independent content creators, including sex workers and artists, face the threat of financial hardship and even more avenues for stigmatization and criminalization as a result of increased content restrictions and platform censorship, while larger adult websites would remain unaffected.”

How would implementing some age-verification system “create financial hardship” unless the content was (at least in part) directed at minors? Seems like those are the kinds of operations that SHOULD be closed down.

The group also claims that the alphabet “community” needs access to sexually explicit material for education and expression. This is identical to what Women’s LEAF argues. Assuming this is true, why then would this be detrimental, unless it was aimed at minors?

YSWC argues that Bill S-210 infringes on the “right to work” for sex workers. It does no such thing, but merely requires some effort to ensure all the customers are actually adults.

YSWC points out that requirements could be bypassed by using a VPN, and setting it to indicate that the device is located in another country. While true, it doesn’t really give a reason to abandon the Bill altogether.

As an aside, YSWC is also involved in a Court challenge against the Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods (SCAN) legislation. It allows for evictions of tenants on 5 days notice in the event of certain illegal activities. These include:

  • drug trafficking
  • bootlegging
  • prostitution

In early 2022, the Yukon Government committed to reviewing the SCAN Act.

While it could be argued the YSWC does valid advocacy work for women who’ve fallen on hard times, it still doesn’t explain the opposition to Bill S-224. Perhaps more general privacy concerns would gut their online businesses if people had to use their real identities to gain access.

BILL S-210, (AGE RESTRICTING PORNOGRAPHY):
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-210
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-210/third-reading
(4) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/miville-dechene-julie/
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12521982
(6) Women’s LEAF Submission Against Implementing Bill S-210
(7) Yukon Status Of Women Council Against Implementing Bill S-210

BILL S-224, (HUMAN TRAFFICKING):
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-224
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-224/third-reading
(4) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/ataullahjan-salma/
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12111640

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10.1) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(10.2) Bill C-293: Concerns Raised In Hearings Over Food Supplies
(10.3) Bill C-293: Lobbying Interests Behind Nathaniel Erskine-Smith
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill C-390: Expanding Euthanasia Into PROVINCIAL Frameworks
(17) Bills C-398/C-399: Homeless Encampments, Immigration “Equity”
(18) Bill C-413: Prison Time Proposed For Residential School “Denialism”
(19) Bill S-210: Women’s Legal Action & Education Fund
(20) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(21) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(22) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(23) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(24) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

Posted on

Bill S-210: Age Restricting Pornography, Women’s LEAF Opposed To It

Bill S-210 passed through the Senate in the Spring of 2023, and has yet to undergo Third Reading in the House of Commons, after the hearings concluded. It had been introduced by Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne of Quebec.

The Bill itself is titled: An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material. As the name implies, the substance is about age restricting access to pornography.

What’s interesting about this Bill is some of the groups that work to oppose it, and all while claiming to fight for women’s rights. One such organization is Women’s LEAF, the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund. Leslyn Lewis was once a National Board Member of it.

LEAF describes itself as:

a national, charitable, non-profit organization that works towards ensuring the law guarantees substantive equality for all women, girls, trans, and non-binary people. LEAF has developed expertise in the gendered and intersectional impact of technology-facilitated violence through intervening in landmark cases before the Supreme Court of Canada and making submissions to Parliament to highlight gender equity implications of online hate.

At the hearings before the House of Commons, LEAF made submissions, arguing against Bill S-210. The reasons are baffling.

In fairness, LEAF is hardly the only one to argue against Bill S-210. We’ll get into some of the others as well in subsequent articles.

Rather than implement age-restriction specifically for obscene material, LEAF instead defers to the much broader Bill C-63. While decrying possible invasions of privacy, the group recommends something more expansive.

***NCDII stands for non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

LEAF also has a rather convoluted objection to age-verification, under the guise of victims’ rights. While hundreds of underage people (mostly girls) have been victimized, requiring identification would make it harder for them to access their own images.

This means that LEAF is well aware of that the content of minors is often published, but age-verification can’t be allowed in order to allow victims some recourse. Perhaps a more stringent screening process beforehand would be helpful.

LEAF also adds that “To steer clear of such an inordinate penalty, tech companies are likely to over-moderate content on their sites. 2SLGBTQIA+ community members will bear the brunt of this change: through sexual content moderation, queer and trans content is already disproportionately targeted, banned, restricted, and demonetized on social media platforms“.

While denying that the “community” is full of groomers, LEAF argues that age-verification will disproportionately impact these people.

Defence — legitimate purpose
(2) No organization shall be convicted of an offence under section 5 if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence has a legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or the arts.

Keep in mind, section 6(2) of Bill S-210 makes it clear that legitimate purposes related to: (a) science; (b) medicine; (c) education; or (d) “the arts” is a full defence. And “arts” is presumably a broad category. Nonetheless, LEAF still opposes age-verification.

DEPARTMENT/MINISTRY YEAR AMOUNT
Canadian Heritage (PCH), Court Challenges 2022 $25,000.00
Canadian Heritage (PCH), Court Challenges 2023 $54,475.05
Canadian Heritage (PCH), Court Challenges 2024 $54,475.05
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) 2022 $8,911.00
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) 2023 $8,400.00
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) 2024 $8,400.00
Justice Canada (JC) 2023 $33,712.34
Justice Canada (JC) 2024 $33,712.34
Women and Gender Equality (WAGE) 2022 $362,668.00
Women and Gender Equality (WAGE) 2023 $364,183.53
Women and Gender Equality (WAGE) 2024 $364,183.53

This is just some of their more recent financing.

The Canadian Court Challenges Program is an initiative set up with public money in order for various “independent” groups to bring lawsuits challenging public policy. In other words, taxpayers have to finance lawfare against their own institutions.

For an idea of the kind of litigation that LEAF brings, check out some of their earlier work. It’s not a stretch to describe them as anti-family, anti-woman, and anti-humanity.

Lately, LEAF has been using a lobbying firm called Counsel Public Affairs. Bridget Howe, Ben Parsons, Sheamus Murphy, and Laila Hawrylyshyn (all Liberals) have been making their rounds. Counsel P.A. also employs Amber Ruddy, drug lobbyist and former CPC National Secretary.

Women’s LEAF, like so many groups, is also significantly subsidized by taxpayers, across different Ministries. They then hire lobbyists to lean on politicians to implement their agendas. In other words, organizations like these are using public money to pressure politicians against implementing safeguards for what children view online.

You don’t hate these people enough.

BILL S-210, (AGE RESTRICTING PORNOGRAPHY):
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-210
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-210/third-reading
(4) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/miville-dechene-julie/
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12521982
(6) Women’s LEAF Submission Against Implementing Bill S-210

BILL S-224, (HUMAN TRAFFICKING):
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-224
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-224/third-reading
(4) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/ataullahjan-salma/
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12111640

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10.1) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(10.2) Bill C-293: Concerns Raised In Hearings Over Food Supplies
(10.3) Bill C-293: Lobbying Interests Behind Nathaniel Erskine-Smith
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill C-390: Expanding Euthanasia Into PROVINCIAL Frameworks
(17) Bills C-398/C-399: Homeless Encampments, Immigration “Equity”
(18) Bill C-413: Prison Time Proposed For Residential School “Denialism”
(19) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(20) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(21) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(22) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(23) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

Posted on

UNAIDS Releases Paper On “Human Rights-Based Approach” To Sexuality

The Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS, UNAIDS, recently caused a stir. This policy paper came out: “The International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) along with UNAIDS and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) officially launched a new set of expert jurist legal principles to guide the application of international human rights law to criminal law.”

Sounds great, doesn’t it? Topics include:

  • sexual and reproductive health and rights, including termination of pregnancy;
  • consensual sexual activities, including in contexts such as sex outside marriage, same-sex sexual relations, adolescent sexual activity and sex work;
  • gender identity and gender expression;
  • HIV non-disclosure, exposure or transmission;
  • drug use and the possession of drugs for personal use; and
  • homelessness and poverty.

As with most things, the devil’s in the details.

To address the obvious: this is not legally binding on anyone. It’s just a paper. Still, that doesn’t mean the contents won’t work their way into Federal or Provincial legislation at some point.

As part of the Who We Are section, UNAIDS describes itself as “leading the global effort to end AIDS as a public health threat by 2030 as part of the Sustainable Development Goals.”

Apparently, UNAIDS timed this document to coincide with International Women’s Day. That’s interesting, to say the least.

Anyhow, this UNAIDS document is called the: “8 March Principles for a Human Rights-Based Approach to Criminal Law Proscribing Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, Homelessness and Poverty”. (See archive).

In fairness, there could be a lot of poor and imprecise wording throughout the document. But assuming that there’s not, it’s quite disturbing what’s been put out.

Parts I and II cover more general areas and ideas in law, and often seem quite reasonable. Having laws applied equally and fairly to all is something most people can easily get behind. But Part III is where things change.

Part III (page 20) of the document is where things really get weird. The following comments are an accurate reflection of what’s actually being written.

(Principle 14, page 21) addresses “sexual and reproductive health and rights”. Apparently no one should be held accountable for a mother drinking or doing drugs while pregnant. Non-disclosure of HIV (or presumably any disease) isn’t to be considered illegal.

Moreover, where a person’s criminal actions might result in criminal consequences, there’s to be no extra punishments based on the existence of the pregnancy. An example of this would be the homicide of a pregnant woman leading to multiple murder charges.

Are the unborn babies expected to have any rights here?

(Page 22) there’s a provision where “parents, guardians, carers, or other persons” who enable or assist children in exercising their sexual and/or reproductive rights may not be held criminally liable. Is this sort of thing to justify pedophilia and grooming?

(Principle 15, page 22) suggests that there should be laws against abortion in any capacity whatsoever. This applies both to the mother, and any third party.

(Principle 16, page 22) covers “consensual” sexual activity. While this is premised on the idea that all participants are in agreement, the wording suggests that it could be applied to adults and children.

Consensual sexual conduct, irrespective of the type of sexual activity, the sex/gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression of the people involved or their marital status, may not be criminalized in any circumstances. Consensual same-sex, as well as consensual different-sex sexual relations, or consensual sexual relations with or between trans, non-binary and other gender-diverse people, or outside marriage – whether pre-marital or extramarital – may, therefore, never be criminalized.

With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Enforcement may not be linked to the sex/gender of participants or age of consent to marriage.

Moreover, sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law. In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them. Pursuant to their evolving capacities and progressive autonomy, persons under 18 years of age should participate in decisions affecting them, with due regard to their age, maturity

The prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner? What does that even mean? Is it discrimination if an adult is not allowed to be with a child?

The paper also states that minors should be participating in decisions that impact them, taking their age and maturity into account. Is this an attempt to turn a prohibited practice into more of a “grey area”?

As for “age of consent to marriage”, is that a reference to child brides?

There’s the issue of not criminalizing activity involving members of the alphabet soup. Just a thought, but since it’s okay to not disclose HIV status, would it also be okay to deceive a partner about their true identity?

(Principle 17, page 23) calls for the complete decriminalization of sex work — such as prostitution, or pornography — as long as it’s done without coercion or fraud. To their credit, it’s specified to be limited to adults.

(Principle 18, page 23) says that sexual orientation or gender identity should not be criminalized, but doesn’t define either term in a meaningful way.

Beyond that, there’s to be no penalty for “exploration, free development and/or affirmation of sexual orientation or gender identity”, unless coercion is involved. This leaves open the possibility of people just larping as the opposite sex, and who don’t have gender dysphoria.

It also doesn’t address the growing issue of using gender identity as a means to attack single-sex spaces, such as prisons, changerooms and most sports.

The document further criticizes any efforts or attempts to engage in conversion therapy.

(Principle 19, page 24) implies that it’s fine to not disclose HIV positive status to a partner, as long as there’s no deliberate attempt to spread it. Presumably, this wouldn’t just apply to HIV.

(Principle 20, page 24) effectively calls for the decriminalization of all drugs for personal use, including by minors and pregnant women. Part (b) could be interpreted to mean the possession or distribution or drug paraphernalia shouldn’t be criminalized either.

The document also promotes what could be considered safe injection sites.

(Principle 21, page 24) would end vagrancy and squatting laws, if done for life-sustaining reasons. While this is all understandable, it’s unclear what will happen with property owners. All said, this section is probably the most reasonable one, as it’s not an issue of immorality.

Now, just because the United Nations releases a document, that doesn’t mean it will become law. However, content from “non-binding” papers often do trickle into domestic politics.

(1) https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2023/march/20230308_new-legal-principles-decriminalization
(2) https://www.unaids.org/en/whoweare/about
(3) https://icj2.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/8-MARCH-Principles-FINAL-printer-version-1-MARCH-2023.pdf
(4) UNAIDS March Principles On Criminal Law Sexual Behaviours

Posted on

Ryan Imgrund, Former “Pandemic” Expert, To Face Second O.C.T. Hearing

Ryan Imgrund is back in the news again, and not in a good way.

He became somewhat of a household name in 2020/2021 making doomsday predictions about death waves of Covid-19. Of course, none of this ever materialized. But it didn’t stop major media outlets in Canada from regularly hosting him and treating him as some sort of expert. In reality, he’s a high school science teacher who moonlights as a biostatistician.

Or, at least he was a teacher, until the Summer of 2022.

The Ontario College of Teachers has filed another complaint against him for conduct unbecoming of a teacher. (See archive.) Specifically, it reads:

3. At all material times, Person A was an 18 year old family female whose family was friends with the Member’s family.
.
4. In or about August of 2005 the Member sent Person A, via MSN messenger, unsolicited photographs including:
(a) two photographs of himself standing naked and holding his penis in his hand;
(b) two photographs of himself lying naked on his back holding a beer bottle next to his penis.

It’s typical in these types of cases to redact the identities of the students, especially if there are under the age of majority.

Interestingly, this is supposed to have happened in the Summer of 2005, more than 17 years ago. This woman was 18, and Imgrund would have been in his 20s. It’s unclear why this is coming to light now. Was it only just reported now, or did the College of Teachers know about it a long time ago?

Imgrund still has another complaint pending (see archive) before the College, and no hearing date has yet been set. That one alleges at least 5 victims, all minors, and claims of psychological and mental abuse. There is also an allegation of sexual abuse against 1 of them.

Now, if there is merit to these complaints, it’s unclear why the police weren’t immediately involved.

As with the previous complaint, these are still considered to be just allegations. Neither claim has yet been proven, and Imgrund denies the accusations.

Imgrund had been covered on this site before, primarily because of his role in facilitating mass panic.

Since March 2020, he listed his work history as “Biostatistician / Corporate Consultant” and doing this as a form of self employment. Apparently, he earned a living “discovering, analyzing and interpreting scientific, mathematical, economic and retail trends”. All of that said, he was most well know for making doomsday predictions around virus infections.

But something else about his biography never made sense. His LinkedIn page states he was working at PHAC, the Public Health Agency of Canada, from 2000 until 2009. (See archive). This doesn’t seem plausible, as he would have been a university junior at that time, and presumably very busy.

It also doesn’t add up since PHAC didn’t come into existence until 2004. It was done by Order in Council, and extensively outlined here. This is far more than simple resume padding.

In any event, Imgrund’s side gig as a television expert seems to have come to an end. He hasn’t appeared since news of the suspension broke earlier this year. We’ll have to see how events unfold.

Now, it’s uncertain how true the O.C.T. accusations are — as again, nothing has yet been proven. But Imgrund’s high profile media presence in the last few years has ensured a continued interest in his activities. Even the mainstream press has picked it up. A less prominent person wouldn’t have attracted the same attention.

OCT COMPLAINTS
(1) https://oct.ca/NOHStream.pdf?documentType=NOH&id=1102&lang=E
(2) Imgrund Discipline Second Hearing Notice
(3) https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/2022/09/13/former-york-region-teacher-in-misconduct-probe-says-he-had-zero-inappropriate-relationships.html
(4) https://oct.ca/NOHStream.pdf?documentType=NOH&id=1077&lang=E
(5) Imgrund Discipline First Hearing Notice
(6) https://oct.ca/members/complaints-and-discipline/disciplinary-hearing-details?RegistrationId=463065
(7) https://apps.oct.ca/FindATeacher/memberdetail?id=463065

IMGRUND AS AN EXPERT
(8) https://twitter.com/imgrund
(9) https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-imgrund-aa944b85/
(10) https://archive.ph/OkkFr
(11) https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/corporate/mandate/about-agency/history.html
(12) https://www.raptorsrepublic.com/2020/10/06/the-interview-ryan-imgrund-biostatistician-imgrund/
(13) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/statistician-worried-back-to-school-plan-risky-1.5671012
(14) https://www.sickkids.ca/siteassets/about/about-sickkids/sickkids-annual-report-2019-2020.pdf
(15) Sick Kids Hospital Major Donors
(16) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-29-the-financial-ties-between-sick-kids-hospital-and-the-gates-foundation/
(17) https://www.newmarkettoday.ca/coronavirus-covid-19-local-news/how-a-newmarket-biostatistician-is-using-rt-to-track-the-impact-of-reopening-2515509 for them.
(18) https://southlake.ca/foundation/about/your-investment-in-southlake/

Posted on

2021 Parliamentary Hearings On Pornhub, CSAM, Digital Fingerprinting, Databases

When the issues of internet privacy and child protection intersect, sorting things out can be fairly tricky. It was only a decade ago when “Conservative” Public Safety Minister, Vic Toews, decided that having basic protections of browsing history amounted to coddling pedophiles. Nonetheless, these concerns don’t go away just because someone else is now in office.

Now, it’s the group Pornhub that is under the public spotlight. It is just one such site owned by MindGeek. The porno empire of MindGeek includes (but isn’t limited to):

  • Pornhub
  • RedTube
  • YouPorn
  • Brazzers
  • Digital Playground
  • Men.com
  • Reality Kings
  • Sean Cody
  • WhyNotBi.com

Allegations have come up that actual sexual abuse as been published on this site, as well as revenge porn, and videos featuring minors. All of that is illegal. As for the hearings:

The above videos are clipped from the this hearing. The transcript of that day’s hearing is available here.

From January to June 2021, there were Parliamentary hearings held in Ottawa based on what was happened with Pornhub. It turned out that a very large amount of their content involved non-consenting parties, or minors, or both. After an outrage in December 2020, and threatened with the loss of payment processors like Visa and Mastercard, there was some serious damage control.

To be clear, the whole pornography uploading industry is disgusting. This is especially true as it’s fairly easy to allow content of minors to be included, and non-consensual content as well. That being said, the hearings were interesting, but for additional reasons.

One notable topic was the level of software available to scan images and videos, to implement “digital fingerprinting”, and to collaborate with other social media sites. Furthermore, Mindgeek explained they knew exactly who is uploading to their site, and where it’s happening from.

(February 5, 2021, 13:05)
.
We are also working to ensure that once content is removed, it can never make its way back to our platform or to any platform. The revictimization of individuals when their content is re-uploaded causes profound injury that we are working fiercely to prevent. We are attacking this problem in two ways. First, our people are trained to remove such material upon request. Second, we digitally fingerprint any content removed from our website so that it cannot be re-uploaded to our own platform.
.
For the last two years, we have been building a tool called “SafeGuard” to help fight the distribution of non-consensual intimate images. As I sit before you today, I am pleased to report that this month we will be implementing SafeGuard for all videos uploaded to Pornhub. We will offer SafeGuard for free to our non-adult peers, including Facebook, YouTube and Reddit. We are optimistic that all major social media platforms will implement SafeGuard and contribute to its fingerprint database. Such co-operation will be a major step to limit the spread of non-consensual material on the Internet.

(February 5, 2021, 13:10)
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
How do you know?
.
Mr. Feras Antoon:
It’s because every single piece of content is viewed by our human moderators. Number two, it goes through software that we have licensed from YouTube, like CSAI Match, and from Microsoft, like PhotoDNA for pictures. It goes through a software called Vobile.
.
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
But then why, for example, do Pornhub’s terms of service say, “we sometimes review Content submitted or contributed by users”?
.
Mr. David Tassillo (Chief Operating Officer, Entreprise MindGeek Canada):
Mrs. Stubbs, I would like to add to what Feras mentioned.
I’m not too sure where it says that in the terms of service, but I can guarantee you that every piece of content, before it’s actually made available on the website, goes through several different filters, some of which my colleague made reference to.
.
Depending on whether it comes up as a photo or as a video, we go through different pieces of software that would compare it to known active cases of CSAM, so we’ll actually do a hash check. We actually don’t send the content itself over; they create a digital key per se that’s compared to a known active database. After that, it’s compared to the other piece of software that Feras mentioned, Vobile, which is a fingerprinting software by which anyone can have their content fingerprinted. Any time MindGeek would find the piece of infringing content, we’d add it to that database to prevent the re-upload.
.
Once it passes the software queue…. If anything fails at the software level, it automatically doesn’t make it up to the site. Once that piece has gone through, we move over to the human moderation section. The human moderators will watch each one of the videos, and if they deem that the video passes, it will be—

Essentially, all of the material, whether uploaded or not, will become part of a huge database. Who will have access to it, and for what reasons could content be released?

And software is used, including stuff provided by YouTube and Microsoft. Will they have access to it? Can the material be stored somewhere else?

The Adult Industry Laborers and Artists Association wrote to Parliament, essentially arguing that the porn industry was better at regulating itself than the Government. Also, it was a large sector of the economy which people relied on to provide for their families.

The Sex Workers of Winnipeg Action Coalition actually wrote to Parliament advising AGAINST mandatory identification for using and uploading onto such sites. They argue that it’s too easy to compile and save the data to be used to nefarious purposes (and cite Clearview AI). In terms of material uploaded without consent, they actually have a point.

The Free Speech Coalition wrote to the hearing and recommended working with sites like Pornhub. They claim that illicit material will just be shared elsewhere if this were shut down.

In MindGeek’s written submissions, they spelled out — at least broadly — the technical tools they had to combat illicit material and keep it from being shared:

Our human moderators are supported by a growing suite of technical tools, which fall into two broad categories: those that detect previously identified CSAM and non-consensual content using a fingerprint technology and those that use artificial intelligence to detect unreported CSAM content.

MindGeek’s fingerprinting tools rely on a unique digital fingerprint to match a video or photograph to those already identified in a database of banned content. These tools include YouTube’s CASI Match, Microsoft’s Photo DNA, Vobile’s MediaWise, and MindGeek’s own SafeGuard. All items caught by these tools as CSAM or non-consensual are immediately blocked from the website and handled by our second level review team.

That’s quite the list of electronic tools. And keep in mind, Pornhub knows exactly who the people are uploading to their site. How exactly would this artificial intelligence work, and what would it be programmed to look for?

The Parliamentary Report has also been issued on this subject. Now, this smut shouldn’t be around at all. However, if it can’t be removed, these are some decent recommendations to help the problem somewhat.

Recommendation 1 concerning liability
That the Government of Canada explore means to hold online platforms liable for any failure to prevent the upload of, or ensure the timely deletion of child sexual abuse material, content depicting non-consensual activity, and any other content uploaded without the knowledge or consent of all parties, including enacting a duty of care, along with financial penalties for non-compliance or failure to fulfil a required duty of care.

Recommendation 2 concerning the duty to verify age and consent
That the Government of Canada mandate that content-hosting platforms operating in Canada require affirmation from all persons depicted in pornographic content, before it can be uploaded, that they are 18 years old or older and that they consent to its distribution, and that it consult with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada with respect to the implementation of such obligation.

Recommendation 3 concerning consultation
That the Government of Canada consult with survivors, child advocacy centres, victim support agencies, law enforcement, web platforms and sex workers prior to enacting any legislation or regulations relating to the protection of privacy and reputation on online platforms.

Recommendation 4 concerning section 3 of the Mandatory Reporting Act
That the Government of Canada, in collaboration with the provinces, amend section 3 of An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service to make the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre the designated law enforcement agency for the purpose of reporting under that section and that it ensure that the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre has the resources it needs to investigate the increased referrals of child sexual abuse materials

Recommendation 5 concerning reporting obligations
That the Government of Canada invest resources to ensure the compliance of access providers, content providers and Internet content hosting services with their reporting obligations under An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service through education and awareness initiatives.

Recommendation 6 concerning section 11 of the Mandatory Reporting Act
That the Government of Canada consider amending section 11 of An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service to extend the period of time to commence prosecution for an offence under this Act.

Recommendation 7 regarding compliance under the Mandatory Reporting Act
That the Government of Canada call upon the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other police services to ensure the compliance of Internet service providers, as defined in An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, with their reporting obligations under that Act, and that compliance be absolute with no means for providers to opt out

Recommendation 8 concerning requirements for uploaders of content
That the Government of Canada set requirements for uploaders of content to provide proof of valid consent of all persons depicted and that the new regulations include penalties severe enough to act as an effective deterrent.

Recommendation 9 regarding pornographic content and age verification
That the Government of Canada develop clear regulations that require Internet service providers, as defined in An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, to utilize a robust process for age verification of all individuals in uploaded pornographic content, including content generated by individuals, studios or contract partners.

Recommendation 10 concerning proactive enforcement of Canadian laws
That the Government of Canada proactively enforce all Canadian laws regarding child sexual abuse material and the posting of non-consensual material and that in particular, it enforce section 3 of An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service by requiring all Internet service providers, as defined in the Act, to report child sexual abuse material directly to an officer, constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace.

Recommendation 11 concerning accessible mechanisms for the removal of online content
That the Government of Canada develop accessible mechanisms that ensure that Canadians victimized by the posting of an image or video online without their consent on sites like Pornhub have the right to have that content removed immediately and to be given the benefit of the doubt with respect to the non-consensual nature of the content, and that the Government of Canada provide all the necessary resources required to put in place these accessible mechanisms.

Recommendation 12 concerning a potential new pattern of sexual violence
That the Government of Canada work with key stakeholder groups such as Canadian sexual assault centres, women’s rights organizations and representatives from LGBTQ2 communities to determine if the posting of non-consensual material depicting sexual violence on sites like Pornhub is reflective of, and contributing to, a new pattern of sexual violence, and that it report its findings, including recommendations for further action, to Parliament.

Recommendation 13 concerning the accountability of websites regarding the downloading and re-uploading of pornographic content
That the Government of Canada hold accountable websites that allow the downloading and re-uploading of pornographic content that erases the identity of the source material, thereby preventing authorities from assessing those accountable for the material.

Recommendation 14 concerning a new legal framework to impose certain obligations on Internet service providers hosting pornographic content
That the Government of Canada create a legal framework that would compel Internet service providers that host pornographic content to:
• implement and use available tools to combat the flagrant and relentless re-uploading of illegal content;
• hire, train and effectively supervise staff to carry out moderation and content removal tasks at an appropriate scale;
• maintain detailed records of user reports and responses that can be audited by authorities;
• be legally accountable for content moderation and removal decisions and the harm to individuals that results when efforts are inadequate; and
• build in and design features that prioritize the best interests and privacy rights of children and vulnerable adults

Admittedly, these are some good proposals. Will anything come of these hearings when the next Parliament sits? I guess we will have to wait and see in the new session.

Again, this is not defend this disgusting industry. However, even with safeguards, there are still plenty of children and non-consenting people who are victimized here. It’s not much of a consolation to say that “it will just go elsewhere” if these sites are shut down.

Even for young adults, what happens in 5 or 10 years when they grow up and realize they’ve made a serious mistake? How easy (or possible) will it be to get this information scrubbed?

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/ETHI/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=11088039
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/ETHI/meeting-19/evidence
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/432/ETHI/Reports/RP11148202/ethirp03/ethirp03-e.pdf
(4) Pornhub Parliamentary Hearings Adult Gender Equality LEAF
(5) Pornhub Parliamentary Hearings Adult Industry Labourers
(6) Pornhub Parliamentary Hearings Christian Legal Fellowship
(7) Pornhub Parliamentary Hearings Free Speech
(8) Pornhub Parliamentary Hearings MindGeek
(9) Pornhub Parliamentary Hearings Non State Torture
(10) Pornhub Parliamentary Hearings Ntl Center For Exploitation
(11) Pornhub Parliamentary Hearings Stop Exploitation
(12) Pornhub Parliamentary Hearings Winnipeg Sex Workers
(13) Pornhub Parliamentary Hearings Your Brain On Porn
(14) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/10/pornhub-mastercard-visa-rape-child-abuse-images
(15) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MindGeek

Posted on

Bill C-75 Revisited, The NGOs Pushing Degeneracy, Child Abuse

Bill C-75 was an omnibus piece of legislation. Given its size, it was impossible to properly debate back in 2017/2018. But it’s worth reviewing, even after the fact. It watered down penalties for terrorism offences, and once for reducing penalties for crimes against children. This piece looks more at some of the groups trying to influence the legislation.

1. EGALE Canada Human Rights Trust

From around 16:23 in this September 25, 2018 transcript from the Parliamentary Hearings on law and justice. A few points worth noting.

First: while this is cloaked as a social justice issue, there seems to be no concern for the consequences of the changes sought here. Second: what is wrong with the parents of young children wanting their (intersex) children from having normal lives as a recognized gender? Third: there is the claim that gays are discriminated against because the age of consent is higher than with straight couples. Strange how they always want it lowered, and never propose RAISING it overall.

2. Centre For Gender And Sexual Diversity

Following the introduction of C-39, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unconstitutional provisions) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, the CCGSD was excited that the government was looking serious at equalizing age of consent legislation. We applaud the government on including this as is critical step forward. The CCGSD has been asking for this critical change since 2008. This is critical to the LGBTQI2+ communities as the criminalization of consensual sexual acts between Canadians should be seen as equal under the law regardless of your sexual orientation or gender identity

What they refer to as “equalizing the age” of consent was the provision to reduce the age of consent for anal sex from 18 to 16. Normal sex has a minimum age of consent of 16, years old, and even that was only recent. It used to be 14. The Centre for Gender and Sexual Diversity has deemed it a “priority” to lower the age of consent — since 2008 — instead of asking for a higher universal standard.

They talk about equality for consensual acts between Canadians, but they don’t mentions consensual acts between ADULT Canadians. That detail seems left out.

1-Bill C-75 fails to address sex work criminalization
The criminalization of sex work has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme court and continues to put Canadian sex workers in danger. Local, provincial and federal police services continue to use existing legislation to harass and criminalize folks who should be allowed to do their job with the support and protection of the state.
We strongly recommend that a clear decriminalization of sex work be included in C-75.

There doesn’t seem to be any moral issues with sex work itself, or the dangers or moral issues it causes. Instead, CCGSD takes issue with there being laws against it.

2-Bill C-75 fails to protect intersex children from non-consensual surgery
In June 2017, the CCGSD came out with our Pink Agenda making it clear that we stand in solidarity with Intersex communities and their right to decide what is best for their bodies, and yet today Section 268(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada allows non-consensual surgery by medical practitioners to alter the bodies of infants and children whom they perceive to be ambiguous (i.e. intersex).
We strongly recommend that the repeal of Section 268(3) be included in C-75.

We can’t have parents attempting to correct birth defects the best way they know how, in order to help their children go about their lives. What is wrong with them simply being normal boys or girls?

3-Bill C-75 fails to repeal the ‘bawdy house’ laws or obscenity laws that disproportionately affect queer and trans people
The ‘bawdy house’ laws have continue to criticized by many LGBTQI2+ organizations, including most recently the coalition of LGBTQ2I+ and allied organizations during the debate on C-66, An Act to establish a procedure for expunging certain historically unjust convictions and to make related amendments to other Acts (http://ccgsd-ccdgs.org/c66). These laws continue to be used to criminalize consensual LGBTQI2+ behaviours, and need to be full repealed.
We strongly recommend that the repeal of the ‘bawdy house’ laws be included in C-75

An bizarre argument. While claiming that gays aren’t perverts, the CCGSD also claims that laws against degeneracy disproportionately impact them. Doesn’t that undermine the original assertion?

3. Vancouver Rape Relief — Domestic Violence

The change to reverse onus bail in cases of male violence against women is an encouraging step to help reduce the number of men who immediately re-offend and attack their female intimate partners. It is a positive step because the onus is on the offender to prove why they should be let out on bail if they have a history of domestic violence. This sends a message that violence against women is a serious crime. It is, however, unfortunate that this reverse onus will not apply to those men without a criminal record for domestic violence, which will include convicted persons who received an absolute or a conditional discharge. What we see from our work is getting a conviction is rare; when it does happen often its a man of colour. As a result, we can see the possibility that something like this will disproportionately affect racialized men, while the majority of men who go without being charged and convicted remain unaccountable and undeterred.

Eliminating the mandatory use of preliminary inquiries as it relates to women who have been sexually assaulted is a positive step. We know from our experience accompanying women to court that preliminary inquiries are used by the defence as an attempt to discredit their testimony by pointing out minute discrepancies from their police statements, their preliminary inquiry evidence and their trial testimonies.

Vancouver Rape Relief brings a few interesting arguments into the discussion. First, they are upset that the “reverse onus” provisions of bail won’t apply to men without past convictions for domestic violence. Second, they support eliminating mandatory use of preliminary inquiries, which are an important step of discovery prior to trial. It doesn’t appear that they actually support the idea of due process.

4. Individuals Opposing Degeneracy Laws

Regarding the last part of the video, the crime itself is failing to disclose HIV status with sexual partners. However, it’s frequently misnamed as “criminalizing people with HIV”. Knowing that the other person has this disease is pretty important, regardless of how deadly it might be.

It’s worth pondering: how many of those people who are okay with not disclosing HIV status to sexual partners would be okay with forcing masks and vaccines on people?

5. Does Anyone Care About These Reductions?

  • Section 58: Fraudulent use of citizenship
  • Section 159: Age of consent for anal sex
  • Section 172(1): Corrupting children
  • Section 173(1): Indecent acts
  • Section 180(1): Common nuisance
  • Section 182: Indecent interference or indignity to body
  • Section 210: Keeping common bawdy house
  • Section 211: Transporting to bawdy house
  • Section 242: Not getting help for childbirth
  • Section 243: Concealing the death of a child
  • Section 279.02(1): Material benefit – trafficking
  • Section 279.03(1): Withholding/destroying docs — trafficking
  • Section 279(2): Forcible confinement
  • Section 280(1): Abduction of child under age 16
  • Section 281: Abduction of child under age 14
  • Section 291(1): Bigamy
  • Section 293: Polygamy
  • Section 293.1: Forced marriage
  • Section 293.2: Child marriage
  • Section 295: Solemnizing marriage contrary to law
  • Section 435: Arson, for fraudulent purposes
  • Section 467.11(1): Participating in organized crime

These are not minor or unimportant crimes. In fairness, there are a few submissions that speak out about the hybridization of these offences (making them eligible to be tried summarily). Who came up with these though? Why are such crimes being shrugged off. Sure, the terrorism offence penalties caused backlash, but not these. It’s almost as if they wanted to divert attention.

As for watering down terrorism offences, where did that idea come from? CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs spoke against some of these provisions. But it’s unclear who was the brains behind the proposal

Now, it should be noted that changes to the MAXIMUM sentence of certain crimes would make law students and paralegals ineligible to work on such cases. While not a defense of criminals, everyone should have access to some representation.

Who was Bill C-75 really designed for? It comes across as if a group wanted to destabilize society, and wrote collaboratively on it.

(1) Parliamentary Study On Bill C-75 (Fall 2018)
(2) Bill C-75 Canadian Centre For Gender Sexual Diversity
(3) Bill C-75 Canadian Civil Liberties Association
(4) Bill C-75 EGALE Canada Human Rights Trust
(5) Bill C-75 Vancouver Rape Relief
(6) Bill C-75 Law Society Of Ontario
(7) Bill C-75 Tom Hooper Et AlBill C-75 UNICEF Canada
(8) Bill C-75 Families For Justice Alberta

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress