Category: Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Posted on

Bill S-224: Lowering The Burden To Prosecute Human Trafficking (Died In Last Session)

Senator Salma Ataullahjan introduced Bill S-224 back in late 2021. It cleared the Senate, and Second Reading in the House of Commons. In fact, it came very close to getting passed.

Put simply, it would have amended the Criminal Code to make it easier for police to lay charges in cases of suspected human trafficking. It would have removed an element of the offence — fear for one’s safety — thus lowering the burden. There was a surprisingly vocal set of opponents fighting against it.

Broadly speaking, “trafficking” would fall into 2 major categories: (a) sex work, such as pornography or prostitution; or (b) forced labour in general. Participants in the 2023 study focused on the former.

***It’s true that this Bill died when the last session of Parliament ended. That being said, legislation that doesn’t advance is often brought back at later times. This may be one such case.

What Would Bill S-224 Actually Change?

Exploitation
279.04 (1) For the purposes of sections 279.01 to 279.03, a person exploits another person if they cause them to provide, or offer to provide, labour or a service by engaging in conduct that, in all the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to cause the other person to believe that their safety or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened if they failed to provide, or offer to provide, the labour or service.

Factors
279.04 (2) In determining whether an accused exploits another person under subsection (1), the Court may consider, among other factors, whether the accused
(a) used or threatened to use force or another form of coercion;
(b) used deception; or
(c) abused a position of trust, power or authority.

The proposed Bill S-224 would remove the requirement that victims fear for their safety if they don’t comply with the demands.

Exploitation
279.‍04 (1) For the purposes of sections 279.‍01 to 279.‍03, a person exploits another person if they engage in conduct that
(a) causes the other person to provide or offer to provide labour or a service; and
(b) involves, in relation to any person, the use or threatened use of force or another form of coercion, the use of deception or fraud, the abuse of a position of trust, power or authority, or any other similar act.
(2) Subsection 279.‍04(2) of the Act is repealed.

Critics claim that taking out that requirement will make it easier for police to charge third parties for the so-called “legitimate” work they may be involved with.

Opposition To S-224 Framed As “Protecting Rights”

Some of the “solutions” being proposed are:

  • Reject Bill S-224 in its entirety.
  • Decriminalize/legalize sex work.
  • Support non-carceral forms of safety, including decent and affordable housing for all, restorative and transformative justice initiatives, and community-based anti-violence programs geared toward preventing gendered violence and supporting survivors.
  • Invest in community initiatives run by and for people working in the sex industry that are non directive and based in human rights, and not focused on “exiting” sex work. Programs contingent on people stopping or “exiting” sex work or that have eligibility requirements fail to address the complexity of sex workers’ lives.
  • Invest in Indigenous community initiatives, migrant worker community initiatives, and youth based initiatives that furnish people with networks of community support that undercut the precarity and vulnerability that place people in vulnerable situations.
  • Ensure full and permanent immigration status for all in Canada, without exception.

Advocates who oppose Bill S-224 are quick to point out that sex work isn’t necessarily exploitative by nature. They then go on to demand housing for all, and immigration status for all.

Bill S-224 Opposed By Ford Government

Bizarrely, one of the strongest opponents is the Ontario Government, currently headed by Doug Ford.

Keep in mind, Ford had no problem spending endless amounts of money a few years back. He sent the police to shut down businesses, enforce stay-at-home orders, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, etc…. But his administration objects to changes of law that would make it easier to pursue human traffickers.

In their brief to Parliament, it’s lamented how the inevitable legal challenges would be wasteful, and a poor use of taxpayer money. It’s rationalized that because the current laws are constitutional, they don’t need to be tweaked.

Overall, this is a very strange hill to die on. One would think that special interest groups would be fighting for more aggressive laws to jail such people. Considering the focus on how much exploitation there is in immigrant and poorer communities, wouldn’t such changes be welcomed?

Sure, other groups sent in brief in support of S-224, but they’re not the concern.

It’s worth mentioning that organizations opposing this Bill receive taxpayer subsidies.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-224
(2) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-224/third-reading
(3) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/ataullahjan-salma/
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12111640
(5) https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20230612/-1/39495?gefdesc=&startposition=20230612164645
(6) Bill S-224 Brief Butterfly HIV Legal
(7) Bill S-224 Brief CASWLR
(8) Bill S-224 Brief Joint Criminologists
(9) Bill S-224 Brief Ontario Government
(10) Bill S-224 Brief Ontario Native Women
(11) Bill S-224 Brief Vincent Wong
(12) Bill S-224 Brief West Coast LEAF

Private Member Bills In PREVIOUS 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”
(19.1) Bill S-210: Women’s Legal Action & Education Fund
(19.2) Bill S-210: Yukon Status Of Women Council Against Restrictions
(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

Haedyn Patterson: How This “Woman” Acted While In Custody

Let’s look at an older case that’s still applicable today. Haedyn-Khris Racquel Beaumann, (or Patterson?) whose real name is Kevin David Patterson, fled to British Columbia after committing murder back in 2014. To avoid extradition to Washington State, he filed endless legal challenges. Eventually, he resorted to playing the “transgender” card, in order to further delay.

While the case was (more broadly) covered over the years, reporting didn’t really address the specific allegations of how Patterson acted in custody. He managed to get transferred to the Alouette Correctional Centre for Women, or ACCW. It’s shocking what the staff tolerated, and how little the safety of the women trapped with him mattered.

Also see Bagnald and Blackplume for some of the other psychos that are locked up.

Female Prison To Be Staffed By Female Guards

9. As a general matter, females are housed separately from men in British Columbia’s correctional system. As is explicitly acknowledged by BC Corrections in a document entitled “Statement of Philosophy – Correctional Service for Women,” female inmates tend to have backgrounds, needs, and safety concerns that are distinct from male inmates. Notably, many female inmates have historically suffered abuse at the hands of men, and as a result of this trauma are more vulnerable and susceptible to ongoing and future trauma and abuse.

34. In accordance with the Cross Gender Staffing Policy, all front-line correctional officers at ACCW are female. These officers are responsible for supervising the inmate population on the units, doing visual safety checks of inmates in all areas of the centre, including individual cells, performing physical searches, taking escorts into the community, facilitating programs, etc. The few male staff members at ACCW are either supervisors or managers.

35. The majority of the inmates at ACCW have suffered from violence or other forms of abuse by men, tend to be marginalized, are more likely to be easily controlled or overpowered by men, and have high levels of trauma.

36. There are many challenges to managing the inmate population at ACCW. Ensuring the safety and security of staff and inmates in the context of a correctional centre is a complex balancing act. One of the biggest challenges staff face is managing the interaction among inmates to prevent or minimize tensions and conflict among them, and to protect vulnerable inmates from being taken advantage of.

Then, there’s this nonsense:

“51. Transgender inmates at SPSC are welcome to wear wigs or prosthetics in accordance with their gender expression, though BC Corrections does not supply these items. All inmates at SPSC must, however, wear the same outer clothing for safety and security reasons.”

The Response to the Petition is interesting. It’s stated quite plainly that with the odd exception in management, the staff is female. This is due largely to trauma and violence inmates have suffered. And it’s all perfectly reasonable.

However, this logic completely falls by the wayside when it’s explained that male prisoners can simply call themselves women and be transferred there. Guards at least are subjected to a high level of background checks, whereas anyone can be an inmate.

Patterson got himself transferred to the Alouette Correctional Centre for Women in Surrey, B.C. But because of how he acted, he was eventually sent back. He challenged the decision.

ACCW admits that they had at least 15 transgender prisoners between 2016 and 2019. So, this isn’t a one-off, but is a regular concern. But what about the women there?

Alouette Explains Reasons For Sending Patterson Back

In response to Patterson’s Petition, the prison filed a formal reply. It outlined in detail the problems that they had with him.

59. In late 2017 (i.e. after three years in custody), while incarcerated at SPSC, the petitioner informed BC Corrections for the first time that she identifies as female. The petitioner was transferred from SPSC to ACCW on September 12, 2018.

60. Prior to her transfer to ACCW, the petitioner was required to sign a “Behavioural Expectations Contract”. These are sometimes used where an inmate has demonstrated negative behaviour and BC Corrections staff determine a behavioural expectations contract may assist in correcting that behaviour. The terms of the contract ensure inmates have a clear understanding of what is expected of them and to provide a clear behavioural plan for the inmate to follow.

64. During her stay at ACCW, Ms. Bryson worked closely with the petitioner to manage her behavioural issues and to support her compliance with the behavioural expectations at ACCW, as set out in her Behavioural Expectations Contract. Nevertheless, the petitioner’s behaviour proved extremely difficult to manage.

65. Throughout her time at ACCW, and despite Ms. Bryson’s efforts to work with the petitioner, the petitioner routinely engaged in disruptive behaviour that breached ACCW’s rules. These behaviours ranged from horseplay, prohibited intimate relationships with other inmates, disobeying staff direction, and behaving in an abusive manner toward others. By the time that she was transferred back to SPSC, there were 288 negative entries in her C-Log related to her time at ACCW.

66. In addition to these more routine examples of negative behaviour, there were four serious incidents involving the petitioner during her time at ACCW. These incidents, which took place on January 30, April 3, July 24 and August 14, 2019, demonstrated a pattern of repeated and significant misbehaviour that put the safety and security of the petitioner, ACCW staff, and other inmates at risk.

80. On August 14, 2019, Dr. Nader Sharifi, Medical Director of Correctional Health Services emailed ACCW’s Warden, Lisa Martin. Dr. Sharifi indicated that the petitioner had not been adhering to her transcare medication and that felt obligated to inform Ms. Martin of that fact as, in his view, it could endanger the safety at ACCW and its operations.

84. A Code Yellow was called and additional responding staff attended the scene. The petitioner was non-compliant and combative with staff. It eventually took eight staff members, including staff who are members of the Emergency Response Team, to restrain the petitioner with a “wrap” and move her to a harm reduction cell.

85. As a result of the petitioner’s combative behaviour on August 14, 2019, three staff members submitted Worker’s Compensation Claims for various injuries sustained during the code response including scratches, swelling, and injuries to the neck, knees, and back.

It’s difficult to believe that this went on. Prison staff knew in advance that Patterson was a serious problem. They also noted that “identifying as a woman” only set in after approximately 3 years in custody. And of course, he was wanted in the United States for first degree murder.

Not only was he transferred to ACCW, but allowed to remain there in spite of being a constant nuisance, menace, and danger to the women.

Patterson Threatened To Kill Staff, Other Inmates At ACCW

70. This incident was particularly concerning to ACCW staff. As noted above, the petitioner is facing extradition to the United States on a charge of first degree murder. One way to defeat an extradition proceeding is to be charged in Canada with a crime of equal or greater severity. Given this context, the petitioner’s comments “don’t forget I have nothing to lose” were taken very seriously.

Notwithstanding that he never should have been at ACCW to begin with, it’s mind boggling that he was allowed to remain for so long.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

September 17th, 2014: Patterson commits murder and soon flees to Canada.

November 20th, 2014: The U.S. officially requested Patterson be extradited.

December 11th, 2014: The Minister of Justice authorized the extradition.

February 11th, 2015: British Columbia Supreme Court rejected Patterson’s application for bail. He had requested temporary release while extradition was being sorted out.

May 6th, 2015: At an extradition hearing, Justice gives oral reasons for committing Patterson into custody until the American authorities can get him.

July 20th, 2015: British Columbia Court of Appeal rejects a request to review the bail findings from earlier in the year. Patterson is to stay in custody.

October 17th, 2015: Minister of Justice orders unconditional surrender of Patterson.

February 3rd, 2017: British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed an Appeal from the B.C. Supreme Court, which would have forced Patterson’s extradition to the U.S. The Court also refused an Application to consider new evidence.

Late 2017: Although no exact date is given, Patterson informs prison staff for the first time that he identifies as a woman.

March 15th, 2018: Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear an Appeal from the February 2017 decision of the BCCA.

September 12th, 2018: Patterson is transferred to ACCW.

December 7th, 2018: British Columbia Court of Appeal throws out Patterson’s Appeal.

July 11th, 2019: Supreme Court of Canada granted an extension of time to serve and file the Application for Leave, to challenge the December 2018 ruling. However, the Application itself was dismissed.

January 14th, 2020: British Columbia Court of Appeal rejects yet another request for interim release, pending extradition.

April 2nd, 2020: British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed an Application by the Attorney General of Canada to have Patterson declared a “vexatious litigant”. However, it was noted that any further misuse of the Court may change their minds.

April 30th, 2020: British Columbia Court of Appeal dismisses Patterson’s Appeal of the January 24th, 2019 decision.

After exhausting all legal options in B.C., Patterson was eventually extradited. He was found guilty of murder.

One has to assume that the prison staff don’t want to put up with people like this. Patterson wasn’t even delusional, he was just gaming the system to avoid extradition for murder. To play devil’s advocate, perhaps the guards were trying to put together an extensive paper trail.

This sort of policy puts staff and prisoners alike in danger. Even if male inmates don’t injure or kill anyone, it’s still an intrusion that no one wants.

It’s apparently common practice to supply prisoners with synthetic hormones while they’re locked up. Not only to women have to contend with male prisoners, but they’re drugged up at the same time. It’s just asking for trouble.

There’s also the issue of all the expenses involved here. Patterson racked up huge legal bills, which taxpayers are presumably on the hook for.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Patterson Petition
(2) Patterson Response To Petition
(3) Patterson Notice Of Hearing

Posted on

“Lucy” Blackplume: Declared A Dangerous Offender By ABCA In 2021

In early 2021, the Court of Appeal for Alberta overturned a Provincial Court ruling which spared a man an indeterminate sentence. Although this case is a few years old, it’s worth reminding people what some men are capable of, all while masquerading as women.

The perpetrator is Josiah Jerome Blackplume, who now goes by the name Lucy Blackplume.

It’s implied that the Gladue-Ipeelee principles are what kept Blackplume (at least in part) from initially being declared a dangerous offender. However, the Court of Appeal seems to disagree on the extent.

[15] The sentencing judge reviewed Gladue-Ipeelee sentencing principles for Indigenous offenders, and noted the link between residential schools and the over-representation of Indigenous peoples in corrections. Correctional institutions, in the sentencing judge’s view, have failed to develop humane secure housing and treatment for Indigenous and mentally ill offenders. Citing the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision in R v CPS, 2006 SKCA 78 for its factual similarities, the sentencing judge endorsed the perspective that offenders such as Ms Blackplume are more appropriately treated from a mental health rather than correctional perspective. Referring to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Ewert v Canada, 2018 SCC 30, she observed that psychological risk assessment tools may be culturally biased when evaluating Indigenous offenders. In Ewert (at paras 59-60), the Court stated that correctional institutions must provide programs that are culturally responsive to the needs and circumstances of Indigenous offenders.

Here’s the short version: following his latest convictions, the Crown sought to have Blackplume declared a dangerous offender. The Provincial Court Judge refused, despite meeting the criteria, and his extensive history of violence. He was instead given a 10 year sentence. That was overturned by the Court of Appeal, issuing an indeterminate one instead.

His criminal record includes the following:

  • October 24th, 2008 (conviction date): Aggravated Sexual Assault on a Minor
  • May 10th, 2012: Attempted Sexual Assault with a Weapon
  • May 23th, 2012: Sexual Assault
  • October 6, 2014 (conviction date): Fraud over $5,000, receiving benefits while incarcerated
  • February 12th, 2015: Sexual Assault with a Weapon
  • February 12th, 2015: Assault Causing Bodily Harm
  • August 14th, 2015: Assault Causing Bodily Harm

Keep in mind, both the Provincial Court of Alberta and the Alberta Court of Appeal will continuously refer to this person as a “woman”. This is beyond insulting.

[26] Ms. Blackplumes’s first conviction was recorded in Youth Court on October 24, 2008. As a 17-year old, she (Josiah) committed an aggravated sexual assault on a three-year-old girl. Intoxicated and walking to her girlfriend’s home in Standoff, Josiah noticed an open door in the victim’s home. Josiah entered and saw the victim on a living room couch. She approached and penetrated the child’s vagina with an index finger and the penis, also striking the child three times on the face with the back of the hand. The child’s aunt returned and Josiah fled out the front door. The young girl was naked, crying and bleeding from the vaginal area. Ms. Blackplume pled guilty to the offence and was sentenced to 18 months’ Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and 18 months’ conditional supervision.

[30] Ms. Blackplume has almost a 12-year history of life in these institutions: Calgary Young Offender Centre (CYOC), Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, Calgary Remand Centre (CRC), Edmonton Remand Centre (ERC), Saskatoon Corrections Centre (SCC), Saskatchewan Penitentiary, Bowden Institution, Southern Alberta Forensic Psychiatry Centre (SAFPC) and Regional Psychiatric Centre. Her time in these institutions is notable for many periods of segregation, isolation or observation, most often in response to Ms. Blackplume’s anxiety, depressed mood or suicidal ideation, gestures, threats or attempts, but also when she has been assaultive or sexually inappropriate with other inmates, or found trafficking, sometimes with her own stockpiled medications.

[31] On her Youth Court IRCS sentence, she (Josiah) was discharged early from Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, due to repeated inappropriate contact with female patients, in what was seen to be grooming behaviour.

The ruling itself is extremely graphic, and states in considerable detail the crimes Blackplume has both been convicted of, and otherwise suspected of.

At 17 years old, Blackplume beat and raped his girlfriend’s toddler child.

He has committed other sexual assaults, and has used weapons in doing so.

There are also references to drug trafficking, in the form of selling his medications.

While in prison, Blackplume was psychologically evaluated. The reports make it pretty clear that he will never be an asset to society, and will always be a danger.

  • Static encephalopathy, Ms. Blackplume’s brain damage, never changes, is a lifelong condition.
  • For her safety and the safety of others, Ms. Blackplume requires an external adult brain supervising her 24 hours a day for the rest of her life.
  • She does not have the ability to rely on past experience to guide future choices.
  • Ms. Blackplume appears to be much higher functioning than she is.
  • Cognitive Behavioural Therapy will not benefit Ms. Blackplume (despite all indications that she may have understood the programming).
  • Play therapy, pet therapy and music therapy can be used to fill her days and therefore manage her behaviour.
  • She is incapable of developing insight or empathy.
  • She is not able to understand that the act of forced sex on an unwilling or uncooperative person is wrong.
  • She is not able to understand that sex with minors is wrong.
  • With careful social scripting to participate in structured social outings, such as going fishing, working on fence posts on a farm, or playing the guitar with another person, she would be very successful.
  • The Wellspring program, although designed for lower functioning participants, is cognitive behavioural therapy and, therefore, will not work for Ms. Blackplume.
  • Pet, play and music therapy are not available in a secure hospital setting due to a lack of funding.

While the evaluations (accurately) point out the many defects and dysfunctions that Blackplume has, there is the elephant in the room: he’s a man, but thinks he’s a woman. It would be interesting to know to what degree these synthetic “hormones” have messed with his cognitive function.

Much of the Court submissions hinged on whether it could be considered cruel and unusual punishment (a Section 12 Charter violation) to indefinitely lock someone up with such limited intellect. Ultimately though, the Court of Appeal did just that.

In an odd twist, the court decisions don’t state that Blackplume has expressed any desire to go to a women’s prison. And all for the best, anyway.

If he really is mentally deficient to the point that he doesn’t understand that forcing sex on unwilling people (especially children) is wrong, then euthanasia probably is the best option for everyone.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/doc/2019/2019abpc273/2019abpc273.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2021/2021abca2/2021abca2.html

Posted on

Bill C-63 (Online Harms Act) Revisited: A More Nuanced View On It

Last year, this site covered Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act. Critics denounced it immediately as a draconian attack on free speech and free expression. There are certainly reasons to be concerned.

***Now, before someone starts posting in the comments that it died with when Parliament was dissolved, I know. But the point is, a similar version can always be brought back. Considering that hearings already taken place, it’s worth looking at what happened.

Bill C-63 was eventually split into 2 different sections: (a) child exploitation and abuse; and (b) the more “free speech” elements of it. Who knows what will happen in the next iteration.

In December 2024, the House of Commons held their hearings on the legislation. A total of 22 different witnesses testified, with a range of different ideas.

Despite all of the warning signs surrounding Bill C-63, there are some provisions that most people can actually get on board with. As always, readers are encouraged to check for themselves.

Filed Submissions From Humane Canada

Animal sexual abuse (bestiality) is illegal under section 160 of the Criminal Code, which recognizes that child sexual assault and animal sexual assault are linked crimes, however there is no legislation that prohibits possessing or sharing online content that features animal sexual abuse. Closing this “bestiality loophole” would fulfill the initial promises of Bill C-84 in 2019 to strengthen protections for children, other vulnerable individuals, and animals. Animals are often used as part of the child sexual abuse grooming process. A 2018 report by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection analyzing case law found that 82% of bestiality cases in Canada have involved the sexual abuse of a child.

Considering the upward trend in police-reported child sexual exploitation where most offences include a cyber component, with 79% of incidents of child pornography and 20% of sexual violations against children recorded as cybercrimes by police, we urge the government to explicitly include animal sexual abuse images and videos, as well as material that depicts harming or killing an animal, in their definition of content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor and harmful content.

Proposed Amendments
Include the explicit mention of animal sexual abuse images and content under the definition of ‘content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor’ and animal harms under the definition of ‘harmful content’, using similar wording to the United Kingdom’s recently passed Online Safety Act:

In their filings, Humane Canada asked that Bill C-63 be amended to include content aimed at harming animals. This would be worded in a similar way to laws prohibited such content involving children.

Filed Submissions From International Justice Mission

We agree with and uphold MP Virani’s decision to split the Bill, prioritizing Section 1 and 4 to address online child sexual exploitation and abuse. Bill C-63 is a critical and long-awaited piece of legislation that will help ensure children, both in Canada and abroad, are protected offline and online, and that penalties for in-person and online offenders of child sexual abuse and exploitation are aligned.

IJM commends the Honourable Arif Virani, Minister of Justice, for the years of detailed policy work and public consultation to create this bill. The Online Harms Act has the potential to strengthen the responsibility of technology companies to prevent child sexual abuse (CSA) and exploitation from happening on their platforms and to prevent the spread of child sexual exploitation material (CSEM) online. If passed, Bill C-63 will position Canada as one of the leading countries in preventing online sexual exploitation of children, alongside its Five Eyes peers, Australia and the United Kingdom.

International Justice Mission included several recommendations for Bill C-63.

1. Ensure livestreaming child sexual abuse is specifically included in the legislation.
2. Take a preventive and safety by design approach.
3. Take into account victim and survivor voice when developing regulations.
4. Include offender deterrence in addition to protecting Canadian children.
5. Include private messaging and video-chat platforms and features.

There’s nothing in their filing that’s objectionable. People can agree that content that abuses children should be removed from the internet.

The testimony from the witnesses (over 3 days) is freely available.

The Canadian Centre for Child Protection Inc met with MP Mona Fortier in early 2025 to discuss:

“…access to justice, criminal justice, and social policy issues related to online child sexual abuse and online violence against children and possible legislative or policy initiatives that could reduce victimization and/or improve victim recovery.”

The group also met with Michelle Rempel-Garner and Craig Oldham.

Foreign Groups At The Heart Of Censorship Laws

While there were commendable aspects to Bill C-63, or at least the first parts, the latter ones raise real questions about the stifling of free speech. Interestingly, the most powerful groups behind it aren’t actually Canadian. They represent foreign lobbies.

Part of the problem is that terms are so poorly defined — and probably on purpose — that they can be selectively applied, depending on the politics involved. This is not good at all.

1. Centre For Israel And Jewish Affairs (CIJA)

CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, has lobbied the Canadian Parliament over 2,000 times since the year 2000. They’ve been pushing for censorship and a variety of hate speech laws (antisemitism) the entire time.

CIJA also arranges for Canadian politicians to go abroad for free trips to Israel each year. This is similar to how AIPAC functions in the United States. This is not limited to Liberals or Conservatives, but seems to involve all parties.

The group also gets funding from the “conservative” administration in Ontario.

2. B’Nai Brith National Organization Of Canada

B’nai Brith describes its activities as such: “The Organization’s purpose is to relieve poverty, prevent discrimination and antisemitism, improve the moral and ethical development of the community, provide assistance to victims of human rights abuses, relieve conditions associated with the elderly.” Bill C-63 is specifically listed.

3. National Council Of Canadian Muslims (NCCM)

NCCM, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, has been similarly involved in pushing for censorship and hate speech laws in the name of Islamophobia. This isn’t limited to one group or ideology. And like their Jewish counterparts, NCCM also gets large tax subsidies.

4. Canadian Medical Association (CMA)

The Canadian Medical Association takes this view:

Support the passage of Bill C-63, an Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to address the escalation of online harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence targeting physicians, other health workers, and anyone seeking health care treatment, including measures to strengthen the Criminal Code of Canada and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Keep in mind, the CMA supported lockdowns and vaccine passports in recent years. It’s quite understandable that large segments of society don’t trust them.

It’s also worth mentioning that a number of non-ideological groups are concerned with Bill C-63. This is likely because it will impact their businesses.

  1. American Chamber of Commerce
  2. Google (which owns YouTube)
  3. Rumble
  4. X (formerly Twitter)
  5. Facebook
  6. Pinterest
  7. LinkedIn

To be clear, there is a genuine public interest in removing content that involves abuse of children or animals. No decent person would argue otherwise.

However, the rest of the Bill seems designed to crack down on free speech and certain political views. And it appears to be driven primarily be foreign interest groups. We’ll have to see what happens next.

Unfortunately, even legislation that’s (reasonably) well written can cause problems. While politicians vote on the bills themselves, the details are typically implemented by regulation. This means that unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats will be making important decisions.

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=13035098
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/JUST/Brief/BR13487005/br-external/HumaneCanada-e.pdf
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/JUST/Brief/BR13531934/br-external/InternationalJusticeMission-e.pdf
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=632025
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=631668
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=632024
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=937469
(8) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/SponsoredTravel-DeplParraines.aspx
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=378700&regId=964738
(10) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=358918&regId=946132&blnk=1
(11) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=372582&regId=951907

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

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress