Category: Criminal

Posted on

Bill C-21: Introducing Red Flag Laws To Make It Easier To Grab Guns

Bill C-21, if implemented, will allow for private citizens to go before Courts, and ask A Judge to issue an Order to seize a person’s firearms. Note: it doesn’t appear that the person who is potentially subjected to such a restraint will have the opportunity to defend themselves.

1. Gun Rights Are Essential, Need Protecting

The freedoms of a society can be gauged by the laws and attitudes they have towards firearms. Governments, and other groups can push around an unarmed population much easier than those who can defend themselves. It’s not conspiratorial to wonder about those pushing for gun control. In fact, healthy skepticism is needed for a society to function.

2. What The Criminal Code Says Right Now

Discretionary prohibition order
.
110 (1) Where a person is convicted, or discharged under section 730, of
.
(a) an offence, other than an offence referred to in any of paragraphs 109(1)(a) to (c.1), in the commission of which violence against a person was used, threatened or attempted, or
.
(b) an offence that involves, or the subject-matter of which is, a firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or an explosive substance and, at the time of the offence, the person was not prohibited by any order made under this Act or any other Act of Parliament from possessing any such thing,
.
the court that sentences the person or directs that the person be discharged, as the case may be, shall, in addition to any other punishment that may be imposed for that offence or any other condition prescribed in the order of discharge, consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of the person or of any other person, to make an order prohibiting the person from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, and where the court decides that it is so desirable, the court shall so order.

Section 109 of the Criminal Code of Canada mandates prohibitions based on serious convictions, and 110 of the Code allows for weapons bans based on lesser crimes. But the key is CRIMINALS.

What is key here, is that it refers to people convicted of crimes, or discharged after a finding of guilt. There are also provisions which allow for accused people released on bail to have their firearm access suspended. That’s reasonable to most people.

However, this proposed addition to the Code would allow for (shorter) prohibitions based on reasonable suspicion, whatever that means. And while people are entitled to defend themselves in criminal cases, that doesn’t see to apply here.

3. What Bill C-21 Would Add To Criminal Code

4 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 110:
Application for emergency prohibition order
110.‍1 (1) Any person may make an ex parte application to a provincial court judge for an order prohibiting another person from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, if the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of the person against whom the order is sought or of any other person that the person against whom the order is sought should possess any such thing.

Emergency prohibition order
(2) If, at the conclusion of a hearing of an application made under subsection (1), the provincial court judge is satisfied that the circumstances referred to in that subsection exist and that an order should be made without delay to ensure the immediate protection of any person, the judge shall make an order prohibiting the person against whom the order is sought from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, for a period not exceeding 30 days, as is specified in the order, beginning on the day on which the order is made.

Service of order
(3) A copy of the order shall be served on the person to whom the order is addressed in the manner that the provincial court judge directs or in accordance with the rules of court.

Warrant to search and seize
(4) If a provincial court judge is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person who is subject to an order made under subsection (2) possesses, in a building, receptacle or place, any thing the possession of which is prohibited by the order, and that it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of the person, or of any other person, for the person to possess the thing, the judge may issue a warrant authorizing a peace officer to search the building, receptacle or place and seize any such thing, and every authorization, licence or registration certificate relating to any such thing, that is held by or in the possession of the person.

Search and seizure without warrant
(5) If, in respect of a person who is subject to an order made under subsection (2), a peace officer is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is not desirable, in the interests of the safety of the person, or of any other person, for the person to possess any thing the possession of which is prohibited by the order, the peace officer may, where the grounds for obtaining a warrant under subsection (4) exist but, by reason of a possible danger to the safety of the person or any other person, it would not be practicable to obtain a warrant, search for and seize any such thing, and any authorization, licence or registration certificate relating to any such thing, that is held by or in the possession of the person.

Return to provincial court judge or justice
(6) A peace officer who executes a warrant referred to in subsection (4) or who conducts a search without a warrant under subsection (5) shall immediately make a return to the provincial court judge who issued the warrant or, if no warrant was issued, to a justice who might otherwise have issued a warrant, showing
(a) in the case of an execution of a warrant, the things or documents, if any, seized and the date of execution of the warrant; and
(b) in the case of a search conducted without a warrant, the grounds on which it was concluded that the peace officer was entitled to conduct the search, and the things or documents, if any, seized.

Return of things and documents
(7) Any things or documents seized under subsection (4) or (5) from a person against whom an order has been made under subsection (2) shall be returned to the person and any things or documents surrendered by the person in accordance with the order shall be returned to the person
(a) if no date is fixed under subsection 110.‍2(1) for the hearing of an application made under subsection 111(1) in respect of the person, as soon as feasible after the expiry of the period specified in the order made against the person under subsection (2);
(b) if a date is fixed for the hearing but no order is made against the person under subsection 111(5), as soon as feasible after the final disposition of the application; or
(c) despite paragraphs (a) and (b), if the order made against the person under subsection (2) is revoked, as soon as feasible after the day on which it is revoked.

10 The Act is amended by adding the following after the heading before section 117.‍011:
.
Application for emergency limitations on access order
117.‍0101 (1) Any person may make an ex parte application to a provincial court judge for an order under this section if the person believes on reasonable grounds that
(a) the person against whom the order is sought cohabits with, or is an associate of, another person who is prohibited by any order made under this Act or any other Act of Parliament from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things; and
(b) the other person would or might have access to any such thing that is in the possession of the person against whom the order is sought.
Emergency limitations on access order
.
(2) If, at the conclusion of a hearing of an application made under subsection (1), the provincial court judge is satisfied that the circumstances referred to in that subsection exist and that an order should be made without delay to ensure the immediate protection of any person, the judge shall make an order in respect of the person against whom the order is sought, for a period not exceeding 30 days, as is specified in the order, beginning on the day on which the order is made, imposing any terms and conditions on the person’s use and possession of any thing referred to in subsection (1) that the judge considers appropriate.

https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-21/first-reading#ID0ELAA

As it is written right now, any person will be able to file an application with the Court, to ask a person be removed of their guns, without the right to defend themselves at the start. It’s written up so that the person applying doesn’t have to fear for their safety, but can claim to fear for someone else. Of course, it’s unclear what standard (if any), would be applied to satisfy a Court.

Not only can these Applications be done without a person being able to defend themselves, but it appears that warrantless searches would be allowed. Of course, all of this is done in the name of public safety.

It’s not limited to getting an Order against a person — again, with no chance to defend themself. In addition, an Order can also be sought against the people who live with, or associate with, that person. So much for freedom of association.

To repeat, there is no requirement that the recipients of such Orders be charged or convicted of crimes. Simply having a Judge “believe reasonably” is sufficient. Certainly, it’s easier when only one side can be heard.

4. Recent Red Flag Laws In United States

Unfortunately, these types of laws are not limited to Canada, or to Liberals. Even in the United States, efforts to implement red-flag laws are growing. Here, then President Trump, a REPUBLICAN, supported taking the guns first. However, the full scale of that will be saved for another article.

Posted on

Bit Of History: No Consequences For 2013 Illegal RCMP Gun Grab In High River

True, this is several years old, but what happened then could easily happen again to honest citizens. The Canada Firearms Media Wire posted this video from 2015, where the RCMP attempt to justify a gun seizure in High River, Alberta. It doesn’t go so well.

1. Gun Rights Are Essential, Need Protecting

The freedoms of a society can be gauged by the laws and attitudes they have towards firearms. Governments, and other groups can push around an unarmed population much easier than those who can defend themselves. It’s not conspiratorial to wonder about those pushing for gun control. In fact, healthy skepticism is needed for a society to function.

2. RCMP Attempts To Justify Gun Grab

Mr. Ian McPhail, the Chair of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP (Commission), today released the Commission’s report on its Chair-initiated complaint and public interest investigation into the RCMP’s response to the 2013 flood in High River, Alberta.

The Commission’s investigation reviewed the decisions and actions of RCMP members with respect to the entry of private residences, and the seizure of firearms from some residences during the emergency response to the flooding of High River.

The investigation included an examination of approximately 10,000 pages of documentation, more than 1,000 images and 50 videos, as well as a review of RCMP operational and administrative policies, applicable laws and jurisprudence related to the actions in question. Investigators also interviewed dozens of individuals affected by the flood and the resulting emergency response.

“The 2013 flooding of the Town of High River, Alberta, was unprecedented and challenged the emergency response capacity of the region to its limits. There is no question that the emergency measures implemented were extraordinary and saw countless examples of heroic efforts by first responders, including members of the RCMP, which deserve to be fully recognized,” said Mr. McPhail.

“However, it is also clear that, in the interest of saving lives and securing property, RCMP members exceeded their authorities in some instances during the emergency response. The Commission’s investigation found no evidence that this was deliberate, but rather that it occurred as a result of a lack of understanding of legal authorities applicable under the circumstances, unclear policy relating to emergency response management, and gaps in RCMP leadership. This, combined with ineffective communications by the RCMP about how it was responding to the crisis, added to public anxiety and led many to question the integrity of the RCMP’s actions,” added Mr. McPhail.

Following the seizure of many firearms from the homes of law abiding residents, a formal complaint was filed against the RCMP.

In the Interim Report of February 2015, it was admitted that firearms were seized that were not unsecure, and not in plain view. However, the the RCMP attempts to justify this as a communications breakdown, and officers acting in good faith. There is plenty of self-congratulations about the officers involved, and the lives saved.

The Final Report in April 2016 recommended the RCMP revisit their communications and emergency management policies, but did not recommend any action be taken against the officers involved.

3. Should There Have Been Real Consequences?

The RCMP have tried to justify this by claiming that they went door-to-door looking for survivors and pets to rescue. They say that guns were seized, but that they were in plain view, or unsecured weapons.

However, even the findings say that weapons that were hidden and secure were seized. This means that the narrative about “plain view” is false. Also, it doesn’t really fit the narrative of a search-and-rescue to save lives, if police end up searching small and hidden spots for guns.

Why were these other guns taken? A charitable theory would be that police found a few weapons in the open, and got startled. A more conspiratorial approach would be that this flood just provided a convenient excuse to try out such a seizure. But only the RCMP and the politicians know for sure.

Posted on

TSCE #9(G): Bit Of History – Bill C-30, Toews Gutting Internet Privacy Under Pretense Of Child Protection

On February 14, 2012, then-Public Safety Minister Vic Toews introduced Bill C-30 into the House of Commons. It would have forced internet providers to hand over customer data — without a warrant — to police during investigations. Even law abiding people had reason to be concerned, with just how broad and sweeping this Bill was. Anyhow, it didn’t get past 1st Reading.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Content Of Bill C-30

Obligations Concerning Subscriber Information
Provision of subscriber information
16. (1) On written request by a person designated under subsection (3) that includes prescribed identifying information, every telecommunications service provider must provide the person with identifying information in the service provider’s possession or control respecting the name, address, telephone number and electronic mail address of any subscriber to any of the service provider’s telecommunications services and the Internet protocol address and local service provider identifier that are associated with the subscriber’s service and equipment.
.
Purpose of the request
(2) A designated person must ensure that he or she makes a request under subsection (1) only in performing, as the case may be, a duty or function
(a) of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act;
(b) of a police service, including any related to the enforcement of any laws of Canada, of a province or of a foreign jurisdiction; or
(c) of the Commissioner of Competition under the Competition Act.
.
Designated persons
(3) The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Commissioner of Competition and the chief or head of a police service constituted under the laws of a province may designate for the purposes of this section any employee of his or her agency, or a class of such employees, whose duties are related to protecting national security or to law enforcement.
.
Limit on number of designated persons
(4) The number of persons designated under subsection (3) in respect of a particular agency may not exceed the greater of five and the number that is equal to five per cent of the total number of employees of that agency.
Delegation
(5) The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service may delegate his or her power to designate persons under subsection (3) to, respectively, a member of a prescribed class of senior officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or a member of a prescribed class of senior officials of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Miscellaneous Provisions
Facility and service information
24. (1) A telecommunications service provider must, on the request of a police officer or of an employee of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service,
(a) provide the prescribed information relating to the service provider’s telecommunications facilities;
(b) indicate what telecommunications services the service provider offers to subscribers; and
(c) provide the name, address and telephone number of any telecommunications service providers from whom the service provider obtains or to whom the service provider provides telecommunications services, if the service provider has that information.

Persons engaged in interceptions
28. (1) A telecommunications service provider must, on the request of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, provide a list of the names of the persons who are employed by or carrying out work for the service provider who may assist in the interception of communications.

34. (1) An inspector may, for a purpose related to verifying compliance with this Act, enter any place owned by, or under the control of, any telecommunications service provider in which the inspector has reasonable grounds to believe there is any document, information, transmission apparatus, telecommunications facility or any other thing to which this Act applies.
.
Powers on entry
(2) The inspector may, for that purpose,
(a) examine any document, information or thing found in the place and open or cause to be opened any container or other thing;
(b) examine or test or cause to be tested any telecommunications facility or transmission apparatus or related equipment found in the place;
(c) use, or cause to be used, any computer system in the place to search and examine any information contained in or available to the system;
(d) reproduce, or cause to be reproduced, any information in the form of a printout, or other intelligible output, and remove the printout, or other output, for examination or copying; or
(e) use, or cause to be used, any copying equipment or means of telecommunication at the place.
.
Duty to assist
(3) The owner or person in charge of the place and every person in the place must give all assistance that is reasonably required to enable the inspector to perform their functions under this section and must provide any documents or information, and access to any data, that are reasonably required for that purpose.
.
Inspector may be accompanied
(4) The inspector may be accompanied by any other person that they believe is necessary to help them perform their functions under this section.

Entry onto private property
36. An inspector and any person accompanying them may enter private property — other than a dwelling-house — and pass through it in order to gain entry to a place referred to in subsection 34(1). For greater certainty, they are not liable for doing so.
.
Use of force
37. In executing a warrant to enter a dwelling-house, an inspector may use force only if the use of force has been specifically authorized in the warrant and they are accompanied by a peace officer.

Does this sound like it’s about protecting kids online? The CPC became notorious for gaslighting Canadians over privacy concerns with the line: “Either you’re with us, or you’re with the child pornographers”. Concerns over this Bill wasn’t just limited to criminals and child predators. Anyone with any expectation of privacy from internet providers should be alarmed.

Remember the days when “Conservatives” at least pretended care about personal freedoms, such as privacy and property rights?

Who’s to say that elements of this won’t be, (or haven’t already been), slipped into other pieces of legislation? If it were more arranged in a more piece-meal fashion, it could pass.

3. Backlash Felt Over Privacy Concerns

Following the predictable public outrage, Toews backed down almost immediately, saying he would entertain amendments to the Bill. At that time, the Conservative Party held a majority in Parliament, so they could have passed it if they wanted to. In the end, Bill C-30 didn’t get past First Reading, and died in that session of Parliament.

Posted on

TSCE #12(C): Twitter Sued For (Allegedly) Refusing To Remove Child Exploitation Material

Twitter is being sued in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. It’s alleged that Twitter refused to take down pornographic material, even after becoming aware that minors were involved, and they were exploited. The site, endsexualexploitation.org, posted a copy of the complaint. The names were redacted in the papers to protect the identities of the family.

Just a reminder: at this point, it is just accusations against Twitter.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Important Links

Twitter CP Remained Up Lawsuit Filed Statement Of Claim
Endsexualexploitation,org Website Link
Interview With Epoch Times — American Thought Leaders
Twitter T.O.S.: Child Sexual Exploitation Policies
https://archive.is/PVP1w
Twitter Medical Misinformation Policies
https://archive.is/RLwRi
Twitter Misleading Information Updates
https://archive.is/zoqrD

3. Epoch Times Interviews Plaintiff’s Lawyer

Lisa Haba, lawyer for the victim, gave an interview with Jan Jekielek of Epoch Times a few days ago. This is well worth a watch. They bring up several interesting topics, including using Section 230 as a legal defense.

4. Quotes From The Lawsuit Against Twitter

This is a civil action for damages under the federal Trafficking Victims’ Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 and 1595, Failure to Report Child Sexual Abuse Material, 18 U.S.C. § 2258A, Receipt and Distribution of Child Pornography, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A, and related state law claims arising from Defendant’s conduct when it knowingly hosted sexual exploitation material, including child sex abuse material (referred to in some instances as child pornography), and allowed human trafficking and the dissemination of child sexual abuse material to continue on its platform, therefore profiting from the harmful and exploitive material and the traffic it draws.

1. Sex trafficking is a form of slavery that illegally exists in this world—both throughout the United States and globally—and traffickers have been able to operate under cover of the law through online platforms. Likewise, those platforms have profited from the posting and dissemination of trafficking and the exploitative images and videos associated with it.

2. The dissemination of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) has become a global scourge since the explosion of the internet, which allows those that seek to trade in this material to equally operate under cover of the law through online platforms.

3. This lawsuit seeks to shine a light on how Twitter has enabled and profited from CSAM on its platform, choosing profits over people, money over the safety of children, and wealth at the expense of human freedom and human dignity.

4. With over 330 million users, Twitter is one of the largest social media companies in the world. It is also one of the most prolific distributors of material depicting the sexual abuse and exploitation of children.

28. Twitter explains how it makes money from advertising services as follows:
.
We generate most of our advertising revenue by selling our
Promoted Products. Currently, our Promoted Products consist of
the following:
.
• Promoted Tweets. Promoted Tweets, which are labeled as
“promoted,” appear within a timeline, search results or profile
pages just like an ordinary Tweet regardless of device, whether it
be desktop or mobile. Using our proprietary algorithms and
understanding of the interests of each account, we can deliver
Promoted Tweets that are intended to be relevant to a particular
account. We enable our advertisers to target an audience based on
an individual account’s interest graph. Our Promoted Tweets are
pay-for-performance or pay-for-impression delivered advertising
that are priced through an auction. Our Promoted Tweets include
objective-based features that allow advertisers to pay only for the
types of engagement selected by the advertisers, such as Tweet
engagements (e.g., Retweets, replies and likes), website clicks,
mobile application installs or engagements, obtaining new
followers, or video views.

65. In 2017, when John Doe was 13-14 years old, he engaged in a dialog with someone he thought was an individual person on the communications application Snapchat. That person or persons represented to John Doe that they were a 16-year-old female and he believed that person went his school.

66. After conversing, the person or persons (“Traffickers”) interacting with John Doe exchanged nude photos on Snapchat.

67. After he did so the correspondence changed to blackmail. Now the Traffickers wanted more sexually graphic pictures and videos of John Doe, and recruited, enticed, threatened and solicited John Doe by telling him that if he did not provide this material, then the nude pictures of himself that he had already sent would be sent to his parents, coach, pastor, and others in his community.

68. Initially John Doe complied with the Traffickers’ demands. He was told to provide videos of himself performing sexual acts. He was also told to include another person in the videos, to which he complied.

69. Because John Doe was (and still is) a minor and the pictures and videos he was threatened and coerced to produce included graphic sexual depictions of himself, including depictions of him engaging in sexual acts with another minor, the pictures and videos constitute CSAM under the law.

70. The Traffickers also attempted to meet with him in person. Fortunately, an in person meeting never took place.

85. John Doe submitted a picture of his drivers’ license to Twitter proving that he is a minor. He emailed back the same day saying:

91. On January 28, 2020, Twitter sent John Doe an email that read as follows:
.
Hello,
.
Thanks for reaching out. We’ve reviewed the content, and didn’t find a violation of our policies, so no action will be taken at this time.
.
If you believe there’s a potential copyright infringement, please start a new report.
.
If the content is hosted on a third-party website, you’ll need to contact that website’s support team to report it.
.
Your safety is the most important thing, and if you believe you are in danger, we encourage you to contact your local authorities. Taking screenshots of the Tweets is often a good idea, and we have more information available for law enforcement about our policies.
.
Thanks,
Twitter

In short, the victim met someone online pretending to be someone else, and got him to send nude photos under false pretenses. The teen — which is still a minor today — was then blackmailed into sending more.

Some of this was posted on Twitter. Despite verifying the age and identity of the victim, they refused to remove the content, saying that they found no violations in their terms of services. It was only after Homeland Security stepped in, that Twitter finally complied.

Interestingly, almost half of the complaint against Twitter consists of copies of its own rules, policies, and terms of service. Twitter has rules on the books to prevent exactly this type of thing, but (allegedly) refused to act when it was brought to their attention.

The comment about “potential copyright infringement” comes across as a slap in the face. That was clearly never the concern of the child.

Twitter has not filed a response, so we’ll have to see what happens next.

5. Current Twitter Policy On Exploiting Minors

Child sexual exploitation policy
Overview
October 2020
.
We have a zero-tolerance child sexual exploitation policy on Twitter.
.
Twitter has zero tolerance towards any material that features or promotes child sexual exploitation, one of the most serious violations of the Twitter Rules. This may include media, text, illustrated, or computer-generated images. Regardless of the intent, viewing, sharing, or linking to child sexual exploitation material contributes to the re-victimization of the depicted children. This also applies to content that may further contribute to victimization of children through the promotion or glorification of child sexual exploitation. For the purposes of this policy, a minor is any person under the age of 18.

What is in violation of this policy?
Any content that depicts or promotes child sexual exploitation including, but not limited to:
-visual depictions of a child engaging in sexually explicit or sexually suggestive acts;
-illustrated, computer-generated or other forms of realistic depictions of a human child in a sexually explicit context, or engaging in sexually explicit acts;
-sexualized commentaries about or directed at a known or unknown minor; and
-links to third-party sites that host child sexual exploitation material.

The following behaviors are also not permitted:
-sharing fantasies about or promoting engagement in child sexual exploitation;
-expressing a desire to obtain materials that feature child sexual exploitation;
-recruiting, advertising or expressing an interest in a commercial sex act involving a child, or in harboring and/or transporting a child for sexual purposes;
–sending sexually explicit media to a child;
-engaging or trying to engage a child in a sexually explicit conversation;
-trying to obtain sexually explicit media from a child or trying to engage a child in sexual activity through blackmail or other incentives;
-identifying alleged victims of childhood sexual exploitation by name or image; and
-promoting or normalizing sexual attraction to minors as a form of identity or sexual orientation.

At least on paper, Twitter has very strong policies against the sort of behaviour that is outlined in the California lawsuit. It’s baffling why Twitter wouldn’t immediately remove the content. This isn’t the hill to die on for any company.

Twitter can, and does, suspend accounts for insulting pedophiles and making comments about death or castration. Yet, this incident wasn’t against their terms of service.

6. Title 47, CH 5, SUBCHAPTER II Part I § 230

(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
(d) Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.

The “Section 230” which is commonly referenced refers to the 1996 Communications Decency Act. This gave platforms — both existing, and ones that came later — significant legal protections. They were considered platforms, not publishers.

The distinction between platforms and publishers seems small, but is significant. Platforms are eligible for certain benefits and tax breaks, but are cannot (except in limited circumstances), be held liable. Publishers, however, can be much more discriminatory about what they allow to be shown.

The wording is such that it does give wiggle room for publishers to apply their own take on what material is considered offensive.

It has been suggested that Twitter could rely on its Section 230 protections, but that would not shield it from penalties for criminal actions. The allegations made in this lawsuit are not just civil, but criminal in nature.

While Twitter may not be liable for everything that goes on, this particular incident was brought to their attention. They asked for identification and age verification, received it, and then decided there was no violation to their terms of service. So claiming ignorance would be extremely difficult.

7. Loss On Social Media Anonymity?!

One issue not discussed as much is a potential consequence of legal actions against platforms like Twitter. Will this lead to the loss of anonymous accounts? Might identity verification come as an unintended consequence?

While no decent person wants children — or anyone — to be take advantage of, there is a certain security knowing that online and private life can be separated. This is the era of doxing, harassment and stalking, and as such, there are legitimate concerns for many people. This is especially true for those discussing more controversial and politically incorrect topics.

Do we really want things to go the way of Parler, who began demanding Government issued I.D., and then had a “data breach”?

8. Twitter Policies On “Medical Misinformation”

https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1267986500030955520
https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1278095924330364935
http://archive.is/fHoLx
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2020/updating-our-approach-to-misleading-information.html

This topic is brought up to show how selective Twitter’s commitment is to free speech, and to dissenting viewpoints. Even a charitable interpretation would be that there is political bias in how the rules and standardds are applied.

Strangely, Twitter takes a more thorough approach to monitoring and removing tweets and accounts for promoting “medical misinformation”. Despite there being many valid questions and concerns about this “pandemic”, far more of that is censored. Odd priorities.

Yet child porn and exploiting minors can remain up?

Posted on

Reminder, Bill S-240 Didn’t Pass, Would Criminalize Leaving Canada For Trafficked Organs

Senate Bill S-240 would make it a crime to go abroad for the purposes of receiving trafficked organs. The rationale being, if it’s illegal here, leaving to do it should be treated the same way. In part, Bill S-240 has been in response to revelations that China has been involved in forced organ harvesting.

This is the 4th version of the idea to come forward. Yet again, it did not pass before the session ended.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Important Links

Senate Introduces Bill S-240, Criminal Code, Organ Trafficking
Bill S-240 Transcript Of Hearings
Senate Bill S-240: Going Abroad To Obtain Illegal Organs
Open Parliament On MP Speeches, Quotes
House Committee Hearings On Bill S-240
The Conversation: Canada Complicit In Chinese Organ Trafficking
EndTransplantAbuse.Org

3. From 2018 Senate Hearings

Bills don’t always have to originate in the House of Commons. Many come from the Senate as well, and Bill S-240 is just one of them. It would have amended the Criminal Code to make it a crime to go abroad to obtain an organ where there has been no informed consent. It’s already a crime to leave the country to participate in terrorism or child sex offences, so it’s not much of a stretch.

The Senate adopted it on June 14, 2018. However, it would be another year before the House of Commons would hold hearings on it.

4. Audio From Parliamentary Hearings

February 26, 2019 — House Committee

February 27, 2019 — House Committee


From the House of Commons hearings.

5. Most Recent Text Of Bill S-240

BILL S-240
An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs)
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
.
R.‍S.‍, c. C-46
Criminal Code
1 (1) Section 7 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (4.‍11):
Offence outside Canada
.
(4.‍2) Despite anything in this Act or any other Act, a person who commits an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be an offence under section 240.‍1 is deemed to commit that act or omission in Canada if the person is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
.
(2) Subsection 7(4.‍3) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Consent of Attorney General
.
(4.‍3) Proceedings with respect to an act or omission deemed to have been committed in Canada under subsection (4.‍1) or (4.‍2) may only be instituted with the consent of the Attorney General.
.
2 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 240:
Trafficking in Human Organs
Removal without informed consent
.
240.‍1 (1) Everyone commits an offence who
(a) obtains an organ to be transplanted into their body or into the body of another person, knowing that the person from whom it was removed did not give informed consent to the removal, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave informed consent;
.
(b) carries out, participates in or facilitates the removal of an organ from the body of another person, knowing that the person from whom it was removed did not give informed consent to the removal, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave informed consent; or
.
(c) acts on behalf of, at the direction of or in association with a person who removes an organ from the body of another person, knowing that the person from whom it was removed did not give informed consent to the removal, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave informed consent.

The Bill underwent some changes along the way, but that is the latest version. Not only would a person receiving a trafficked organ be exposed to prosecution for leaving Canada, but others involved in facilitating it would be as liable as well.

6. S-204 A Response To China’s Trafficking

The clock is ticking on Canada’s chance to enact important measures against organ trafficking.

For the past two decades, the Chinese regime has been killing prisoners of conscience for their organs. The purchase and sale of human lives has become an industry, and Canada, among other developed countries, has been supporting it.

Bill S-240 seeks to put a stop to Canadian complicity by criminalizing organ tourism. The bill has received unanimous consent from both the Senate and the House of Commons, and is awaiting final Senate approval before the end of the parliamentary session before it can be passed.

This is a critical moment of decision for Canada.

As a member of the Canadian Committee of the International Coalition To End Transplant Abuse In China, I have been among those advocating for Bill S-240, an act that brings important changes to the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in order to combat organ tourism.

Several articles available call this what is: fighting back largely against the forced organ harvesting that China is involved with.

This should be a pretty straightforward issue to get on board with. But like the other times this was introduced, it never quite made it through Parliament. Plenty of lesser and symbolic pieces of legislation have, but not this.

Posted on

CV #28(C): Manitoba’s “Conservative” Premier, Brian Pallister, Considering Curfew

Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister: will this become Canada’s version of Dan Andrews?

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here.

2. Pallister Proposes “Temporary” Curfew


https://twitter.com/BrianPallister/status/1323638895586779136

Why is it always the conservatives (at least in Canada), who turn out to be the biggest tyrants? Is it ideological, or are they being bribed or threatened?

Yes, we’re stepping up enforcement.
Yes, we need to be proactive.
Yes, we need to be preventative in our decision making.
And so, I also want Manitobans perspective on an initiative that’s been taken in other jurisdictions around the world. It’s actually been taken in Manitoba as well, and we are giving serious consideration to it.
As with all of our plans, we make them available to Manitobans before they’re implemented, and I want to do the same with this one.
.
We’re giving serious consideration to implementing a curfew, a curfew that would be designed to restrict travel between key hours, when gathering sizes tend to be dangerously in excess of the rules, (late night hours, obviously).
.
These late night situations in Winnipeg have expanded out Covid cases very significantly, According to Dr. Roussin, this is an action we should seriously consider, and I am seriously considering it now. I want Manitobans to tell us what they think of the idea of a limited period curfew (we hope very short time period is involved here). But, this potential measure will have to be acted upon. If Manitobans can support and encourage it. If they disagree, I want to hear from them.

It all seems so harmless and well intentioned, doesn’t it? Pallister actually comes across as a sincere person, but anyone who pays attention knows where this is heading.

3. This Is Only The Beginning

There is little doubt that Brian Pallister will “claim” there is widespread support for curfews, even if the overwhelming majority oppose it. Alternatively, he may claim that it’s the call of Public Health, and he has no say in the matter.

Calling it “temporary” or “limited” are just soft sells to deceive people into what is really going to happen. Look at Australia as a model.