Category: Criminal

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

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHSO3hpBVrs

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

Pushing To Decriminalize Non-Disclosure Of HIV In Sexual Encounters

Yes, this was actually discussed in several Parliamentary hearings in the Spring of 2019: should we decriminalize the failure to disclose HIV positive status in sexual encounters?

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

The TSCE series is a broad area, one that covers many overlapping topics. This includes the open borders agenda, organ harvesting, and various NGOs who help facilitate it. A subtopic for this article is using gay rights as a way to make this seem less wrong.

2. Just Another Scott Wiener Here?

California State Senator Scott Wiener was the subject of a recent piece. He helped pass legislation that reduced the penalty of KNOWINGLY spreading HIV from a felony to a misdemeanor. He also helped pass SB 145, which made sex offender registration optional for gay pedos.

This may be even worse, since proponents in the Canadian debate want to decriminalize non-disclosure of HIV status altogether.

3. Parliamentary Hearings In 2019

hiv.non.disclosure.april.9.meeting.transcript
hiv.non.disclosure.april.30.meeting.transcript
hiv.non.disclosure.may.7.meeting.transcript
hiv.non.disclosure.may.14.meeting.transcript
hiv.non.disclosure.June.04.meeting.transcript
hiv.non.disclosure.June.06.meeting.transcript
hiv.non.disclosure.June.11.meeting.transcript

hiv.CanadianHIVAIDSLegalNetwork-e
hiv.JointUnitedNationsProgrammeOnHIVAIDS-e
hiv.PivotLegalSociety-e
hiv.WomensLegalEducationAndActionFund-e
HIVJusticeWorldwide-e

hiv.non.disc.report.to.parliament

4. Lobbying By HIV Legal Network

In what should surprise no one, HIV Legal Network has been lobbying the Federal Government a lot over the last several years. Don’t worry, Canadian tax dollars are helping to pay for this.

HIV Legal Network is also not the only group trying to weaken the criminal penalties. There are several more.

5. Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund

One would think that a women’s group with a feminist tilt would be very concerned about removing penalties for crimes that can devastate women. Instead, Karen Segal of LEAF argued that non-disclosure of HIV during sexual encounters should be removed from the sexual assault laws, and possibly decriminalized altogether. Segal was more concerned with protecting the rights of causing this.

Remember LEAF? They come out with yet another anti-woman stance, this time, on protecting women from HIV infected people.

6. Recent Court Decision By ONCA

[1] Over a period of many months, after being diagnosed with HIV and warned about the need to disclose his HIV status to sexual partners, the appellant engaged in repeated acts of vaginal sexual intercourse with three different women. The appellant wore condoms but did not disclose his HIV-positive status and was not on antiretroviral medication. The complainants testified that they would not have consented to having sexual intercourse with the appellant had they been aware of his HIV-positive status.

[2] The appellant was charged with multiple offences, including three counts of aggravated sexual assault. The trial focused on whether the appellant’s failure to disclose his HIV status to the complainants, prior to sexual intercourse, constituted fraud vitiating their consent to that sexual activity in accordance with the principles laid down in R. v. Mabior, 2012 SCC 47, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 584. Although one of the complainants was diagnosed with HIV after her sexual relationship with the appellant, there was no proof that she contracted the virus from him.

And this goes to the heart of the matter: the other person would not have consented if the HIV status had been disclosed ahead of time. While these convictions were upheld, all of this can change if the Federal Government does implement changes to the criminal code.

7. Comm Report Recommends Decriminalization

Final Report To Parliament

5.1.1 Immediately Prohibiting the Use of Sexual Assault Provisions
The Committee agrees with witnesses that the use of sexual assault provisions to deal with HIV non-disclosure is overly punitive, contributes to the stigmatisation and discrimination against people living with HIV, and acts as a significant impediment to the attainment of our public health objectives. The consequences of such a conviction are
too harsh and the use of sexual assault provisions to deal with consensual sexual activities is simply not appropriate.

5.1.2 Limiting Criminalization to the Most Blameworthy Circumstances
The Committee believes that a new offence should be created in the Criminal Code to cover HIV non-disclosure cases in specific circumstances. The new offence should not be limited to HIV but cover the non-disclosure of infectious diseases in general. The Committee is of the view that people living with HIV should not be treated differently than people living with any other infectious disease.

Recommendation 2
That the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada immediately establish a federal-provincial working group to develop a common prosecutorial directive to be in effect across Canada
.
• to end criminal prosecutions of HIV non-disclosure, except in cases where there is actual transmission of the virus;
• to ensure that the factors to be respected for criminal prosecutions of HIV non-disclosure reflect the most recent medical science regarding HIV and its modes of transmission and only applies when there is actual transmission having regard to the realistic possibility of transmission. At this point of time, HIV non-disclosure should never be prosecuted if (1) the infected individual has an undetectable viral load (less than 200 copies per millilitre of blood); (2) condoms are used; (3) the infected individual’s partner is on PrEP or (4) the type of sexual act (such as oral sex) is one where there is a negligible risk of transmission.

The report is correct in one regard: that this shouldn’t be limited to HIV. However, it otherwise comes across as pretty indifferent to the real world consequences of withholding such information to a partner.

While it talks about creating a new offence, it would most likely have very minor penalties.

8. Lametti Promises To Implement If Re-Elected

The Liberals hope to address the criminalization of HIV nondisclosure if re-elected in the fall, the federal justice minister said Friday as advocacy groups pushed the government to make changes to the law.

HIV nondisclosure has led to assault or sexual assault charges because it’s been found to invalidate a partner’s consent — the rationale being that if someone knew a person had HIV, they wouldn’t consent to sexual activity because of the risk of transmission.

Advocates say the justice system lags behind the science on the issue, with a growing body of evidence saying there is no realistic possibility of transmission of HIV if a person is on antiretroviral therapy and has had a suppressed viral load for six months.

A parliamentary committee has been examining the issue for months and is expected to release a report with recommendations next week. Justice Minister David Lametti said the Liberals want to address the matter but won’t have time to act before the October election.

This misses the point. While antiretrovirals may be able to treat the person with HIV, the other person would likely still withdraw their consent anyway.

It must be noted however, that the CPC members on the committee dissented in their views.

Posted on

Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund (LEAF), Fighting For The Extermination Of Women

LEAF comes across as such a well intentioned and benevolent group. However, dig a little deeper, and the problems start to show through.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

While abortion is trumpeted as a “human right” in Western societies, the obvious questions have to be asked: Why is it a human right? Who are these groups benefiting financially, and why are so they so fiercely against free speech? Will the organs be trafficked afterwards?

2. Important Links

(1) https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpSrch.html
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/status-women/news/2019/07/government-of-canada-invests-in-projects-to-improve-gender-equality-in-the-justice-system.html
(3) https://www.leaf.ca/legal/reproductive-justice/
(4) https://www.leaf.ca/leaf-calls-on-government-of-canada-to-fund-abortion-services-abroad/
(5) https://www.parl.ca/Content/Bills/421/Private/C-225/C-225_1/C-225_1.PDF
(6) https://www.leaf.ca/leaf-urges-toronto-public-library-to-reconsider-event-featuring-meghan-murphy/
(6) https://www.leaf.ca/leaf-and-the-asper-centre-welcome-the-ontario-court-of-appeals-decision-in-r-v-sharma/
(7) https://ca.news.yahoo.com/ontario-sex-ed-curriculum-consent-003452043.html
(8) https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/gazette/illegal-organ-trade
(9) https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-1/bill/S-204/first-reading

unodc.organ.and.human.trafficking
Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review

3. Two Federal Non-Profit Corporations

[1] WOMEN’S LEGAL EDUCATION AND ACTION FUND FOUNDATION
Corporation Number: 255753-3
Business Number (BN): 880802897RC0001

[2] WOMEN’S LEGAL EDUCATION AND ACTION FUND INC.
Corporation Number: 189741-1
Business Number (BN): 108219916RC0001

A point of clarification: there are actually 2 separate Federal corporations registered with the Government. They have different (though similar) names, and different corporate and business numbers. They also have different addresses in Toronto.

It’s worth pointing out that LEAF has branches across Canada and the United States. They operate with the same basic philosophy.

4. Mental Gymnastics In LEAF Agenda

The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) works to advance the substantive equality rights of women and girls through litigation, law reform, and public education. Since 1985, we have intervened in landmark cases that have advanced equality in Canada—helping to prevent violence, eliminate discrimination in the workplace, provide better maternity benefits, ensure a right to pay equity, and allow access to reproductive freedoms. For more information, please visit www.leaf.ca.

LEAF claims to be committed to a variety of good causes. However, their logic seems messed up. While they want better childcare benefits, it’s okay to kill the child up to the point of birth. And even when the mother DOES kill the child after birth, the penalties should be reduced.

And by what stretch of logic is murdering children compatible with preventing violence?

5. Canadian Taxpayers Are Financing This

Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) is receiving $880,000 to develop a modern, intersectional, and feminist strategic litigation plan that will enable feminists and gender equality advocates to address systemic barriers to gender equality and eliminate gender discrimination.

Canadian taxpayers will be footing the bill for some $880,000, for this 2019 grant. This is to develop a litigation plan to for what they refer to as fighting for gender equality. It’s unclear from the announcement how much (if any) will end up being diverted into actual court challenges.

6. LEAF’s Take On “Reproductive Justice”

1987 Baby R.
LEAF argued that children not yet born shouldn’t be allowed to be taken by government officials. Custody should be for people already alive.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1988-baby-r

1989 Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General)
LEAF argued that the right to life should apply to the mother (and not to the child). The criminal code and charter shouldn’t apply to the unborn baby.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1989-borowski

1989 Daigle v. Tremblay
LEAF argued that biological fathers should have no say over whether the child lives or dies, and that otherwise, it is an attempt to control the mother using the child as a proxy.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1989-daigle

1991 R. v. Sullivan
LEAF argued that 2 midwives convicted of criminal negligence causing death (for the death of the baby) should have that charge thrown out, since the baby isn’t actually a person.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1991-sullivan

1996 R v. Lewis
LEAF argued in favour maintaining “bubble zones”. These effectively were areas where abortion protesting would be banned. Free speech is fine, just not in certain areas.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1996-lewis

1997 Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. G. (D.F.)
LEAF argued against the the state’s ability to detain a pregnant women, who was harming her own child. In this case, the mother was sniffing glue.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1997-winnipeg-child-family

2003 R. v. Demers
LEAF argued again against the rights of people who were protesting abortion, although the arguments differed somewhat.
leaf.intervenor.factum.2003-demers

2006 Watson v. R; Spratt v. R
LEAF once again arguing that “bubble zones” need to be maintained, and that freedom of speech needs to be curtailed in order to ensure smooth access to abortion.
leaf.intervenor.factum.2008-R-V-WATSON-SPRATT-Factum

2016 R v. MB
LEAF argued that a woman who killed her newborn child should not face the wrath of the criminal justice system, and should be cut a break
leaf.intervenor.factum.2016.r.v.mb.infanticide

LEAF is Pro-Life?
Yeah, not really seeing that here.

LEAF is Anti-Life

  • 1987 Baby R
  • 1989 Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General)
  • 1989 Daigle v. Tremblay
  • 1991 R. v. Sullivan
  • 1996 R v. Lewis
  • 1997 Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. G. (D.F.)
  • 2003 R. v. Demers
  • 2006 Watson v. R; Spratt v. R
  • 2016 R v. MB

Keep in mind, these are not cases that impact LEAF directly. Instead, they go searching for cases to act as an intervenor (or interested party). In short, they insert themselves into OTHER cases in order to get the outcomes they want.

An astute person will realize that LEAF is fundamentally anti-free speech. Among the challenges they brag about is getting free speech restricted in order to facilitate abortion access.

This list is hardly exhaustive, but should give a pretty good idea of the things they stand against: rights for unborn children.

7. LEAF Wants Foreign Abortions Funded Too

As organizations who are deeply committed to the rights of women and girls, we are very concerned by recent statements regarding the Government of Canada’s refusal to fund safe abortion services abroad, including in cases of rape and for young women and girls in forced marriages. This approach represents a serious setback on women’s human rights and the health and wellbeing of survivors of sexual violence and girls in early and forced marriages.

We call on the Canadian government to:
1. Include access to safe abortion services as part of the package of sexual and reproductive health services funded by Canadian international cooperation initiatives;
2. Support effective strategies to ensure that survivors of sexual violence and young women and girls in early and forced marriage have access to a comprehensive package of sexual and reproductive health services, including safe abortion; and
3. Produce clear policy for Canada’s international initiatives that adopts a human rights-based approach to sexual and reproductive health.

What about the babies being killed? Don’t their human rights matter? Oh, that’s right, these groups don’t consider babies to be people.

Sincerely,
The undersigned organizations:
.
-Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) / Coalition pour le droit à l’avortement au Canada (CDAC)
-Action Canada for Population and Development / Action Canada pour la population et le développement
-Amnesty International Canada (English)
-Amnistie International Canada (Francophone)
-Canadian Council of Muslim Women
-Canadian Federation for Sexual Health
-Canadian Federation of University Women
-Canadian Women’s Foundation
-Choice in Health Clinic
-Clinique des femmes de l’Outaouais
-Fédération du Québec pour le planning des naissances (FQPN)
-Kensington Clinic
-Institute for International Women’s Rights – Manitoba
-Inter Pares
-MATCH International Women’s Fund
-Oxfam Canada
-Oxfam Quebec
–Planned Parenthood Ottawa
-West Coast LEAF
-Women’s Health Clinic, Winnipeg
-Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund / Fonds d’action et d’education juridiques pour les femmes
-YWCA Canada

(also addressed to)

-CC The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C.
Prime Minister of Canada
.
-CC Hélène Laverdière, NPD, MP
NDP International Development Critic
.
-CC Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, MP
Liberal International Development and Status of Women Critic
.
-CC Paul Dewar, NDP, MP
NDP Foreign Affairs Critic
.
-CC Marc Garneau, Liberal, MP
Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic
.
-CC Niki Ashton, NDP, MP
NDP Status of Women Critic

Not content with killing Canadian children, this coalition demands that the Canadian Government finance foreign abortions as well. That is correct. Use taxpayer money to pay to kill children in other countries.

It’s not at all a surprise to see a Planned Parenthood Ottawa has joined this group in making the call. After all, Planned Parenthood is involved in trafficking organs.

It never seems to dawn on these people that in many parts of the world, girls and women are viewed as far less than boys and men. This leads often to SEX SELECTIVE abortions. Is it really a feminist idea to deliberately target female babies?

8. No protection For Unborn Victims Of Crime

Considering the 1989 Boroski intervention (see list of cases above), it’s no surprise that LEAF, and other feminist groups oppose Bill C-225. This would have made it an additional crime to injury or kill a fetus while in the commission of another offense.

9. LEAF Forcing Abortion/Euth On Doctors

There was a 2019 decision from the Ontario Court of Appeals. It mandated that doctors either had to perform abortions and/or euthanasia, or provide a referral to someone who would. LEAF was one of the groups pushing it. They had no standing, other than to push their own pro-death views on others.

10. LEAF Wants Gender Ideology Critic Banned

The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) is troubled by the decision of the Toronto Public Library (the “TPL”) to rent one of its branch spaces to a group hosting an event with Meghan Murphy, who has a track record for denying the existence and rights of trans women. We are particularly concerned with Murphy’s history of publicly opposing efforts to codify the rights of trans people, specifically trans women, including her vocal opposition to federal human rights legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender expression.

LEAF was founded in 1985 with a mandate to advance substantive equality for women and girls in Canada. LEAF has long been committed to a vision of feminism that is inclusive of all, regardless of sex, gender identity or gender expression. LEAF’s advocacy is and remains focused on challenging sex and gender discrimination that results in inequality for self-identified women and girls. The long-term success of this mission demands that LEAF work towards challenging and dismantling patriarchy, in all its forms.

LEAF believes freedom of speech plays an important role in strengthening and upholding substantive equality. Holding space for respectful dialogue among diverse viewpoints is essential to this work. However, LEAF has long maintained that freedom of speech is not absolute. Like all rights enjoyed by Canadians, freedom of speech must be balanced with other fundamental rights and freedoms, especially equality. Speech that perpetuates harmful stereotypes only serves to further marginalize and exclude an already vulnerable population and does not merit protection.

In a case of “eating your own“, LEAF tried to get Meghan Murphy dis-invited from a Toronto talk on trans-activism. And Murphy is about as hardcore feminist as they come. According to her biography:

  • Bachelor’s degree in women’s studies
  • Master’s degree in women’s studies
  • Wrote for feminist publications
  • Believes in the wage-gap nonsense
  • Believes women are oppressed
  • Pro-abortion
  • Pro-gay agenda

Still, that wasn’t enough to prevent feminist and “women’s rights” groups life LEAF from turning against her.

For a group that “claims” to support women, one has to ask why LEAF is trying to take away the rights of a woman (Murphy), specifically her free speech.

Murphy does address legitimate issues that trans-activists are involved with, (such as sports, pronounc, etc…), and how they are conflicting head on with the rights of women. It seems that the committment to women’s rights can be tossed aside in favour of this extremely small group.

11. LEAF: Reduce Sentence For Drug Mule

Somehow, LEAF believes that arguing against a mandatory minimum sentence for a person convicted of smuggling 2kg of cocaine (worth some $200,000), is a woman’s rights issue. What about the women who are harmed as a result of the drug trade? Don’t they matter?

While not directly related to the abortion/organs issue, it’s still bizarre to see how this group feels entitled to meddle in other people’s cases.

12. LEAF Supports ON Sex-Ed Agenda

This week’s move is getting a thumbs-up from a national women’s legal organization that teaches older students about consent.

“It’s extremely important for everyone to understand what their rights and responsibilities are under the law,” said Kim Stanton, legal director of the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, which runs workshops for high school and university students. “Students need to know what’s OK and what’s not.

LEAF supports Ontario’s largely inappropriate sex-ed ciricculum.

13. Honourable Mention: Tanya Granic Allen

Candid honesty is extremely rare in political circles. However, this critique of LEAF and Leslyn Lewis, is a true gem. Also see the video. Well worth the 10 minutes or so.

Now, what is the result of anti-life laws becoming normal?

14. RCMP & Illegal Organ Trade

There are far more people in the world in need of a new organ than there are organs available. Like in any market where a dollar can be made because demand far outweighs supply, people can turn to the black market to find what they need. When a person’s life is on the line, the will to survive may override morals. The following facts depict the seedy underbelly of organ trafficking.

  • The United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking (UN GIFT) says the organ trade occurs in three broad categories: traffickers who force or deceive victims to give up an organ, those who sell their organs out of financial desperation, often only receiving a fraction of the profit or are cheated out of the money altogether and victims who are duped into believing they need an operation and the organ is removed without the victim’s knowledge.
  • Organ trafficking is considered an organized crime with a host of offenders, including the recruiters who identify the vulnerable person, the transporter, the staff of the hospital or clinic and other medical centres, the medical professionals themselves who perform the surgery, the middleman and contractors, the buyers and the banks that store the organs.
  • And according to the UN GIFT, it’s a fact that the entire ring is rarely exposed.
  • A World Health Assembly resolution adopted in 2004 urges Member States to “take measures to protect the poorest and vulnerable groups from ‘transplant tourism’ and the sale of tissues’ and organs.
  • “Transplant tourism” is the most common way to trade organs across national borders. These recipients travel abroad to undergo organ transplants (WHO Bulletin). There are websites that offer all-inclusive transplant packages, like a kidney transplant that ranges from US$70,000 to US$160,000.
  • There’s no law in Canada banning Canadians from taking part in transplant tourism — travelling abroad and purchasing organs for transplantation and returning home to Canada.
  • According to the World Health Organization (WHO), one out of 10 organ transplants involves a trafficked human organ, which amounts to about 10,000 a year.
  • While kidneys are the most commonly traded organ, hearts, livers, lungs, pancreases, corneas and human tissue are also illegally traded.
  • In a recent report, Global Financial Integrity says that illegal organ trade is on the rise, and it estimates that it generates profits between $600 million and $1.2 billion per year with a span over many countries.
  • In Iran, the only country where organ trade is legal, organ sales are closely monitored and the practice has eliminated the wait list for kidney transplants and has provided an increase in post-mortem organ donations, which aren’t remunerated in Iran.
  • A Harvard College study says donors come from impoverished nations, like countries in South America, Asia and Africa, while recipients are from countries like Canada, the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Israel and Japan.
  • According to research out of Michigan State University that looked at the black market for human organs in Bangladesh, the average quoted rate for a kidney was US$1,400 but has dropped because of the abundant supply.
  • In Bangladesh, the trade is propelled by poverty, where 78 per cent of residents live on less than $2 a day. They give their organs to pay off loans and take care of their families. If they received the money at all, it disappears quickly and they are often left sick and unable to work after the operations.
  • The Voluntary Health Association of India estimates about 2,000 Indians sell a kidney every year.
  • Given that the organ trade is often a transnational crime, international law enforcers must co-operate across borders to address the crimes.

This comes from a 2014 post on the RCMP’s website. Despite being several years old, it has a lot of useful information.

Now, it’s true that there are only so many people dying with usable organs. It’s also true that abducting and/or murdering people for their organs is risky, and can only be done so often. However, that isn’t really the case with aborted babies, as they typically have healthy organs. Sure, they are smaller, but still usable at some point.

Ever wonder why the recent push to have later and later abortions? It’s because the organs of a 35 week fetus are much more developed than those of a 20 week fetus.

15. UNODC On Organ, Human Trafficking

III. Guidance for response
.
A. Definitions
6. Article 3 (a) defines trafficking in persons:
“Trafficking in persons” shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs.”

unodc.organ.and.human.trafficking

It’s illegal to kidnap, force, or otherwise coerce people into giving up organs. However, aborted babies (even very late term) are just considered property with no legal rights of their own. At least, this is the case in Canada.

This UNODC paper is from 2011. However, its information is still very relevant today.

Whether this is intentional or not, it is one of the consequences of the actions of groups like LEAF. Removing any sort of legal protection from the unborn creates legal carte blanche to harvest and sell their organs at will.

16. UNODC: Illegal Entry Facilitates T&S

Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review

This was addressed in Part 9, the connection between illegal immigration, and the trafficking and smuggling of migrants. However, in the context of organ harvesting, it does put the issue in a whole new light.

17. Bill S-204, Criminal Code Change

Senate Bill S-204 would make it criminal offence to go abroad for the purposes of obtaining organs where consent was not given. While promising, however, it hasn’t gone anywhere since being introduced. Now, would these penalties apply to the trafficked organs of aborted fetuses, or only to trafficked organs of people living for some period of time?

18. Abortion Fuels Organ Trafficking

Now, to tie all of this together: the abortion industry helps fuel the organ trafficking industry.

It’s a straightforward idea: in order to traffic organs in a large scale, there has to be a large, constant supply available.

The abortion industry (and their advocates) ensure this by waging lawfare. They fight in court to keep stripping away any protections unborn children may have. They also change the law to allow for later and later abortions, and thus, more developed organs. Advocates will gaslight others who make attempts to limit this, or enshrine rights for the children. Child rights must be removed in favour of women’s rights.

Is LEAF involved with trafficking organs? They don’t appear to be, but their frequent court efforts ensure that this will continue. Whether intentional of not, groups like LEAF are part of the problem.

And to be clear, LEAF openly supports restricting free speech, under the guise of protecting abortion and gender rights. Of course, open discourse on these subjects would immediately weaken their arguments.

19. Defending Non-Disclosure Of HIV

Note: this was added after the article was originally published. LEAF argued in a Parliamentary hearing that failure to disclose HIV status should be removed from sexual assault laws, and in some cases, decriminalized altogether. Way to protect women.

Hear the audio clip starting at 8:59:30.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/WitnessMeetings?witnessId=248439

20. LEAF Is Anti-Free Speech

Free Speech Submission womens LEAF

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10543157

In 2019, LEAF actually made submissions in the “online hate” study, and took the position AGAINST free speech. Again, this was added after the original article was released.

Posted on

California State Senator Scott Wiener, And His Weaponized Legislation

This site doesn’t often cover U.S. politics and legislation, but this one is worth making an exception for. Scott Wiener is a California State Senator in the 11th District.
https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/
https://twitter.com/Scott_Wiener/status/1292489212751536129

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

There is a lot already covered in the TSCE series. Many of the laws politicians pass absolutely ensure this obscenity will continue. This piece will focus on the various legislation advanced by California State Senator, Scott Wiener, who has been very active. Also, for more general background information, take a look at Open Borders movement, and the NGOs who are supporting it.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Scott Wiener’s Wikipedia page.

CLICK HERE, for SB-132: trans-inmate rights.
scott.wiener.male.inmates.in.womens.prisons

CLICK HERE, for SB-145: sex offender designation.
scott.wiener.keep.gay.pedos.off.SO.registry

CLICK HERE, for SB-201: intersex surgery ban (children)
scott.wiener.intersex.child.surgeries

CLICK HERE, for SB-233: decriminalizing sex work.
scott.wiener.immunity.from.arrest.sex.workers

CLICK HERE, for SB-239: reduce penalties for spreading HIV.
scott.wiener.decriminalize.spreading.hiv

CLICK HERE, for SB-888: cash/vouchers to prevent drug use.
scott.wiener.cash.or.vouchers.for.addicts

CLICK HERE, for SB-932: LGBTQ reporting requirements.
scott.wiener.lgbtq.status.in.all.data.collection

3. Gaslighting Critics As Intolerant Bigots

Wiener has lashed out at critics to his various legislation, calling them homophobes and anti-Semites. Wiener is gay and Jewish, according to his background information, but that is not where the bulk of the hate comes from. His Bills “do” give a legitimate cause for concern, and this appears to be a way of deflecting from that.

4. SB-132: Male Inmates In Female Prisons

SB 132, as amended, Wiener. Corrections.
Existing law establishes the state prisons under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Existing law authorizes a person sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison or a county jail
for a felony to be, during the period of confinement, deprived of those rights, and only those rights, as is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.

This bill would, commencing January 1, 2021, would require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to, during initial intake and classification, and in a private setting, ask each individual entering into the custody of the department to specify the individual’s gender identity and sex assigned at birth, and, if the individual’s gender identity is different from their sex assigned at birth, whether the individual identifies as transgender, nonbinary, or intersex, and their gender pronoun and honorific. The bill would prohibit the department from disciplining a person for refusing to answer or not disclosing complete information in response to these questions. The bill would authorize a person under the jurisdiction of the department to update this information. The bill would prohibit staff and contractors staff, contractors, and volunteers of the department from failing to consistently use the gender pronoun and honorific an individual has specified in verbal and written communications with or regarding that individual that involve the use of a pronoun or honorific.

SB-132 would allow putting prison inmates in whichever prison they want, according to what they claim to be. Disturbingly, this would presumably cover male rapists and sex offenders being allowed into prisons with women. And yes, it also requires prison staff to use preferred pronouns.

5. SB-145: Sex Offender Registry, Gay Pedos

SB 145, Wiener. Sex offenders: registration.
Existing law, the Sex Offender Registration Act, requires a person convicted of one of certain crimes, as specified, to register with law enforcement as a sex offender while residing in California or while attending school or working in California, as specified. A willful failure to register, as required by the act, is a misdemeanor or felony, depending on the underlying offense. This bill would exempt from mandatory registration under the act a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register.

Scott Wiener claims there is a loophole, which mandates registry as a sex offender for certain acts, ones that straight couples would presumably not engage in. This Bill would remove the requirement for a Judge to designate the person as a sex offender if there is less than a 10 year age gap. In short, lower the age of the victim this would apply to. Instead of an exemption if the person is 18 years old, 15 to 17 year olds would now be included.

While Wiener may have a valid point, a far better option would be to RAISE the minimum age of the victim overall, not lower it.

Regular readers on this site will likely remember Part 17, and Part 18 of the series. This included lowering the age of consent for anal, and reducing the penalties for sex crimes against children in Canada.

Spoiler: it’s not homophobic to oppose letting adults have sex with children. It’s called being a decent person with some morals.

6. SB-201: Surgeries For Intersexed Children

SB 201, as amended, Wiener. Medical procedures: treatment or intervention: sex characteristics of a minor.
Under existing law, the Medical Practice Act, it is unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to fail to comply with prescribed informed consent requirements relating to various medical procedures, including sterilization procedures, the removal of sperm or ova from a patient under specified circumstances, and the treatment of breast cancer. Any violation of the law relating to enforcement of the Medical Practice Act is a misdemeanor, as specified.

a person born with variations in their physical sex characteristics who is under 6 years of age unless the treatment or intervention is medically necessary. The bill, on or before December 1, 2021, would require the Medical Board of California, in consultation with specified persons and entities, to adopt regulations to determine which treatments and interventions on the sex characteristics of a person born with variations in their physical sex characteristics who is under 6 years of age are medically necessary, as specified. Any violation of these provisions would be subject to disciplinary action by the board, but not criminal prosecution.

SB-201 would make it much harder, if not impossible, for parents of intersex children to get them surgeries so as to better conform with 1 of the 2 genders. Interestingly, Wiener supports the rights of trans-children to do what they want to their bodies. However, parents apparently can’t be trusted to act in their best interests.

7. SB-233: Decriminalizing Sex Work (Hooking)

SB 233, Wiener. Immunity from arrest.
Existing law criminalizes various aspects of sex work, including soliciting anyone to engage in, or engaging in, lewd or dissolute conduct in a public place, loitering in a public place with the intent to commit prostitution, or maintaining a public nuisance. Existing law, the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act (CUCSA), also criminalizes various offenses relating to the possession, transportation, and sale of specified controlled substances.

This bill would prohibit the arrest of a person for a misdemeanor violation of the CUCSA or specified sex work crimes, if that person is reporting that they are a victim of, or a witness to, specified crimes. The bill would also state that possession of condoms in any amount does not provide a basis for probable cause for arrest for specified sex work crimes.

This Bill would decriminalize many minor aspects of sex work, and give immunity to prostitutes for more serious matters if they are reporting crimes to the police.

8. SB-239: No Longer A Felony To Spread HIV

(1) Existing law makes it a felony punishable by imprisonment for 3, 5,or 8 years in the state prison to expose another person to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by engaging in unprotected sexual activity when the infected person knows at the time of the unprotected sex that he or she is infected with HIV, has not disclosed his or her HIV-positive status, and acts with the specific intent to infect the other person with HIV. Existing law makes it a felony punishable by imprisonment for 2, 4, or 6 years for any person to donate blood, tissue, or, under specified circumstances, semen or breast milk, if the person knows that he or she has acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), or that he or she has tested reactive to HIV. Existing law provides that a person who is afflicted with a contagious, infectious, or communicable disease who willfully exposes himself or herself to another person, or any person who willfully exposes another person afflicted with the disease to someone else, is guilty of a misdemeanor

This bill would repeal those provisions. The bill would instead make the intentional transmission of an infectious or communicable disease, as defined, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than 6 months if certain circumstances apply, including that the defendant knows he or she or a 3rd party is afflicted with the disease, that the defendant acts with the specific intent to transmit or cause an afflicted 3rd party to transmit the disease to another person, that the defendant or the afflicted 3rd party engages in conduct that poses a substantial risk of transmission, as defined, that the defendant or the afflicted 3rd party transmits the disease to the other person, and if the exposure occurs through interaction with the defendant and not a 3rd party, that the person exposed to the disease during voluntary interaction with the defendant did not know that the defendant was afflicted with the disease. The bill would also make it a misdemeanor to attempt to intentionally transmit an infectious and communicable disease, as specified, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than 90 days. This bill would make willful exposure to an infectious or communicable disease, as defined, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than 6 months, and would prohibit a health officer, or a health officer’s designee, from issuing a maximum of 2 instructions to a defendant that would result in a violation of this provision. The bill would impose various requirements upon the court in order to prevent the public disclosure of the identifying characteristics, as defined, of the complaining witness and the defendant. By creating new crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

In the notes provided, it shows that this bill would reduce the penalties from knowingly infecting someone with HIV from a 3, 5, or 8 year sentence (and a felony conviction), to a 6 month maximum (tried as a misdemeanor). It also prevents the publication of that offender. This effectively protects such predators, by ensuring that there aren’t real penalties. Check out the full text of the bill.

9. SB-888: Cash Or Vouchers For Meth Users

SB 888, as amended, Wiener. Birth certificates. Substance use disorder services: contingency management services.
Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, and under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services, including substance use disorder services that are delivered through the Drug Medi-Cal Treatment Program and the Drug Medi-Cal organized delivery system. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions.

This bill would, to the extent funds are made available in the annual Budget Act, expand substance use disorder services to include contingency management services, subject to utilization controls. The bill would require the department to issue guidance and training to providers on their use of contingency management services for Medi-Cal beneficiaries who access substance use disorder services under any Medi-Cal delivery system, including the Drug Medi-Cal Treatment Program and the Drug Medi-Cal organized delivery system. The bill would provide that contingency management services are not a rebate, refund, commission preference, patronage dividend, discount, or any other gratuitous consideration. The bill would authorize the department to implement these provisions by various means, including provider bulletin, without taking regulatory action, and would condition the implementation of these provisions to the extent permitted by federal law, the availability of federal financial participation, and the department securing federal approval.

There was originally provisions to issue new birth certificates indicating whatever gender the person wanted, but that seems to have been removed. As the Bill stands, it would build into the budget, sums of money to help meth users, in the hopes they will get clean.

10. SB-932: Collecting LGBTQ Data Everywhere

SB 932, Wiener. Communicable diseases: data collection.
(1) Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health to establish a list of reportable communicable and
noncommunicable diseases and conditions and to specify the requirements for a health officer, as defined, to report each listed disease and condition. Existing law requires a health officer to report the listed diseases and conditions and to take other specified measures to prevent the spread of disease. A violation of these requirements imposed on a health officer is a crime. This bill would require any electronic tool used by a health officer, as defined, for the purpose of reporting cases of communicable diseases to the department, as specified, to include the capacity to collect and report data relating to sexual orientation and gender identity, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would also require a health care provider, as defined, that knows of or is in attendance on a case or suspected case of specified communicable diseases to report to the health officer for the jurisdiction in which the patient resides the patient’s sexual orientation and gender identity, if known. Because a violation of these requirements by a health care provider or a health officer would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated-local program.

(2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(3) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately
as an urgency statute

It’s not entirely clear why there would be this need to ask and record everyone’s gender, and who they sleep with. Perhaps it’s to play the victim, and get extra funding at some point.

11. California Has Bigger Problems

There are other Bills that Wiener has been involved with, of course. However, the above sample should demonstrate his priorities as a California State Senator.

Surely, California has far more important issues to deal with than the topics that Scott Wiener has drafted legislation for. The State is bankrupt, and flooded with illegal aliens, a crashed economy, and the social services are near collapse, but he doesn’t seem to care.

It’s not hard to see Wiener’s legislation is deliberate efforts to uproot social norms and to create chaos. There seems to be little to no concern for the long term consequences.

Wiener may not be a pedophile himself, but he certainly seems sympathetic to those who are.

12. Remember The Trudeau Liberals

The content of Scott Wiener’s Bills is shockingly similar to some of the efforts of the Trudeau Government. See here, here, and here.

Never forget, these are some of the crimes which Bill C-75 amended. They are now eligible to be tried summarily (misdemeanor), as opposed to it being mandatory to proceed by indictment (felony).

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