This is not my Canada…
There is before parliament now a law that will give unprecedented powers to the security forces of this nation…not because they are needed but because they can do it. The “Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act, will give officers of the government the power not only to request private information for both Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Cell Phone Networks(CPNs) but force ISPs to retain that information for over a year (I believe 18 months was the number I heard). It also forces CPNs to disclose the unique identifier of your cell phone so security forces can ‘sweep’ an area to know everyone present. We will discuss later the issues with the bill itself, for now lets discuss how the bill was presented to parliament by Vic Toews is itself a sad story.
This bill in so many ways has shown one of the worse side of Canadian politics. First, I am sure most of you know that the bill formerly called the “Lawful Access Bill” is now the “Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act” although it makes no reference to children or pedophile in the act itself. The name change happened at lightning speed and seems to be for completely propagandistic reasons. If you check out the original filing of the bill by Vic at 10AM, the short title was “Lawful Access”, however it was quickly reprinted…content exactly the same, except at 11:17AM the short title was “Protecting Children from Internet Predators”.
The change was quick both conceptually which I am sure happened a day or 4 before Vic set forward the bill, as well as technically when they realized they forgot to doctor…er update the actual legislation to reflect their new ‘direction’ in promoting the bill.
In fact our government may be open to a copyright infringement claim…in 1997, a US congressman presented a bill with the same name; of course his bill was actually about stopping child predators.
Another way it exemplifies the poor state of politics is the admission made by Vic as being “surprised to learn” at what was actually in the bill he was presenting to parliament…and not some minor point but a section that was pretty significant in fact integral to the implementation of the bill. How can he say the law is absolutely necessary without amendments (a point he did eventually back down from) when he didn’t even know what was in the bill in the first place!
Lastly, he made a point that “standing with pedophiles” was not the same as supporting a pedophile…so does that mean the opposition could ‘stand by Vic’ while not actually supporting the bill? Is Vic so out of touch that he does not know what “stand with” means in our society? It’s a disingenuous comment, and not one that was a slip of the tongue. Often the Harper government has accused the opposition of outrageous rhetoric…here is a prime example of committing a near-Godwin right out of the block.
For those not acquainted with the Godwin Law, that in any argument, the side that first makes a reference to the Nazis loses the debate…it perhaps should be called the “Toews Law”, the side that first makes a (inappropriate) reference to pedophilia, would automatically resign from office…or at least lose the debate.
Thoughts?
















































