Fear is a place where you just tell the truth.
-Clive Barker
Lord Galen
Home  •  Classic Home  •   •  Forum  • 






Short
URL
Archive 2009:           2009 Archive Index           Main Archive Index

Talking to Children is Now Illegal in Canada
December 8, 2009


The following rant is based on this news story:
Internet luring now includes non-sexual chats: SCC
CTV.ca News Staff
Thu. Dec. 3 2009 5:14 PM ET


A Supreme Court of Canada ruling has expanded the definition of Internet luring to include anyone having an inappropriate conversation with a child -- even if the chats aren't sexual in nature and the accused never intended to meet the alleged victim.

Justice Morris Fish, writing for the Supreme Court, said physical contact is not necessary for Internet luring because some seemingly innocent chats open the door towards a child being victimized.

"Those who use their computers to lure children for sexual purposes often groom them online by first gaining their trust through conversations about their home life, their personal interests or other innocuous topics," he said.

He said the law "makes it a crime to communicate by computer with underage children or adolescents for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the offences."

But he said the word "facilitating" could be interpreted to mean anything that would make it easier or more probable for a young person to be taken advantage of.

This includes anything that would reduce their inhibitions or exploits a child's "curiosity, immaturity or precocious sexuality."

Fish said the conversations don't need to be sexually explicit to fit these criteria.

He said the new Internet luring law "criminalizes conduct that precedes the commission of the sexual offences."

"This is in keeping with Parliament's objective to close the cyberspace door before the predator gets in to prey."

The decision was part of an Alberta man's case who admitted to online sexual chats with a 12-year-old girl in 2003.

At a 2006 trial on two sexual luring counts, the judge called Craig Bartholomew Legare's actions "despicable and repugnant," but said that since he had no intention of ever meeting the child, there was no crime. Legare was acquitted.

The Supreme Court said the judge from the first trial applied the law too constrictively, leading to the acquittal. Thursday, the Supreme Court ordered Legare to face a new trial under the new criteria.

The Alberta Court of Appeal had previously overturned Legare's acquittal. The Supreme Court, in its 7-0 ruling, agreed with the appeal judges.

Legare admitted to posing as a 17-year-old in his chats with the girl. He was 32 at the time. She claimed to be 13, but was actually 12, according to court documents.

Legare admitted to the sexual chats and to phoning the girl at home. However, he said he had no intention of meeting her and no sexual activity happened.

Mark Hecht, of Beyond Borders, an organization that lobbies against child exploitation said the Supreme Court decision will protect more children.

"There's been a very clear message that in fact this is something that is an offence, and as a result, I would think that there will now be more arrests and prosecutions of adults committing these kind of crimes," he told CTV News Channel.

"If you're an adult and if you're having conversations with a child on the Internet, be warned because even if your conversations aren't sexual and even if your conversations are not for the purpose of meeting a child and committing an offence against a child, what you're doing is potentially a crime," he said.

[ Source ]

...... Wait, what?

Be sure you go to the source of that article and watch the video too. Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding this. Well, no. When the choices are (a) I'm misunderstanding the situation, or (b) a group of government dickheads has just done something mind-blowingly stupid in the name of "protecting the children," I think we all know which of those is more likely the case.

Let me put this in no uncertain terms. If you're an adult in Canada, it is now illegal to talk to a child online for any reason at all. The officials have made it very plain that absolutely anything qualifies as "luring." Oddly enough, not planning to lure a child anywhere at all also counts as "luring."

Even stranger, not having any sexual conversations at all and talking about things like the kid's home life and school now make you a "predator."

Let's be very clear here. The exact words of Mark Hecht (Beyond Borders):
...even if your conversations aren't sexual and even if your conversations are not for the purpose of meeting a child and committing an offence against a child, what you're doing is potentially a crime

Did I just fucking have a stroke? EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG AT ALL, YOU'RE STILL A GODDAMN CRIMINAL?!

Seriously, I'm speechless. Still managing to type, but when I try to speak, the words just freeze in my throat. Humanity keeps coming up with ways to blow me away. Every single time I think I've seen the dumbest thing ever, something like this happens. Congratulations guys, this is officially the stupidest thing that anyone has ever done - EVER. That bitch who sued McDonald's over the hot coffee? She's Stephen Hawking by comparison. The woman who called 911 to report that she was driving drunk? She can have a doctorate now. Good God, reading this news article makes reading the Twilight series seem like the lost works of Shakespeare! MY GODDAMN IQ JUST DROPPED 50 POINTS AND I WANT THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT TO GIVE THOSE BACK!

Ok, first of all, I'd like to know how the Canadian Supreme Court defines an "internet predator." Because apparently somebody who does nothing at all wrong is a predator. Any adult having any conversation with a child online is breaking the law. That is what this ruling says. How the fuck do you call someone a "predator" when there is NO PREDATION going on?! How are you protecting any children and from what are you protecting them?

Oh, I see now.... You're protecting them from having contact with any adults outside of their family and friends of their family. Cuz it's not like that group of people are the ones who are almost entirely responsible for molesting kids or anyth-- HEY, WAIT A MINUTE! So, to put this in perspective, if a young girl is being raped nightly by her father up there in Canada and she IMs me asking for help (since I am a volunteer employee of a Youth civil rights group), I could possibly be charged with a crime under Canadian law? Especially since our conversation WOULD be of a sexual nature!

This is 10,000 different levels of stupid. The Candian government is legally sanctioning isolating all of their young citizens from adults in the name of protection. THIS is what's sick.

Honestly, I'm having trouble thinking of something to say here. I really am. This is just the most astoundingly RETARDED thing I've ever heard of. Let's try a point-by-point here.

...physical contact is not necessary for Internet luring because some seemingly innocent chats open the door towards a child being victimized.

And even if they don't and never would have, we're gonna fuck you up anyway, bitch, cuz we're fucking Canada and being badass is what we're all about. FUCK YEAH! Oh, and also, LOL CIVIL RIGHTS, W/E N00B! Also (again), I like the phrase "seemingly innocent chats" because it's lets you perverted fucktards know that Canadian judges CAN SEE THE FUCKING FUTURE and know exactly what you were planning... uh, not to... do... um... WELL FUCK YOU ANYWAY, YOU'RE STILL GOING TO JAIL!

...the law "makes it a crime to communicate by computer with underage children or adolescents for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the offences."

Right, even when that's not the "purpose" and there's no "offence" being "facilitated." In other words, even when the specific actions have nothing whatsoever to do with the supposed reasons behind this law, you're still breaking the law.

...anything that would make it easier or more probable for a young person to be taken advantage of.

Right, because we all know that talking to kids about their schoolwork, what they got for their birthday, etc. is the magic key that gets little girls to lift their skirts and open their legs. OH IF ONLY I'D KNOW THIS WHEN I WAS A KID!

"This is in keeping with Parliament's objective to close the cyberspace door before the predator gets in to prey."

Even when that's not the door that's open, there's no predator, and therefore no prey. And in a related story, the SCC has made driving cars illegal in order to prevent people from breaking Canada's seatbelt laws! YAY!

...the Supreme Court decision will protect more children.

By making damn sure that the people who commit 98% of all abuse against children (parents, relatives, friends of the family) are the only ones who can have any contact with them. Holy shit, I feel better for Canadian children already! By the way, that 98% number isn't pulled out of my ass, it's for real. See 2004's Stranger Danger rant, which is also relevant to this topic.

There's been a very clear message that in fact this is something that is an offence

Talking to kids. With no sexual purpose or even intent. When someone who has never had sexual thought about a child in their entire fucking life and would never in a million years even dream about a kid in that way and, in fact, would throw up if he saw a child naked, THAT GUY is committing an offense.... by talking to a child... innocently... You're shitting me....

there will now be more arrests and prosecutions of adults committing these kind of crimes

Well, you're right about that. If a parent doesn't like a comment left on their child's blog, they can have that fucker arrested! This law serves the will of parents (who are often fucking INSANE regarding who their kids talk to), not the well-being of kids. What if a child in a muslim home decides he's a Christian and talk to his teacher, or Boy Scout leader, or some other mentor about it via Facebook? The parents would be AWFULLY PISSED and would definately use this law against the child's mentor. What if a kid just needs a fucking FRIEND? Somebody to talk to who's NOT their parents? Do you know how many teenagers come to me with their problems specifically because I'm an adult who ISN'T in their family? I've talked kids out of suicide. I've called runaway shelters for kids. And this makes me a predator and a criminal in the eyes of the Canadian Supreme Court?


And I just can't quote this enough. One more time, to wallow in the sheer unbelievable idiocy.

even if your conversations aren't sexual and even if your conversations are not for the purpose of meeting a child and committing an offence against a child, what you're doing is potentially a crime

Examination of criteria for sex offence against a child:
Condition 1: Conversation is not of a sexual nature.

Condition 2: Adult does not intend to meet the child in person.

Condition 3: Adult does not intend to commit an offence against the child.

CONCLUSION: Criminal act in progress!!!

Is anybody besides the judge who issued this ruling actually buying this 2+2=5 bullshit? I mean besides the Beyond Borders guy who looks and sounds like the winner of the World Biggest Pedophile contest and is using that org to hide his true nature from the world. Besides that fucking faggot, is anybody buying this load of horseshit?!

No? I didn't think so.

Let's close with a prayer: Dear Lord Jesus Christ, whom I love so much, please please please let Justice Morris Fish and Mark Hecht die in a fucking fire set by children, after all of those children beat the shit out of them both with crowbars for the simple fact that this retarded ruling caused all of them to get ass raped by their dads and lose the only adult contacts they could've turned to for help. I know you'll grant this, my sweet Jesus, because you're awesome and you always answers prayers and you're not fictional at all. P.S. if you answer this prayer, then I was totally just kidding about that whole "atheist" thing, lol. Amen.

Oh wait, nevermind, I'd rather close with this:

ATTENTION ALL CANADIANS UNDER THE AGE OF 18

How was school today? Did you make any friends? Also, what are you wearing? LOL TITS TITS TITS TITS TITS FUCK HANDJOB ANAL DOGGY-STYLE BLOWJOB ASS ASS ASS ASS ASS ASS ASS

Now, let's meet up at--

OH SHI-

.......

Nah, but seriously, fuck you Canadian bastards and your retarded goddamn rulings. Seriously the dumbest thing ever. Thanks for lowering the bar, Canada!


Archive 2009:           2009 Archive Index           Main Archive Index