**TW;**
The Rehtaeh Parsons story
took another turn last week with the release of a report by new Canadian Federal Justice Minister, Peter MacKay. The report calls for a new law
and vague investigative powers to cover a 'gap' in the criminal code
regarding the 'sharing of intimate images'. [CBC Article]
While this may sound good on
the surface, what lurks beneath is a connection to the conflicting
feelings of The Conservative Party in regards to privacy and freedom
of expression. In case it needs repeating there are existing laws to
cover this case: Child Pornography
and sexual assault. Those laws may be inadequate and outdated, but they exist. So why create a new and tangentially related one?
The laws in Canada covering
the recording of conversations and images are remarkably open when
compared with American law. In the United States, I can't record a
phone call without notifying the other party. In Canada it's a bit
more complex, but a simple test determines if you can clandestinely
record a conversation in video or audio.
Section 184(2)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada covers the
exceptions, and the first one is that if you are one of the intended
recipients of a private communication, you may record it.
You can record any
interaction you have -public or private- and publish it, without
notifying the person you are recording. Permission is not required.
The kicker is that you have to be an active participant in the event.
So I can walk into a mechanics shop and record the conversation I
have with the mechanic. However, if I leave the camera behind without
permission to record them while they work -that constitutes spying-
which we also have laws to cover. A more detailed explanation can be found here.
As an activist, this law has
shielded me on numerous occasions. It affords Canadians an important
tool when it comes to personal activism, journalism, and posting
content to the web.
Following an article in the
Chronicle Herald, Anonymous helped propel this story to international status. The nebulous collective of activists
now notorious as 'Hacktivists' are the experts
at getting attention. But in this case one of the few universal
beliefs of Anonymous -Freedom of Expression- is about to collide head
on with the pet cause of a large subset within itself: Rape Culture.
Anon in Uncomfortable
Position
I reached out to a very
active Anonymous activist intimately familiar with the Parsons case,
and asked him a direct question: “Do you have any concerns that the
proposed 'Intimate Images' law could impact freedom of expression in
Canada?”
ANSWER: “I'm concerned it
would be really broad. We have to think about the big picture though.
I don't want to wade in on how various elements of Anon could clash
over this, but censorship does have its place. We don't want to limit
freedom of expression, but sexual pictures of thirteen year-olds
should have no place on the internet.” - Anonymous
The Rob Ford Connection
But this law wouldn't only be
for child pornography, it would cover consenting adults as well. This
development leads to a dangerous question many of us
have feared to ask ourselves: what if Rob Ford had been smoking a
crack pipe while nude?
Clear cut situations like a
15 year old Rehtaeh Parsons vomiting out of a window while being
sexually assaulted should be relatively easy to cover. The problem
is, it's also easy for a reactionary law to
be used for unintended purposes. Unless it is incredibly well
written and specific, such a law could have in theory protected the
dear leader of Toronto in his video scandal.
It also provides an easy sound-byte sized attack against
anyone who opposes it. This proposed law is a conservative political
strategist's dream. All they need do is tinker with a few words, and
Prime Minister Harper will have a political weapon to fight his
opponents with... if anyone dares to criticize it.
**TW; means trigger warning,
to advise sexual assault survivors of potentially upsetting content.
No comments:
Post a Comment