[Newsbot]

Title: Tories on e-snooping: �Stand with us or with the child pornographers'
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: BeaverFever
Date: 2012-02-13 20:57:30
Canadian

[Benn]

Ohh nice argumentative fallacy Vic, nice try, well not really, actually pretty low ball.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Yep, pretty weak sauce. He must'a hired Bush's speech writers

[Strutz]

Oh please...

[sandorski]

If they were unable to nab Child Porn distributors, then this might make sense. Since they're nabbed on a regular basis, what's the point?

Seems like just another doing shit for the sake of doing shit.

[Smacle]

sandorski wrote:

If they were unable to nab Child Porn distributors, then this might make sense. Since they're nabbed on a regular basis, what's the point?

Seems like just another doing shit for the sake of doing shit.

I don't get the argument that the current system works... I would assume that the opposite is true since child pornographers continue to appear. It's not like one day you wake up and say, "I think I'm gonna film my daughter."

I think if the way police operate now is so effective then why do they keep finding these creeps? Why are they able to distribute their filth? Why are they caught with such HUGE caches of this type of pornography?

[ShepherdsDog]

This is beyond silly...It's verging on NDPidity.

[Curtman]

Smacle wrote:

sandorski wrote:

If they were unable to nab Child Porn distributors, then this might make sense. Since they're nabbed on a regular basis, what's the point?

Seems like just another doing shit for the sake of doing shit.

I don't get the argument that the current system works... I would assume that the opposite is true since child pornographers continue to appear. It's not like one day you wake up and say, "I think I'm gonna film my daughter."

I think if the way police operate now is so effective then why do they keep finding these creeps? Why are they able to distribute their filth? Why are they caught with such HUGE caches of this type of pornography?

The creeps use encrypted communication. This law wont do anything to help them catch child predators. It's another attempt by the harperites to give the appearance of being tough on crime. It's costly and inneffective, just like their other ideas.

[bootlegga]

Really Vic, that's all you got?

Some MPs really do NOT deserve the 'Honourable' in their title...

[saturn_656]

-1 for Vic.

[Unsound]

Nice job Vic. Now, even when the opposition inevitably godwins the debate, they still aren't the most ridiculous ones in it.

[Scape]

Toews Has Been Smearing Online Surveillance Critics For Weeks

Quote:

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews' shocking comments on critics of online surveillance in the House of Commons yesterday have attracted widespread media attention with coverage in the Globe, CBC, and Postmedia. Toews responded to questions about online surveillance by accusing critics of siding with child pornographers:

As technology evolves, many criminal activities, such as the distribution of child pornography, become much easier. We are proposing measures to bring our laws into the 21st century and to provide the police with the lawful tools that they need. He can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.

Toews may be surprised by the negative reaction because he has been saying similar things for weeks. Consider:

February 3, 2012

"Lawful access will aid child porn investigations. I call on the NDP to stop making things easier for predators and support these measures."

February 2, 2012

"As technology evolves, many criminal activities, such as the distribution of child pornography, become much easier. That is why our government will be reintroducing lawful access legislation. Rather than making things easier for child pornographers, I call on the NDP to listen to the police, listen to the provinces, and support these balanced measures that protect law-abiding Canadians and their children."

November 15, 2011

"I would call on the Liberals to finally stop putting the rights of child pornographers and organized crime ahead of the rights of law-abiding citizens."

The "lawful access" bill will be introduced later today. My FAQ on the bill and online surveillance can be found here. More information on how the government's own documents do not support mandatory disclosure of subscriber information without a court order here.

Fear and ignorance.

[DrCaleb]

Smacle wrote:

sandorski wrote:

If they were unable to nab Child Porn distributors, then this might make sense. Since they're nabbed on a regular basis, what's the point?

Seems like just another doing shit for the sake of doing shit.

I don't get the argument that the current system works... I would assume that the opposite is true since child pornographers continue to appear. It's not like one day you wake up and say, "I think I'm gonna film my daughter."

I think if the way police operate now is so effective then why do they keep finding these creeps? Why are they able to distribute their filth? Why are they caught with such HUGE caches of this type of pornography?

How is a criminal justice supposed to prevent crime? How is it supposed to prevent murder, rape, robbery or speeding?

It isn't. Prevention is meted out through harsh punishment. To prevent crimes of passion for example is impossible by their very nature. Monitoring and storing all my communication will do nothing to prevent daddy from grabbing the handycam and filming his abhorent behaviour. But the threat of what will happen to him in General Population will.

The fact that kiddie pornographers are caught and punished shows there is no need in the current system for these laws, whereby we are all assumed to be child pornographers until proven otherwise.

[Curtman]

Unsound wrote:

Nice job Vic. Now, even when the opposition inevitably godwins the debate, they still aren't the most ridiculous ones in it.

I thought the most recent Godwin was the harperites attack on the gun registry.

[andyt]

DrCaleb wrote:

How is a criminal justice supposed to prevent crime? How is it supposed to prevent murder, rape, robbery or speeding?

It isn't. Prevention is meted out through harsh punishment.

What deters crime is the likelihood of being caught. If this legislation will accomplish that without being too intrusive in non criminal's lives, I say go for it. I don't have the info to judge that question.