Liberal Party youth wing encourages criminal stalking?
The youth wing of Canada's Liberal Party, the chief opposition party in Ottawa, is holding a contest. Seven specific Conservative MPs are being targeted. The goal is to take the best (read "embarrassing") picture of one of these MPs. The winner gets an iPod.
The winner might also be awarded a prison term of up to 5 years in prison for criminal stalking if thse fools aren't careful.
From Canada's stupidest youth wing of any federal party:
Grit paparrazi stalking Tory MPs
A war of words has erupted between the federal Liberal party youth wing and some backbench Tory MPs over a candid-camera contest launched last week.
The young Liberals say they are looking for recent pictures of Conservative MPs who are rarely seen in public because they have a history of stirring up controversy that could embarrass their party.
"As much as (Prime Minister) Stephen Harper may try to keep these guys in the back, it's important that Canadians know that this is the real face of the Conservative party," said Richard Diamond, president of the Young Liberals of Canada.
The Liberals will give an iPod as a prize for the person who can offer the best picture of one of the seven Conservative MPs on their list -- Rob Anders, Cheryl Gallant, Rahim Jaffer, Collin Mayes, Bob Mills, Pierre Poilievre, and David Sweet. The contest runs until Sept. 4.
Hey, I like a good joke. But how about something not so funny -- the law.
Check out the title of the piece from the Times-Colonist -- "stalking".
Here is an explanation of stalking, as it is defined by Canada's Criminal Code:
Stalking is a crime which Canadian criminal law calls criminal harassment. It is clearly defined at section 264 of Canada's Criminal Code. The Code states that no person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed (or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed):
- repeatedly follow the other person, or anyone known to them, from place to place;
- repeatedly communicate with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;
- "beset" or watch a place where the other person is visiting, lives or works; or
- engage in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.
The punishment for stalking can be as high as a five year jail term.
Note that engaging in any of these activities is sufficient to be charged.
This new section of the Criminal Code, passed in 1993, makes it much easier for the police to charge a stalker. The Code did contain other sections that were helpful in blatant cases of stalking but they were ineffective against the more passive but just as frightening forms of stalking. For example, the Code prohibits trespassing on another's property at night, uttering threats, indecent or harassing phone calls, intimidation and mischief to another person's property. Under the Criminal Code, you can also get a restraining order or a peace bond against a person, measures which might, in certain circumstances, be preferable in some cases of aggressive or predatory stalking.
It does not matter that these Liberal paparazzi are not trying to frighten their targets:
The new law now protects you even if the conduct of the stalker is not done with the intent to scare you. It is enough if it does scare you.
What's also interesting is that any sort of watching or prowling behaviour, even if done just once, can get you charged:
One of the key parts of section 264 of the Criminal Code is the requirement that when the conduct being complained of is "following" or "communicating", it has to be "repeated." There is no set rule on this. It can mean persistent or frequent behaviour but the "following" or "communicating" has to happen more then once for it to constitute criminal harassment.
But if the conduct is watching, prowling or "besetting" a place where you are visiting, live or work, or if there has been threatening conduct, one incident would suffice in getting a conviction under section 264.
Now here's the kicker. Given that the this is a contest, that is, one or more people are encouraging one or more other people to commit a potentially criminal act, and they are providing payment for that act, the actions of the Young Liberals of Canada could also be considered a criminal conspiracy under the Criminal Code.
The Tory MPs being targeted seem to be reacting with general good humour, using this silly contest as a way to shine a light on the stunts that are being used by a Liberal Party bereft of leadership and ideas to keep their dwindling members engaged.
But if one of these shutterbugs makes a mistake and gets into the face of one of their targets, or someone gets hurt because someone wasn't paying attention while trying to snap a picture, or property gets damaged, or someone's privacy is grossly invaded, then this could get very ugly, very fast.
It's a stupid idea with potentially serious consequences, and frankly no upside that I can see that would justify the risk.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Liberal Party Conservative Party Ottawa Canada stalking conspiracy Richard Diamond Young Liberals of Canada Rob Anders Cheryl Gallant Rahim Jaffer Collin Mayes Bob Mills Pierre Poilievre David Sweet iPod paparazzi
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
In my best Stephen Colbert voice:
"Dick Diamond, you're officially on notice"
Posted by: Stephen Taylor at August 21, 2006 12:08 PM
Steve:
You have got to be kidding me... Is that all you've got?
Posted by: Devin Maxwell at August 21, 2006 12:36 PM
I think some Liberals have too much time on their hands.
Posted by: SUZANNE at August 21, 2006 12:43 PM
I've also got a good piece on Somalia.
Posted by: Steve Janke at August 21, 2006 12:44 PM
And by the way... To those of you who want photos of Rahim Jaffer, don't bother looking for at any radio stations.
Posted by: Devin Maxwell at August 21, 2006 12:49 PM
Steve:
Wouldn't a better contest be to see who can be the first to find Rona Ambrose's personality?
Posted by: Devin Maxwell at August 21, 2006 12:50 PM
I've never had the pleasure of meeting Rona Ambrose. What was she like, personality-wise, when you talked to her?
Posted by: Steve Janke at August 21, 2006 01:04 PM
Steve:
I was basing my comment mostly on what I have seen of her on television but, come to think of it, she was more than a bit bland when I met her in person too.
Posted by: Devin Maxwell at August 21, 2006 01:22 PM
I prefer my politicians on the bland side. The effusive ones make me wonder just how much is really going on upstairs. The bland, ie, introspective, ones always strike me as thinkers.
Posted by: Steve Janke at August 21, 2006 01:31 PM
Wouldn't ya know it?
The Librano$ have to be putting a Conservative down to get their jollies? Why can't these guys ever be constructive? 'Always having to tear something/one down--from our country to PMSH to members of his party.
Being proactive would look good on the Libs, but I don't know if they're capable of it. Too many years of living off the largesse of the rest of us--and getting away with it--seems to have blunted their knives...
My take on Rona Ambrose is that she's being v-e-r-y c-a-r-e-f-u-l. If any of us met her at a family or neighbourhood party, she'd probably be a lot more lively. But we'll never know... Good on ya, Rona. Keep 'em guessing...
Posted by: 'been around the block at August 21, 2006 02:14 PM
Is that the same Young Liberals who spew hatred on websites like thelongwalk.ca or in the comments section at Cherniak's blog? I would hink they have more important things to do that take photos, stuff like getting rid of the anti-semites in the party.
Posted by: The Rat at August 21, 2006 02:36 PM
Yay, way to corrupt Canada's youth by offering them trinkets, Diamond!
What next? Putting a whoopie cushion on Stephen Harper's seat?
Posted by: P.T. at August 21, 2006 04:12 PM
The Liberals should deal with the cranks in their own back yard first. Joining with the NDP in calls to delist Hezbollah as a terrorist organization is just the latest from our desperate Red friends...
Posted by: at August 21, 2006 05:08 PM
Rat Pack Extreme it seems. Must be a prelude to the next election strategy, more fear and scare tactics, forget about actual issues. Yep we'll really really embarrass them and really really scare the populace and we will win the next election, yep that'll work really really good.
The Libs must be desperate. They must have some internal polling indicating that their leadership race is somewhat...how shall one say it?...ho-hum? And more internal polling indicating that nobody really cares who wins.
During the last election watching the Libs implode was unbelievable, but to see them continually compress into a black hole is somewhat delightful.
They're pretty much like that big firework explosion, a big bang then a whole lot of little ones then nothing.
Posted by: GaryinWpg at August 21, 2006 05:54 PM
Yep. Those journalists on the Hill best be on their best behaviour lest they be accused of stalking.
Posted by: Mark Francis at August 21, 2006 06:28 PM
I have a nice picture of Pierre Poilievre and myself. Maybe I can submit it. It was from a public function in the summer.
And re: Rona's personality, she was fun and jovial when she was on CFRA radio.
Stephen Taylor...what...no wag of the finger????
Posted by: TrustOnlyMulder at August 21, 2006 07:38 PM
When losing in the war of ideas...
Posted by: CanForcr 101 at August 21, 2006 08:20 PM
I'm not as familiar with the details of stalking laws, but could someone explain the boundry of paparazzi/media photography and legal stalking?
As blogs and "citizen journalism" grows in importance, I think it's relevant for the citizen-journalist to understand what is and is not acceptable in the eyes of the law. This Liberal contest may be stupid idea to begin with, but it just doesn't sound so strong to me as to worry about it breaching stalking laws.
Posted by: Around the world at August 22, 2006 02:02 AM
"the Code prohibits trespassing on another's property at night"
I'm glad I live in the US. Here in Arizona, If I find you trespassing on my property day OR night the only problem I might have is if my aim is off and you manage to live long enough to crawl off my property to die. Well, one extra form to fill out.
Posted by: Jay at August 23, 2006 07:44 AM
Question:
How can you tell a baby grit stalker from a regular stalker?
Answer:
Look for the brown shirt.
Question:
Why did the grit attend the Hezbollah rally?
Answer:
To sell party memberships!
Posted by: Dan at August 23, 2006 09:02 PM
Jay. Dan.
Both of you. Bang-bluddy-well ON!
Posted by: TangoJuliette at August 29, 2006 06:11 PM
 
|
|
