FTA Lawyer

They do make economic sense, but the explanation is that they are not profitable. They are for the 'common good'. Only those that are devoutly capitalist would claim that doing anything for a reason other than turning or increasing profits is nonsensical. I'm not claiming these things are nonsensical...I was actually saying the same thing that you did, but maybe didn't choose the best words. What I meant was that on a strict profit / loss analysis, those programs are all money losers...but as you can see I said that in support of those programs because of the 'common good' that they serve. FTA

Thanks for the clarification...I really just didn't see where you were going with the analogies. As for your comments on the journalistic integrity of the video, I'll concede that your criticisms are valid...although some people would argue that the "other side" was told via repeated police officers putting their hands over the camera lens. That all being said, is it not the point of the video to demonstrate that many in China are being made poor at the whim of and for the benefit of the rich and privileged few? That is to say, granted one cannot assume that our ideals and views will make any sense to a destitute Chinese person, but why are they destitute when the country is apparently riding a booming economy? If the answer is they are destitute because they are being forced into such states of being (which is the message that I get from the video) by an overzealous government, then doesn't that mean we owe it to them as humans to at least question what is going on in China before we become economic bedfellows? I don't really have answers, and I pose the questions rhetorically...what I guess I am really saying is that I am concerned that our government may be making decisions on dealing with China strictly on an economic basis and being wilfully blind to the human rights concerns...and that is not Canada's international identity or history. Most of our international participation in peacekeeping and AIDS research and elections monitoring and other UN initiatives make no economic sense whatsoever, but we do them out of a sense of obligation to help those who are not as well off as us...so why take a different approach with China? FTA

I would generally agree with this statement. While I acknowledge the concerns raised by Betsy, the sex-offender registry is a balancing act...the rights of the offender who has served his sentence versus the rights of the victims and the public at large. My inagural post on a new criminal law blog was about the Alberta Court of Appeal's recent comments on the registry and many of the quotes I referenced there demonstrate just how this balancing act is done...acknowledging that there is a way for an offender to get an exemption from the registry if they can establish that the negative effects on them personally would be "grossly disproportionate" to any benefits that society would get from their name being included. Calgary Criminal Lawyers' Weekly I guess I feel that this possibility of exemption is enough to satisfy me that the registry is just when you look at the big picture. FTA

I don't follow what you are trying to say here. If we value human rights in our society (as our institutions and laws would suggest) do we not need to value all humans' rights (and not just our own)? That is, I don't want Bill Gates to design me a 3rd bathroom, but if I remove the one that my children use, refuse them access to mine and force them to live in their own feces, I would sure as hell hope Mr. Gates would refuse to sell me a contract to design packaging for Microsoft products. And how will it help my kids for Mr. Gates to give them money or a job if he completely ignores the fact that they are covered in their own feces no matter how much he pays them? Consider this...what if, as the video showed, the Chinese people have decided that their best choice is a revolution against a corrupt government. On your logic, we should be selling them guns on the black market to "give them choices"...otherwise, they'll get as far as the shovel-weilding villagers did in the video or as "Tankman" did so many years ago. I'm not saying that the Chinese should have to live exactly as we do, but if basic human rights are not being provided for by the Chinese government, then we have an obligation to address that and not just expand our customer base and derive a benefit from the suffering of others. FTA

Your post, while somewhat provocative, demonstrates a relatively un-developed understanding of our justice system and its foundations. To find someone guilty BEYOND DOUBT is an impossibility and would frankly result in an unimaginable increase in the number of criminals that would not be convicted. There are days that as a defence lawyer I remind myself aloud that all I need to do is raise a reasonable doubt and my client will be acquitted. If all I had to do was raise ANY doubt, no matter how unreasonable, I would win virtually every case, even where valid confessions had been obtained by the police. In the current system, defences are not even allowed to be suggested to a jury unless the accused has demonstrated that there is an "air of reality" to the assertions. This concept fits well with the standard of reasonable doubt in that if all I am trying to do is raise some absurd and outlandish form of doubt in the minds of the jury, then the judge will simply prevent it. Under your proposal, every conceivable effort to raise any possible doubt would have to be allowed, and once allowed, the likelihood that I can't convince at least 1 person out of 12 that they are not quite confident enough to sign someone's death warrant (knowing there is no chance for an appeal) becomes practically zero. As far as your careless statements about evidence, there are literally tens of thousands of scholarly works spanning hundreds of years which have debated, examined and analysed the issues dealing with scientific, corroborative and circumstantial evidence...and you are proposing the well-reasoned requirement for there to be "solid" corroboration before sanctioning a government funded execution...astonishing. And ask a Crown Prosecutor how would they secure a conviction when circumstantial evidence is given little to no weight. Our criminal law requires proof of both a criminal act (actus reus) and a criminal intention (mens rea). Except where an accused takes the stand and admits to having thought "I want to kill that guy" while doing so, the Crown relies almost 100% on circumstantial evidence to prove intent. Not to mention that without eyewitnesses (which is alot of cases) forensic evidence of an act can often only make sense when placed into a certain context by inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence. Which brings me to a final point on the apprehension of infallibility of forensic evidence...recently legal authors have dubbed this phenomenon the "CSI Effect". The issue cuts both ways, and basically boils down to this...because of canned T.V. programs like CSI, jurors are developing very distorted perceptions of reality when it comes to real-life cases. When they see a well-presented set of charts outlining DNA profiles, they will tend to convict without truly considering the other evidence, simply because they believe in the infallibility of DNA science. On the other hand, in the absence of nice "scientific" charts and test results, a jury will tend to acquit without looking fully at the rest of the prosecutor's case because they have come to expect what they consider to be infallible forensic proof of guilt. Either situation can lead to injustice. Having 2, 4, or 40 scientific labs confirm that your DNA is on the body of a deceased victim does nothing whatsoever to answer the REAL question, which is...how did the DNA get there? There is absolutely no forensic test that can answer this question for us, certainly not BEYOND DOUBT. A system designed by humans, run by humans, which deals with human problems cannot be made error-free. Appellate courts exist to correct errors, and they do so routinely every day. Immediate death to a convicted person would certainly make such courts extinct, but I hardly believe that many people would agree with you that such a society would be more just than the one we have at present. FTA

Isn't it Confuscious that said "the journey of 1000 miles begins with but a single step" (or something along that line). Boycott the Olympics, look at where things you buy are made and stop buying Chinese products, boycott Google and Sisco and other companies who appear to be whoring themselves out to the Chinese marketplace, write your local MP, various cabinet Ministers and the Prime Minister. Then make an honest effort to convince 10 people to do the same, and ask each of them to convince 10 more people. It may seem like an exercise in futility, but it takes very little effort on your part, maybe will cost you a couple of hundred bucks a year (paying for items not made by slave labour) and really is the only thing the average person can do to try and improve things for Chinese people like those in the video. Look at it this way...if 10% of North America's population stopped buying Chinese products, that would actually be enough to get the attention of the Wal-Marts and Targets of the world and if one or two of them dumps Chinese products, that would be enough to make China at least have to re-evaluate their game plan. Problem is (as you have pointed out), over here things are so bloody good that we are even apathetic when we display our principled outrage...ever notice that people bitch the loudest about gas prices while they top off their 100 litre fuel tank and proceed to accelerate quickly to 130 km/h to cruise down the highway to their favourite leisure activity? If we really cared, we'd consume less gas...the fact that we don't is why the prices are so high. Similarly, if we (i.e. western democracies as a whole) really cared about China's human rights violations we'd actually make concerted efforts to influence change. Alas, I fear the allure of the fortunes to be made with access to billions of consumers will mean that China's actions will go unquestioned (officially that is) for as long as I'll walk this planet. FTA

I too believe that if Manning wants the job he will get it. He is higher-profile than any of the other hopefuls, and has all of the experience and organization abilities that are so important as noted above. I'm just not sure he wants it...it would be sort of like taking a consolation prize while Harper got the real trophy. As an aside, I would amend the byline of the topic a bit...in this Province, whomever replaces Ralph will automatically be Priemier for a decade, not just the year until the next election. FTA

Let's not be too quick to judge...I mean, Harper repeatedly promised the first thing he'd do is bring in the Accountability Act, and that's what he's doing. It may not be exactly what was planned (had he obtained a majority) but he is being accountable for this election promise. The fact that he is proceeding with the measures even though they would prevent some things he has recently done (assuming that your allegations above are accurate...although, I'm pretty sure Harper did eventually cooperate with the ethics commissioner, and just because he was "fast-tracked", doesn't mean Fortier is an unmeritorious appointment) to me actually speaks volumes about the fact that this legislation will change the way things get done in Ottawa. I would be concerned if, having reviewed his decisions and determining that the Accountability Act would preclude such decisions, Harper then dropped or drastically amended the Act so as to prevent real change. This would be the scenario that would justify forwarding the types of criticisms you are making because it would demonstrate in Harper a lack of principle...i.e. I'll clean things up, unless it means I might also have to make some changes. FTA

Babies in Jail This is the first I've ever heard of a program that has apparently been around for awhile...allowing mothers who are in jail to raise their babies in jail (until the children are 4 years old). Aside from the particularly tragic circumstances of the case described in the article, I can't help but think that having kids developing in their formative years in prison is not such a brilliant idea. I mean, even with the benefits of state-provided health care and other resources, socially these kids will be learning their behaviours from other kids and their mothers who are likely not the best-suited to be role models. And what happens when the kid hits their 4th birthday but the mom has 5 years left to serve? Do we just parole her or do we traumatize the 4 year old by separating him or her from the mother at that point? I can't really see the merit to this...can anyone else? FTA

Hey, where does the government get the money to pay for the day care spaces? Does it fall from the sky? I'm willing to argue whether the government should give money directly to families with children, or give it to them indirectly by creating daycare spaces, but for heaven's sakes, can we at least agree that in either case, the money comes from taxpayers? In addition, how is this in any way connected to "laziness"? Whether the government gives the money directly to families, or gives it to them indirectly through day care spaces, the money is not dependent on their laziness. There is much to criticize in Stephen Harper's policies, and in the child care policy in particular. But this criticism is just dumb. Ok, genious, at least you should read before you talk. There is no question that the money comes from taxpayers. My point was that it comes from working taxpayers and goes to those who are too lazy to work and use their kids as a convenient excuse for not doing so. There is a huge difference in how the money is spent. If it is given to people in the form of daycare spaces, then it makes it easier to put your kids in daycare and get a job (or at least you will not have an excuse for not getting one). In this case, you are both being productive (and paying for at least part of the daycare through your taxes) and are also creating other jobs (for daycare workers). If the money is given to you for staying (lazy-ing at) home, then you are not being productive, you are not paying for any of it (i.e. and are living off other people's efforts and effectively taxing the economy) and you aren't creating any jobs. In short, in the first case you are a productive member of society and in the second case you are a lazy bum who burdens the economy. Get it? Or are you arguing that sitting on your ass is an activity one deserves to be paid for? Mimas, You are being a complete and utter imbicile. You have at least one arguable point, which if I wade through the depths of stupidity that you are espousing I think I can identify as this: staying at home is economically unproductive, and therefore, on a strict economic analysis, it is wrong for society to give any economic incentive to a parent to stay home, when they could be participating in the enhancement and development of the economy by working. Not only is such an incentive removing workers from the workforce, but it is taking money out of the pot that is paid into by those who continue to work and pay taxes. Your problem is that most people can't distill your valid message out of your posts because it is cloaked with ridiculous assertions that stay at home parents are all lazy and "sitting on their asses". Perhaps try, just a little, to engage in intelligent discourse rather than such buffoonery. Now that the lecture is over...I have a couple of questions for you. If staying at home to raise one's children is "lazy work" that "doesn't count" then how do you justify daycare workers being paid a salary? Aren't they just taking the place of the parent and being "lazy" doing "work that doesn't count" on a slightly larger scale in exchange for an unwarranted sum of economic resources? As a self-professed accountant, I will assume that you know a thing or two about economics. Do you not understand the need for an economy such as ours to encourage child-birth so that we have an ever-existent population of new taxpayers being brought up to replace those who become "permanently lazy" (to talk in your type of terms) when they retire? Do you disagree that if Candian families increase the number of children they have as a result of the child tax credits and other "subsidies" that the pay-off to society at large is far greater in the long run when those children grow up to work and pay taxes and support your CPP draws and medical bills as you become nothing but a drain on society? And please, if you can, respond in a way that fosters debate of my questions rather than tell me that I'm lazy... FTA

I hear what you are saying re: costs, but if we allowed economics to dictate decision-making in the criminal justice system, then frankly, we wouldn't prosecute any property-crimes that were of a value less than $30 to $40 thousand...and that is a huge portion of the crime out there. My criticism really is this...if the crime is not serious enough to make it "worth" transporting the criminal, then the warrant ought to really be expunged from the system...I mean, why should a person be repeatedly arrested for something only to be released without charge? It's unfair to them, and wastes police man-hours and resources. There's really no way of tracking this, but it would be interesting to see if there wouldn't be a net benefit to society in the end if we did transport people for every outstanding warrant (i.e. reduced recitivism, prevention of further offences etc.). On your question about costs... I had to do some research into some of the most unknown sections of the Criminal Code on this. For the most part, in practice, we consider costs to be something that do not get imposed in criminal proceedings...for either side. Again, this is a public policy decision...mostly to prevent the government from having to pay costs to an accused who gets acquitted notwithstanding that there was evidence of their involvement in a crime, and the public interest dictated that the Crown should prosecute. There is, however, provision in the Criminal Code (s. 809 and 840) for a summary conviction court to add costs to a person's punishment as though imposing (or increasing) a fine. That being said, the schedule of allowable costs would appear to be so antiquated that it is actually laughable. For example, some of the items that a court can order be paid for the services of a police officer are as follows: 18. Arresting a person on a warrant or without a warrant.............$1.50 22. Returning with prisoner after arrest to take him before a summary conviction court or justice at a place different from the place where the peace officer received the warrant to arrest, if the journey is of necessity over a route different from that taken by the peace officer to make the arrest, each way, for each mile..........$0.10 24. Attending summary conviction court...for each day necessarily employed...........$2.00 So the answer to your question is technically a 'yes', but I mean, adding a few dollars in costs to a several hundred or several thousand dollar fine is quite pathetic. As far as likely sentence, there's really no way to speculate with any validity because I don't really know the circumstances of the offence, nor do I know anything of the offender's past record or other circumstances. FTA

I'll admit, up front that I do not know all of the ins and outs of this issue...just haven't had time to follow all of it in detail. That being said, I agree that too much partisan posturing is going on, clouding the real issues. The quote being relied upon for this thread, for example, is being misrepresented as to its meaning in order to forward a partisan view. Having Constitutional authority to do something simply means it is possible...which does not equate to a conclusion that it is therefore lawful in any and all circumstances. For example, the Government of Canada is possessed of the Constitutional authority to pass laws relating to the definition of marriage...it specifically says so in our Constitution. That doesn't mean if the current government were to pass a law that said that "marriage is the union of two white, anglophone persons of the opposite sex who have a net worth of at least $1,000,000 and are political supporters of the CPC" that this would be "lawful" exercise of their constitutional authority. The quote attributed to these 5 judges means simply that in spite of the FISA provisions, it remains constitutionally possible for the President to spy on suspected international agents by way of executive order...no comment is made on whether Bush, in the current instances, has actually exercised his constitutional authority in a lawful manner. Maybe he has, maybe he hasn't, but this quote offers absolutely no assistance in answering the question...which is demonstrated by GostHacked's post. FTA

Basically, as early as being stopped on the roadside and having your I.D. checked, any information connected to you on CPIC is instantly available to the police. The problem, of course, is if you are using an alias that has not yet been associated with your other identity, then the police may never know about your history. I wasn't retained by the guy in my example, so I don't know his whole story, but it would appear that he did use an alias out here and it was not until he told prison officials about his outstanding warrants / charges back in Ontario that they would have had a chance to connect the dots. In the normal course though, the CPIC check is the first thing to be done, and often the outstanding warrant is what the police will use to arrest the person (giving them some time to continue whatever investigation they are currently doing). Once it is determined though, that the warrant is not "returnable", the police will have to lay their own charges and proceed from there, or release the person. So, either way, this guy would have been convicted and doing Alberta time before he would have had any chance to face his outstanding Ontario matters. FTA

Well, I'd like to know what kind of crimes we're talking about. Murder? Rapes? Unpaid parking tickets? Good question... The Ontario warrants were for: 1) Theft under $5,000 (x 2); 2) Breach of probation; 3) Breach of recognizance; 4) Fail to appear in court; 5) Theft of a credit card; As a bigger-picture answer, the jurisdiction issuing a warrant can set its "returnabilitiy" as they see fit, so typically, the more serious the crime the wider the net (i.e. you're not going to see a Canada-wide warrant for parking tickets, nor are you going to see only a 200 km radius for a murder). FTA

Few people appreciate how arrest warrants operate in this country, and given the number of threads that discuss law and order issues, I thought I'd put out an example that I encountered this week. A prisoner in Alberta phoned me saying he wanted to deal with outstanding criminal charges that he has in Ontario. There are warrants for his arrest for 6 separate offences that he committed out there before making his way West. This guy asked the prison officials out here to arrange to waive his charges out to Alberta so he could plead guilty to them and be sentenced. The response? The Alberta prison wouldn't do it because: 1) They couldn't make the arrangements fast enough before he would be released in a month; and 2) The warrants were not "returnable" out here so they would just be releasing him when his Alberta time was done. The term "returnable" refers simply to the question of who will pay to bring a person in custody to the place where they are to appear in court. This guy's warrants were only returnable within 200 km of a particular Ontario town, so if he's arrested outside of that perimeter, the Province of Ontario will not pay for the flight (or train or bus etc.) to bring him back to face the charges. Obviously, if the jurisdiction where he's wanted won't pay for getting him back, the jurisdiction he's arrested in isn't going to foot the bill, so out he goes into freedom, notwithstanding that there is an outstanding, valid arrest warrant. So, every time he gets pulled over for speeding or asked to identify himself, this guy must be arrested due to the outstanding warrant, and each time he will be sent on his way after the police confirm that he is farther than 200 km from the Ontario town that wants him. This is the true significance of having a "Canada-wide" warrant issued for your arrest, because it means the place that wants you will pay to bring you back from anywhere in Canada that you get arrested. One can't help but wonder, how many times a month in a country as large as ours, with freedom of mobility as we have, are wanted criminals actually in police custody and nevertheless released simply because no one wants to open their wallet. How does this strike the members of the forum? FTA

No anonymity here...my profile reveals who I am. I like the idea that anonymity allows people to speak honestly about their opinions, however it is a double-edged sword in that anonymity also allows people to speak irresponsibly. Not sure if anything can be done about it...it's just the way it is. FTA

Not sure how to respond to this. Comparing Nazi Germany to Palestine is pretty bad. To me it looks like Israel is systematicly taking over Palestinian land. Builing fences and walls around them for containment. Inhumane. Look I understand the Jews plight after WWII. My grandfather fought for the Germans in WWII and came over to Canada in the late 1940's He told me of horrible stuff commited by both sides of the war. So after WWII the Jews were given a nice peice of land in the Middle East. That 'country' has been growing ever since. I don't think any other county's land grab equals that of Israel since it was created. IN other words this is a form of sanctioned genocide. GostHacked, I wasn't trying to make a case for supporting Israel vs. Palestine nor was I suggesting that Palestine is the current equivalent of Nazi Germany (this is why I usually shy away from Nazi references because there's just so much baggage attached all the time). The only point I was trying to make is that just because a leader or government might be democratically elected, it doesn't mean we (as promoters of democracy) can't disagree with their policies and choose not to conduct business with them as we have just done with Hamas. In some cases (as with Nazi Germany) it may even be appropriate to outright go to war let alone simply choose to withhold monetary aid. FTA

Imagine if we were still governed by the Martinites. We would be farting around forever on the issue. I like Harper's approach to foreign affairs. Decisive. Just because us lefties have opinions that run contra to our government's position, does not mean that we love or support terrorists. The West is running rampid over the Middle East with cries of democracy, but as soon as a democratic election results in a victory they don't like, they cry boycott or sanction and threaten to cut aid. This only validates claims from the rebels that the West wants to control their lives, and adds fuel to the fire of terror. Remember, they believe that the Bush Administration are terrorists, and have the body count to prove it. How can we PROMOTE democracy (not force, since that is the exact opposite), if we are unprepared to accept it's outcome. We need to extend an olive branch if we really want peace, and not punish the Palestinians for voting in the party they feel will best address their needs. Part of democracy is accepting responsibility for your vote...i.e. "you get the government you deserve" type of thing. If you vote for a government that advocates terror, and other nations are not prepared to deal with your government, then you've got what you voted for, and can blame no one but yourself. MacKay is not saying that Hamas must leave the parliament buildings...that would be refusing to accept the democratic outcome. MacKay is simply saying that we will not directly fund the Hamas government whilst it maintains an official policy of terrorism...that is called prudent foreign policy and I am particularly proud that Canada has demonstrated a willingness to be a leader on this front. I usually hate using the cliche' Nazi references to support an argument, but it seems prudent here...after all, Hitler was democratically elected. Were we wrong as a nation to join the war effort against Nazi Germany? Ought we have sent over money so they could buy bigger cremation chambers? Absurd, right? Then why the problem with the fact that we will not send funds to Hamas to support their governmental operations? (keeping in mind that we are still sending millions annually to provide humanitarian aid to the people of Palestine). FTA

Airport-style perimeter security will soon be the norm for courthouses in Alberta. Law Society of Alberta Starting April 10th with the Edmonton Law Courts building and the Calgary site of the Court of Appeal (and following up with other courthouses in summer of 2007 when the new Calgary mega-courthouse opens) every person who enters a courthouse in the province will go through metal detectors and have clothing and bags scanned. (Although there will be a "fast track" with lower security measures for judges, lawyers, police, court staff etc.) Alberta's new Sherrif's officers (formerly Court and Protective Services or CAPS) will administer the security perimeter...and to that end, a large number of new officers are being hired and trained. Is this just a necessary development based on the current global environment we live in, or is it a significant step toward our society becoming more and more closely linked to the "culture of fear" of our neighbour to the South? Currently, commisionaires or unarmed CAPS officers are stationed at the entrances of courthouses (but not in smaller rural sites) and armed CAPS officers are stationed to most courtrooms. Maybe we have been just naive and setting ourselves up for disaster, but I have never felt unsafe in a courthouse at any time and I wonder if we haven't just bought a small piece of the fear that terrorists have been selling... Only a year or so ago, the Chief Justice of the SCC came to speak at the University of Calgary and there was not a single armed officer in sight. Admittedly, she likely had a plain-clothes bodyguard, but the point is we have mostly continued to maintain a fear-less freedom in Canada since 9-11, and this development would seem to be a significant step away from that status-quo. Is it completely unrealistic to think that we could continue to live in such an open society as we have been and still remain safe? FTA

I think we should develope our military to complement our allies in small but meaningful ways - kind of like the "Canadarm" in the space shuttle. This is the most sensible response on this thread. I mean, politika was being funny right? We should have a military which rivals that of the U.S. in terms of power and capabilities? We could do this by out-doing the technology of the U.S. military? Wow... In my view, Canada has in the past had made very valuable military contributions, but we must work within our means. We might have taken Vimy Ridge when no-one else could, but if we think for a moment that we could have won a World War on our own, we are sadly mistaken. Trying to take the reigns from countries with much larger and more prevalent militaries is wasted effort. We ought to solidify our military on a general scale for domestic purposes and work at developing highly advanced units in very specific contexts for foreign participation...so that we can maximize our potential impact as specialized parts of larger multinational forces, rather than struggling to participate in a meaningful way on a large scale in foreign deployments. These are my thoughts. FTA

sharkman, My apologies for the offensive nature of what was in my last post...however, I don't believe that the content offends the rules of the forum and it was certainly not done in a gratuitous or needless manner. The quote I included comes from a judgment of the Manitoba Provincial Court in R v. Hardy, [2002] M.J. No. 238 (sorry, I don't have an active link to post here). This quote is from one of 13 Canadian cases from 2001 to 2005 that I dealt with in my recent argument to the Alberta Court of Appeal. The quote demonstrates much of what I have been attempting to argue on this thread in response to Argus' repeated assertions that mere possession of child pornography in no way harms children. The members of the forum can draw their own conclusions having read my post...I suspect you have. I guess, in my view, one (Argus) ought not be able to argue in the abstract as an idealistic defender of civil liberties and freedom of expression without some glimpse of the reality of what is being argued in support of. If I am wrong in my assessment, then I invite Greg to delete my post and he will not hear any complaining from me. As far as your first comment, I will agree that there appears to have been little progression in the substance of the thread over the last few exchanges between myself and Argus, and so I am prepared to cease and desist. As an eventuality of any thread, they run out of legs, and this one appears to have hit that point. FTA

You obviously have a bias on this point - as do most people. I am fairly neutral. I have examined the statements and logic on both sides, and found the lack of cohesive evidence on your side to be profoundly unconvincing. I am willing to be convinced, but you have done a very poor job of it. Your main cite turned out to be a better support of my side than yours. Gee, thanks FTL. I didn't know that. On the other hand, I was responding to people who have said that these people ought to be locked up forever, or words to that affect. Is - or is depicted to be. In other words, a 25 year old actress, for example (actually, I believe Jane March was only 17 in The Lover) or a cartoon, like manga, or a drawing or painting created from the imagination. Which means you get to try and interpret what "a dominant characteristic" might mean, and match it against what a judge might decide. In a US case, a judge decided that even though the subject of a photo was fully clothed, it still qualified under a smiliar definition. You're a little out of date. Bill C2 amended this to include fictional descriptions of underage sex wether it advocates, encourages, induces or whatnot. You're again out of date. I suggest you read bill C2. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court of Canada’s broad interpretation of the “artistic merit” defence in child pornography proceedings, Bill C-2 eliminates existing exemptions for material with “artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose,” leaving the statutory defence of a “legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to science, medicine, education or art.” Bill C-2 further specifies that the material in question must not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of 18. Amendments also broaden the scope of the offence by eliminating the need to show that written materials advocate or counsel illegal sexual activity with children. Which again is wide open to interpretation, as you now not only need to show that it serves a "legtimate purpose" related to say, art, but you also have to prove (that nasty old reverse onus thing) that it poses no "undue risk of harm" to anyone under 18. This is troubling on more than one level. After all, none of the advocates of ever harsher laws against child porn have ever proven that child porn (as opposed to child molestation) causes harm to anyone under 18 in the first place. So the standard is pretty low on that side of the fence, making the standard to disprove what is essentially emotionalism, extremely high. The Lover was a very nice movie. It seems to me, however, that anyone who owns a copy risks being thrown in prison for posession of child pornography. Do you disagree? What about Blame it on Rio, which featured another 17 year old actress, also at least partly nude through much of the movie? For that matter, if you add in the "or is depicted to be under 18" all sorts of movies can be included, even though they feature actors over 18 playing people under 18. Can you really describe Porkys as serving "a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice, science, medicine, education or art"? Can you prove it does not pose an undue risk of harm to teenagers? (what is a due risk anyway?). It was a crass teenage summer sex comedy, like a zillion others, with lots of naked "teenagers" fooling around. How about "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"? We all know there have been numerous exceptions to that rule, and that people have been convicted of violating all sorts of rules and laws they didn't know they were violating. This is especially bad when we're dealing with such a broad law which is so open to interpretation on so many levels. You didn't think you were breaking the law because you thought your paintings were art. The judge disagrees. Or maybe he agrees but decides it poses an "undue risk of harm" whatever that means. Ah, it's all so simple, isn't it? Why, after you've been charged with posession of child porn, your posessions taken away, your children taken off to be traumatized by repeated intrusive questions and interviews with poorly trained psychologists and counsellors and Crowns, your wife divorces you, you get fired from your job, and your home is firebombed by your neighbors, well then, a year and a half later, a judge will smile and say "not guilty" and everything will be all right again. I take it you didn't read that last cite of mine, which described how british police marched into literally thousands of homes on the mistaken impression the men there had downloaded child porn, outright told everyone there that the father/husband was a paedophile, and carted away the children as evidence. Nor did you see where some dozens of men wound up commiting suicide, even though they were probably innocent. . I'm sure the Ottawa father arrested for doing just that, banned from his home, his children taken away by childrens aid society for interviews, his name dragged through the mud, will be relieved to hear that. A year or so later, but only after loud and repeated outbursts from the local media, the local crown finally, very grudgingly dropped the charges, but only on the basis he figured he couldn't get a conviction with a jury. And CAS never admitted any wrongdoing in taking away the children. It took some time, in fact, before he could get the order prohibiting him from seeing his kids alone or going back to live in his house lifted. So go ahead everyone! Take naked pictures of your kids! They're cute, after all, and you'll probably get the charges dismissed - eventually, some day. Your problem is that you're looking at punishment from an emotionless legal standpoint. I'm looking at things from a human standpoint. From a human standpoint even the mere accusation of having child porn can destroy ones life. That's something you don't appear to care much about. There's another aspect to this, as well. As is stated by the CCLA position on bill C2 "If you have to look over your shoulder for engaging in legitimate activity, you are no longer enjoying a viable freedom of expression." Why should I have to look warily at my DVD collections or what porn I have on my computer for fear some cop might decide to charge me with being a paedpohile and child porn collector because I have, I dunno, The Lover or Blue Lagoon" - or Porkys, or in case I have a copy of Nabocov's Lolita, or I took videos or pictures of my kid in the bathtub? And it's so unneccesary. You, like all the advocates, use the "baby harp seal" approach when defending the child porn law. Ie, even though we don't hunt cute little white seals, esp with clubs, they always pictures of them and old videos of them being clubbed to make their point. You used the 18 month old being abused on video, even though that sort of things is a miniscule proportion of what the child porn bill catches. Why do you insist on defending a law which criminalises the posession of cartoons? Of drawings? Of fictional writing and fictional characters in movies? Of art works? None of these involve actual children. In fact, even most of what does involve real children doesn't involve any trauma to them. According to cites I've already posted 68% of what is now described as "child pornography" does not involve any sexual contact between the model - naked or clothed, real or altered - and anyone. Only a tiny fraction of child porn actually involves what can be termed wholesale sexual abuse of minors, even less of prepubescent minors. I guess the baby harp seal approach works better, right? Okay, okay... First of all, I do apologize for the misstep regarding Bill C2...I have a copy of it on my desk but hadn't followed the most current Orders in Council for proclomation dates of the various sections. I have no cases of clients charged under the new provisions, and as criminal lawyers we often find ourselves trying matters under old versions of the Criminal Code (because it takes so long to get matters to trial). Mistake made and admitted...it's the danger of trying to argue these issues without losing your real job in the process. The real irony of the way this thread has developed is that I make my living making many of the arguments you are making in terms of civil liberties and protection of individuals from undue state intervention...some of the arguments I am most proud of making are in cases where people are unlawfully arrested or searched. My law partner and I have been involved in a number of cases of alleged sexual assault and child pornography and have seen clients acquitted and yet destroyed by the allegations themselves...I am certainly not unaware of the "human" factor...it's what I deal with every day. Undoubtedly the C2 amendments will be constitutionally challenged at some point, and we'll just have to wait and see what happens there, but the real point I guess I need to address is from your last paragraph: What I defend is a law which strikes a balance between the protection of children on the one hand, and the protection of freedom of expression on the other. Unlike you, I am not able to dismiss the objectives of criminalizing possession of child porn on a belief that "only a tiny fraction" of such instances of possession can demonstrate a link to the actual or potential harm to children. Perhaps I am not acting rationally because I am the father of two small children, and I am taking my stance in this biased context. However, in the course of my dealings with these types of cases as a lawyer, I have been forced to encounter instances such as the following description that I quote from one judge's decision: Maybe some of your criticisms about the overbreadth of the law are valid, and perhaps the "slippery slope" needs to be monitored more closely than I have been suggesting, but I will repeat, over and over and over that I have no difficulty with a law that puts people in jail for merely possessing (or accessing on the internet) the type of material described above. You will never convince me that the link between harm to children and possession of child porn does not exist...and maybe if you watched one of these videos of a toddler crying "No, No" while being raped, your perspective might change too (even in the absence of a controlled scientific experiment published in a reputable medical journal). If our society is trying to stop people from making economic gain out of the exploitation of the desires and urges of paedophiles, then I am on board, even if the method we choose happens to place some restrictions on a person's right to express themselves. Now, back to paying the bills... FTA

I agree...I'm also 28...maybe a 26-40 and a 41-60 split would have made more sense. I mean, my dad is 55, and if we're in the same category, then your data is not telling you much. FTA

It depends on what kind of line you're talking about. I have no objection to banning underage porn. I have a problem with putting people in prison for looking at it. I take into account that paedophiles have a psychiatric illness, and that the human sex drive is a very powerful motivator. It must be pretty tough to be drawn to children, rather than to adults, and pretty tough to resist that urge. If all they do is fantasise and look at pictures on the internet, well, I have a hard time saying they should be locked up forever for that. Then there's the fact that a lot more than paedophiles are drawn to beautiful young teenage girls. Do you think the human instinct can turn a man's sex drive on or off depending on whether the girl he see is 18 or 17? And how can you tell anyway? I know a couple of pretty girls who are 25 but who could easily pass for under 18 in the right clothes. I don't know many younger girls, but I do know the reverse is also true. Suppose you download pictures of a lovely girl you think is 21 and she turns out to be 17? I brought up Tracy Lords before for a reason; It's a famous case where a 15 year old girl looked so mature that she became the centrefold in Penthouse and made mainstream X-rated videos, dozens of them, without anyone knowing. Should everyone who looks at such videos and pictures go to prison because they didn't know? No, it's all too arbitrary and there is too much room for gross injustice. Besides, nude photos is not where the line is drawn. The line is drawn around anything that concerns people under 18 involved in any kind of nudity or sexual activity, and includes fictional stories, diary entries, art works, digital animation and drawings. I'm sorry if I'm appearing argumentative here, but I can't let you off the hook as Geoffrey has just done. You are changing what you are talking about from one post to the next in terms of where the lines are actually drawn and where you think they ought to be drawn. You're point is well taken that you do not accept that there is sufficient proof of harm to children to justify the fact that it is a criminal offence for anyone to merely possess (including downloading from the internet) images of child pornography. I accept that there is enough evidence, but that's fine, we need not agree (and we're hardly the only people who don't see eye to eye on this point). However, many of the other points you are making are simply inaccurate and misleading...and no, I don't think it is just "picking nits"...if you want to speak authoritatively, then be correct, please. Possession of child pornography of up to a thousand images or so, by a person diagnosed as a paedophile, in the redneck province of Alberta will net you a jail sentence of 12-24 months give or take, depending on other factors specific to each case...not "locked up forever" as you carelessly suggest above. In fact, the maximum sentence for straight possession or for simply accessing (looking at but not downloading) is 5 years. The maximum only goes up to 10 years for making or distributing child pornography. As far as where the lines are drawn (actually where they are drawn), the Canadian law regarding child porn sets out that it is illegal to possess: 1. photos, film, videos and other visual representations that show a person who is or is depicted as under 18 engaged in explicit sexual activity; 2. visual representations that feature, as a dominant characteristic, the depiction of a sexual organ or anal region of a person who is or is depicted as under 18 for a sexual purpose; and 3. written or visual material that actively induces or encourages unlawful sexual activity with persons who are under 18. UNLESS, the material described above has: 1. artistic merit; 2. an educational purpose; 3. a scientific purpose; 4. a medical purpose; or 5. the acts alleged to be unlawful were done in furtherance of the public good. In any of these situations, there is no criminal offence. FURTHERMORE, per the Sharpe case, there is also no criminal offence where the material described above: 1. is explicit material and was created by one person (i.e. with no one else being a participant) and held by the creator alone exclusively for personal use; or 2. is a visual recording created by or depicting that person, which does not depict unlawful sexual activity, and is created with the consent of all participants, and is held only for private use. As far as your "accidental possession" scenario, all criminal offences require an element of criminal intent or mens rea (latin). In the case of possession of child porn, it is a complete defence if you subjectively believed that the person in the image was 18 and it was objectively reasonable for you to have that belief (that is, you can't get away with claiming you thought a 4 year old was 18, but you're in safe territory saying you thought Traci Lords was 18 when you were looking at her in Playboy). The defence exists for making child porn as well, only it's a bit more narrow...that is, you have to actually demonstrate that you took all reasonable positive steps toward determining the age of the person before you use them to make porn (so there is more responsibility placed on someone who makes porn than someone who just possesses it). So, now that we have the actual legal parameters of the legislation out in the open, perhaps Geoffrey won't be so quick to pat you on the back. So long as you have no explicit sexual purpose, you're not guilty for taking photos of your child in the bath, you're not guilty for painting or sculpting a naked teen, you're not guilty for furthering science or doing a news report exposing child porn etc. etc. Even where you do have an explicit sexual purpose, you're not guilty for writing horrible child-porn stories in your diary (but keeping them private), you're not guilty for videotaping any lawful sexual activity, so long as you have consent of all participants, and again, you keep it private (for example, you can video tape two consenting 14 year-olds in full sexual intercourse and use it to pleasure yourself to your heart's content...your only legal requirement is to keep it to yourself). You're not guilty for mistakenly having a mature-looking Traci Lords spread when she was actually 15 at the time of the photos, you're not guilty...well you get my point (hopefully). This law traps far fewer people and fact scenarios than you would like us to believe. I'm not saying your views are totally without merit, but you lack credibility in your criticisms when you paint a picture that is just not true. FTA

One thing we will agree on Argus, we've both spent too much time arguing this one back and forth, but oh well, I suppose the debate is worth it... As for your comments above, I hate to sound like a broken record, but you need to read the Sharpe decision if you want to proclaim that you actually research things to properly dispute them... Probably the most significant factor of the Sharpe decision was to declare that the child porn laws were unconstitutional to the extent that they made it illegal for someone to take photographs of themselves and their consensual partners participating in lawful sex. To be clear, after Sharpe, it was no longer an offence to photograph yourself having sex with a 14 year old (assuming the sex was consensual and otherwise lawful). Your statement is simply wrong. Since you have said you won't read Sharpe because it is too long, here is a blurb from a Department of Justice article on the point: The child pornography law that was upheld by the court, prohibits not only the possession of pornographic material involving children but also written material that depicts unlawful sexual activity with a child, excepting material for «the public good» or other defensible artistic, educational, medical or scientific reasons. To those exceptions, a majority of the court, led by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, added two more. The first includes written materials or visual representations created and held by the accused alone, exclusively for personal use. The other covers visual recordings, created by or depicting the accused, that do not depict unlawful sexual activity and that are held by the accused, exclusively for private use. FTA