are good reasons to oppose Stephen Harper’s proposed Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act — which is about a lot more than pursuing just child pornographers.
But before we consider them — and why so-called “liberals” and “progressives” are the least credible critics on this issue — let’s be clear on what the act will and won’t do.
It won’t allow police to monitor personal Internet, e-mail and cellphone communications.
That, as it always has, will require a warrant issued by a judge, except for rare circumstances involving things like kidnapping and bomb threats, the authority for which already exists in law. It will compel Internet service providers to give to police information they now voluntarily provide 95% of the time — albeit more slowly than police like — making it easier for police to obtain search warrants.
That information is the individual’s name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, Internet Protocol (IP) address and the local service provider identifier — hardly state secrets for anyone who uses the Internet, or a phone book.
It would compel Internet providers to set up temporary access and storage files to requested data, since such information now often disappears while the police are trying to obtain warrants. Despite government assurances the bill increases safeguards against unwarranted invasions of privacy, compelling a third party to give information about someone to the police, without a warrant, is always a concern.
As a conservative who’s suspicious of the power of the state, especially of what can happen when police operate without meaningful judicial and civilian oversight, I’m not convinced of the wisdom of the law, as written.
Public Safety Minister Vic Toews’ suggestion you’re either with the government or the pornographers, isn’t helpful. Privacy commissioners have raised legitimate concerns about the bill, especially the potential for abuse, as it’s hardly unknown for police and security forces to stretch the limits of any new power they acquire.
That said, to pretend Internet crime can be fought with the investigative tools of a century ago, as many of the bill’s critics are, is absurd. Many Western democracies have already passed legislation of the type the Harper government is proposing, although that doesn’t mean we should follow their example blindly. The job is to strike a balance between public safety and the right to privacy. But the utter hysteria over this bill coming from “liberals,” “progressives” ( including “Progressive Conservatives”), and others on the left, who have always supported increasing the power of the state, is the height of hypocrisy. These are the people who cheered for decades while human rights commissions were allowed to run amok.
They applauded as these bodies went far beyond their original, legitimate mandate of fighting discrimination in employment and housing, to become kangaroo courts, unfairly prosecuting people for hate speech based on the hurt feelings of others.
These are the people who push for hauling law-abiding parents who judiciously spank their children, before the criminal courts, as if we don’t already have plenty of laws to deal with parents who terrorize, beat and abuse their children, which, ironically, are woefully under- enforced.
Finally, these are the folks who perpetually advocate for the state intruding ever more into our lives. Clearly, they should have been more careful about what they wished for.
lorrie. goldstein@ sunmedia. ca