Yeah I totally agree, how in the world are the Canadian Goverment going to enfore it? Like someone mentioned, there's loads of ways to do it.
Its going to be a total waste of time and a waste of money because no one will listen, it won't stop anyone and it will make people mad. And if its illegal for an adult and child to have a conversation on the internet in Canada, does that mean you won't be able to speak to your Uncle who lives in another part of Canada over the internet? Its not logical at all.

I give props to them for trying, but alas, another failed attempt at general public safety.

@Pleiades Rising:

I think you're probably right when it comes to your idea of a case setting the precedent. That makes the most sense (in legal terms).

Because of this, I think I have finally settled myself.

Once again, I say that people are blowing this way out of proportion (like I stated before, I have done this as well in my previous comments). If one thinks about what will actually occur in the real world, it can easily be seen that this law will not affect anyone. Except for pedophiles.

Authorities will continue to track pedophiles in the same manner as they always do, however it will simply be much easier for them to bring down the law on the pedophiles. Once authorities believe they have enough proof in wording, they can begin charging. They will no longer have to wait for a physical meeting to occur. If it can be reasonably proven that what they are doing is pedophile in nature, something can be done about it.

However, this does not mean that any adult talking with a child is going to come under suspicion. The law authorities are real people too; they can understand the difference between friends talking, or parents and their child (which I've seen many people hung up on) talking, versus a sexual predator luring a child.

While this law may at first seem aggressive in nature, I really do believe (now, lol) that it is not.

The current case with Legare (see here for quick rundown of it, as well as the basic idea of the law) will set the precedent for this law, and I personally believe that Legare truly is at fault, and should be criminally charged. This law will be used to charge other people like him, not typical Internet folk.

Everyday Canadian adults like myself need not worry.

so would this mean parents can't talk to their children on the internet?

@Kastom:

I think the better questions for you to think about are these:

With whom lies the primary responsibility for the child's protection? How do you prepare the child for events that are beyond your control?

And should the real focus be on putting the child in a protective bubble, or should it be on arming them against what might harm them?

@Kastom:

The Supreme Court of Canada knew they were trudging around in a gray area, so the wording in that document seems to beg someone to set a precedent for future cases sufficiently related to this one. The wording is indeed ambiguous in specific places (that phrase "for the purpose of facilitating the commission" [3] is interesting [my emph]; it's open to some legal interpretation), but it's not so fuzzy as to leave all future judgments on this issue open to multiple conflicting interpretations. Nevertheless, the law seems to set a vague boundary for which this new case will fill, thus sharpening the boundaries.

As it stands, how this current case is resolved will more than likely set the precedent, from which all others will be measured. So, I think we just have to wait and see what the results are, and see what they mean. It's too early to clearly say what it all means right now, when we're just figuring out the details and their implications.

However, an interesting line is this one, from [40]:

It seems to me preferable, in setting out the elements of s. 172.1, to adopt "language which accurately conveys the effect of the law without in itself imposing an unnecessary burden of translation and explanation"

This does give some hope for clear-headed thinking for whatever ensuing judgments are issued, especially when when referring back to [35], which rightly asks for reasonable clarity when the code is perhaps grossly misinterpreted.

Okay so I laughed....Not gonna stop me from laughing again.

But in all honesty, that's fuckingDIRT! I feel bad for the innocents.

@lunesoldier20:

Yeah, that's a valid point. The burden of proof still lies on the prosecution, so it's entirely possible for a suspect to even go all the way to court and still get off if they don't have enough evidence. And the age verification thing can be an issue, too. A predator could easily claim that they thought the person they were chatting with was of age because they fibbed on the registration, which is probably part of the reason sites take that kind of thing so seriously when they find out about it.

I'm not sure entirely how they get the logs, but I can think of two possible methods. One is that the predator saves them to their hard drive for reasons about as dubious as the ones they're contacting minors for in the first place. The other possibility is that Yahoo, AOL and the other IM services keep a log of all chats and routinely monitor them for possible inappropriate content (which wouldn't be very ethical, but hey.)

As for PMs and chatrooms, I know for one that anyone can save a log of TheO's chat for anything that's happened since they last logged in, but that's only useful if you happen to see the activity go down yourself. The PM systems of most sites might be monitored by one or two higher-ups, in order to keep an eye on spam, but I'm not sure how much they pay attention to content other than that.

Basically, yeah. The law is probably mostly intended to be used in order to determine what they can do with the proof they have. If they don't have any, then they're still kinda sunk.

And I would be amused to no end by two pedos accidentally meeting up with each other in person.

@Ace:

Yeah, good point, but I mean like if you sign up for a chat site or a place like MySpace or Facebook that require your B-day to make sure that you're old enough to get an account on there. People that are younger can say that they're older and older people can say that they're younger.

All we need are two pedos talking online to each other, giving each other fake names and ages, the two meeting up and tadah! (I really doubt that this would never happen, but it could have.)

And like many people mentioned, how will they monitor this? Have someone in the chats at all times? What about private messaging for sights like theO and DeviantART? All I have to say is that they'll have their hands full.

@lunesoldier20:

There are ways of knowing. For example, To Catch a Predator uses police officers posing as minors in order to lure in their suspects.

Also, the typical pedophile will probably ask for the age of the person they're chatting with, since that's kind of what makes them a pedophile in the first place, so it'll usually show up in any logs that the courts have to use.

Interesting but how will they know the age of the "child" and the age of the "adult" if it isn't give? Honestly, there is such a big loophole here.

I'm sure they have good intentions for this law, but it's going a little overboard. How can I not speak to adults online? :/ Ridiculous.

Hmm... after reading all these comments (*pats Kastom*), I feel it's safe to say that as long as you, the adult, have no sexual intentions towards a minor that you speak with online or sexually criminal conversations (and you know what I mean), there shouldn't be a problem. The law may be worded vaguely, but that's also what lawyers are for; to convince people that you were just chatting with some peeps and you're not a pedophile. I think the common person can tell the difference. :V

Are you for real? This is just stupid , I mean seriously how are they going to monitor that? You have teenagers that have sexual talk all the time for crying out load. What is considered a kid these days? 13 an under? I don't know but that is just stupid because there is really nothing they can do...ok maybe but that would be too much trouble..

Like Time Chaser said, what about children who want to talk to their parents on a trip???

Welcome to Canada folks where parent and child relations are illegal!!!

@Kastom:

And here I thought the age of consent in Canada was 16. Man, there goes that joke I made last year in the OtakuFic story. :

@Guyver04:

So when do we get the law against people being stupid?

That's what I want to know. >>;

K, dat is a stupid law.
........& i live in Canada 2 >.>
Now i gotta question.......How would they know if a child is talking to an adult on the Internet??????& what if a child is talking to an adult in some other country?????? Er da other way around???? & Whut would happen if a kid waz talking to a kid on da Interent "inappropriately"????? Whut, would they ban kids from talking to each other?!?!?!?!?! Like fer Gawd'z sake! >.<╬

C yaz‼ ♫
Alwayz BELIEVE

@SunfallE:

I'm dieing here ;_;

But I think my last comment is a good place of where I stand. I'm actually feeling really good about it. So much so that I think my brain is getting better.

If not, I'll just get a sticker that says "borked" on it, and slap it on my forehead.

Also, yes Alla, I wanted to reply to myself to show that I was more or less continuing on from my previous comment.

If that makes sense.

*laughs tiredly*

@Ace:

Or they could just bump up the age of consent a couple years. 14 seems way too young, IMO.

"These types of cases will continue to be prevalent in Canada until Bill C-22, which raises the age of consent to 16, is passed through the Senate."

Source.

WHY WAS I ABLE TO FIND THE SOURCE FOR THAT SO FAST? WHY DID I KNOW ABOUT THIS BILL IN THE FIRST PLACE? SOMEONE HELP ME.

Bottom line, there's a delicate balance and sometimes, something just needs to be done immediately. Hopefully this will be a temporary solution until they come up with a better wording.

I like what you've said here, but at the same time I just can't help but feel that it won't solve anything. Even more specific wording I think will still have the inherent problem of...

Hmmm...

I think my whole problem now is stemming from the word "grooming". I just realized that by making this illegal, law is pretty much saying you cannot speak to children if you are an adult. Is this correct? Maybe if that one word wasn't there, then I could deal with this whole thing.

But I am so burnt out from reading, thinking, and just plain well doing too much to do with this issue today that I just can barely think...

*needs a facedown, steaming brain emoticon to insert here*

I think my stance now stands at: making it illegal for an adult to have sexual conversations with a child, makes sense. However the whole "grooming" issue is what I think just goes to far.

Yes. That is what I now think.

I shall now go collapse.

@Allamorph:

I think it's borking his brain. XD

See, the problem here isn't the law itself, I think. It was introduced with noble intent and I can see the need for it.

The problem is the wording. It's far too vague and therefore leaves a lot up to individual interpretation. I can also understand this problem, though, since dealing in specifics can easily pigeonhole the use of a law to the point where the instances in which it can be enforced are extremely uncommon. On the other hand, even the slightest degree of vagueness can lead to wild misinterpretations of the original intent of the law.

"No legal adult may have conversations of an explicitly sexual nature with a minor online." Might be a better wording, but then we have to determine exactly what degree "explicit" is, and that's different for everyone.

"No legal adult may describe or suggest sexual acts to a minor online." Might work, but what if little Suzy is talking to mommy on Skype and wants to know about the birds and the bees? Sure, it's a weird time and place, but it could happen.

"No legal adult may converse with a minor online with the intent of engaging in acts of a sexual nature with them when they come of age." is just too specific, and probably riddled with loopholes that I'm not going to bother looking for right now.

Personally, my favorite is "If you can get slapped for it in person, you can get fined for it online." But that would mean calling someone fat would also be illegal (though considering how that's kinda rude, it might not be such a bad thing.)

Bottom line, there's a delicate balance and sometimes, something just needs to be done immediately. Hopefully this will be a temporary solution until they come up with a better wording.

Or they could just bump up the age of consent a couple years. 14 seems way too young, IMO.

Also, if anyone wants to read the actual Supreme Court of Canada's document on this (I know, I'm getting eccentric here, I can't help it now), here's the link.

@Kastom:

AGH. I CANNOT DECIDE. NOW I'M FLIPPING BACK TO MY ORIGINAL STANCE.

I am being completely tormented by this issue. I can't concentrate on anything else.

OK, let's do some situation discussions.

I am talking to some fellow otakus in the chatroom, who are, lets say, 13, 14, and 16 (and those that read previous comments, know I am 20). Is this weird?

And, for the benefit of getting rid of this whole side of the argument, I am not attempting to seduce, or in any way have sexual relations with any of them. We are just talking as friends, or as acquaintances, etc.

I believe most of us would say no. It's the Internet after all, you get everyone, from everywhere, of every age, doing everything.

So would it be weird for the exact same four people to be talking in real life? Let's say it's a city's anime club or something to that effect (and still with the earlier proposition on no sexual advances or anything of the sort from me). Is this weird?

This is where I think we may get some different opinions. On one hand, no. It's just a group of people getting together, discussing and enjoying a shared interest.

On the other hand, some may consider it very odd indeed. Am I some creeper? Why would I be there?

But I have no ill-intentions. I just like to discuss anime. But still, some will find this odd.

What if I was 25? 30? 40? Would this change people's views?

What I am getting at, is that I believe that different standards may have to be used for the Internet versus real life.

Based on the definition of "grooming" (see previous comment), I know that I am not doing this. I am not making underage friends on this site so that in the future, I can sexually exploit them.

However, how easy would this be to explain to others? If I want to meet some fellow theO members at an anime con, and some of them are underage, is this grooming? I still have no sexual intentions, but would this not appear to be grooming? Am I not gaining the trust of these people? Who can say I may not do anything in the future (other than myself, and my friends who know me well enough to say that I am not a pedophile)?

My point is, how can we decipher between the ill-intentioned grooming, and the not? Is there any way? Or does this just mean that ANY conversations that I have with an underage person on theO could be considered grooming?

I do agree with the law; if someone with ill-intentions is gaining the trust of a child, then they should be lawfully charged as a criminal. However, by me agreeing with it, I am also saying that I could/should be charged, or at least investigated.

And THAT is the source of my mind-numbing frustration as I flip back and forth between this issue. Does the law make sense?

Someone please help me, my mind is becoming stagnant. I need some other people's inputs so I can continue figuring this out!

So far, my best guess to getting myself out of this is saying that instead of a law, we need better prevention to teach kids how to stay away from potential pedophiles, and not trust people that seem to have sexual intentions (although I thought this was already pretty obvious).

But gah! This still always seems to circle back to this simple idea:

Either we have it that adults are not allowed to speak to children underage, OR that nothing is done, and both pedophiles and non-pedophiles can speak freely.

There does not seem to be a middle ground.

And it's making me lose my mind. ;_;

@Kastom:

Did you mean to reply to yourself, or was that an accidental selection?

Well I was gonna post somethin, but Kastom's amazingness would make whatever I say sound stupid. XD I totally agree with him all the way.

@Kastom:

Ok, I have been reading over this topic for some time on various sites, and talked with several other people about it (including a legal studies friend of mine), and just overall thinking about it more, and now I feel I understand it better.

My legal studies friend said it best:

"The reason it was enacted was because so many sexual predators were getting away because they had not PHYSICALLY harmed the children, and thus argued that there was no sexual intent. In this new enactment, the Crown doesn't have to prove that the intent was sexually harmful, just that it was harmful. The Crown has the burden to prove your intent."

I think the biggest problem people are having is with the following statement that was in the source given:

"If you're an adult and if you're having conversations with a child on the Internet, be warned because even if your conversations aren't sexual and even if your conversations are not for the purpose of meeting a child and committing an offence against a child, what you're doing is potentially a crime"

This was not said by any legal official. This was stated by "Mark Hecht, of Beyond Borders, an organization that lobbies against child exploitation", someone that really is just making his own interpretation of the law (and a rather eccentric and idiotic one I'd say).

A much better explanation I found from CBC, stated:

""In this context, 'facilitating' includes helping to bring about and making easier or more probable — for example, by 'luring' or 'grooming' young persons to commit or participate in the prohibited conduct; by reducing their inhibitions; or by prurient discourse that exploits a young person's curiosity, immaturity or precocious sexuality."

The law criminalizes conduct that precedes the commission of sexual offences with minors or "even an attempt" to commit those offences, Fish wrote."

This law is much, much less aggressive than some are making it out to be. It has been enacted to criminalize people such as Craig Legare, 32 year-old male, who knowingly had sexual explicit conversations with a 12 year-old girl (while he posed as a 17 year-old girl). This was not previously criminal, due to the fact that it was nothing but words; no pictures, no videos, no physical contact. Legare's defense had been using the following argument:

"“At no time during the communications did the applicant tell or ask the complainant to perform a sexual act, watch someone else commit or take part in such an act, nor was there any suggestion or exchange of pornographic materials, money or gifts.”"

This law has been made to 1. criminalize adult/child sexual conversations, and 2. criminalize "grooming" behaviour.

What is "grooming"? Here's the wiki for it. But I find it can be pretty simply understood in the context of the following statement (found from here)

""Because the age of consent is 14 [in Canada], we often see 13-year-olds being targeted. Offenders will invest months grooming 13-year-olds, waiting for them to turn 14, when they can legally have sex with them,""

This law criminalizes this behaviour.

What determines if someone is "grooming"? Investigation would be able to find this out easily, and if it came to it, determined by a court. By being on this site, and conversing with "children" in the casual manner I do, I am not going to be affected by this law. I am not attempting to to gain trust in such a way that could be considered "grooming", or gaining trust for future exploitation.

Basically, I now believe that people are blowing this law out of proportion (I am guilty of this, as can easily be seen from my previous comment). This law is in place to criminalize those pedophiles that were previously unaffected by law.

This is an attempt to further stop sick adults with child fetishes. As long as you're not a pedophile, you don't have to worry.

@Kastom:

(And this is me completely ignoring the idiocy that come to mind when one thinks about the phrase "potentially a criminal", and what it implies).

Thought crime, of course. =P

@Kastom:

Good (and amusing) points brought up and yeah, I do agree that the law is worded vaguely enough that the average person is going to slip on through. They're not interested in normal folks, they're hoping to catch and hopefully prevent sexual predators. I'm all for that.

But it's still a bit unsettling that it is there and that they felt the need to make it vaguely worded. Do I think anything will happen? No, probably not. But it has that odd Big Brother kind of feel to it.

I don't use chats anyway. I think we can all agree that whoever used chats for the wrong reasons sure ruined online chating between kid and adult for everyone else.

Does this, by any chance affect private messaging and responding to posts on this website too, seeing that some of us are Canadians? Because if so, this may lead to adult-aged members fearing for their lives if someone on this site under 18 tries to PM them, even if it's friendly-appropriate commentary, and I'm currently in my 20s, but I always watch what I say. So far, members here only respond to each other about what they see in comics/manga, film/TV, video games, and Anime.

The real world is sure becoming a sadder place everyday.

Well, that's a dumb law, isn't it?
Look--on the Internet, anyone can talk to anyone. Just because someone says they're a certain thing doesn't mean they are a certain thing. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for Internet safety and, in theory, this is kind of a good idea. I think kids and teens should be careful about what they say online, and to who. But it falls apart because of what I said earlier. There's no proof that who you're chatting with is really who they say they are.
I anticipate that this law will be broken many times. Maybe it's being broken right now.
On a lighter note, this is probably the easiest law ever to break. :D

Ok, let's look at this law for a second. As Katana has pointed out, the Internet is not entirely in Canada. If a Canadian child were to be speaking with an American adult, there is nothing that can be done. This law is only effectual for the predators living in Canada. Which, sure, obviously does happen, and now there is law that can punish them for enticing sexual activity. That makes sense.

However, due to the blanket-like nature, as well as the extremely ambiguous wording used, anyone considered an adult (I shall assume the age of 18 and up) speaking in any form with a child (I shall assume anyone under the age of 18) can be at the very least, put under investigation.

I am a 20 year old male Canadian. Because of this law, that makes what I am doing, just by being on this site with no ill-intent, in a grey-area of law. While an investigation would show that I am in no way attempting to sexual lure any under age member here (or any for that matter except maybe Adam), there is still the simple fact of the matter that because of this law, I could be put under investigation, because of the law's contents.

I do agree; if an adult is having cybersex with a child, that should in fact be punishable. That is just effing messed up. If there is proof shown that an adult was engaged in such activities, then yes, I believe it makes sense to be able to punish them by law.

However, that is not all that this law is entailing. From my understanding, once again due to the ambiguous wording and several interpretations given, any adult even engaging in simple talk, could be in offense. Why? Because what they are doing can be considered "anything that would reduce [the child's] inhibitions". Becoming an online friend would reduce inhibitions, as you would be gaining the person's trust.

Because of this, what I am doing on this site is "potentially a crime". By becoming friends with no ill-intention, I could be committing a crime.

Obviously, those responsible for enacting this law, did not consult anyone with any extended use of the Internet for communication purposes.

Like to play Halo 3 online? Too bad, there are kids playing also, so by playing, you may be lowering other player's inhibitions, because "Oh! That player is good! I want to play with them again!" says the kid, entails that while you may have no sexual intentions, you ARE lowering their inhibitions. Because they will now recognize your username, it would be much easier to talk to them! So obviously, by playing games online, you must be investigated to make sure you aren't a crazed lunatic attempting to rape them.

Like to watch things on youtube? And what, you want to comment on a video?! YOU TERRIBLE PERSON. If you make an intelligent comment (I know, I've yet to see one on youtube, but this is mere hypothetical thinking, so bear with me), and a child sees your comment, and comments back to you, saying they think you're smart, WELL, you are lowering the child's inhibitions! They may trust you more than they did before! You can now be potentially committing a crime!

Like to...wait, you know what? Let's instead just screen every single Canadian adult that uses the Internet.

Why? Because we are all potentially committing a crime! Yes! We all are now!

When it all comes down to it, I see this law as being made with good intentions: sexual predators are trying to be stopped. A very righteous goal. However, if not implemented properly, what you come up with is a ridiculous law, that will be completely ineffective at what it is attempting to do, as well as bringing about a much greater headache for authorities as they attempt to investigate people like me, who use the Internet with no ill-intentions.

As a final thought (and quite possibly the most important (I put it last as I just realized it)), I would like to say something that I think is being missed by all (including me, just until this point). This law may not be quite what it seems. It is more of a backup. The authorities know that everyday users like me are not a threat. As such, they will ignore me when using this law. However, this law gives them the power to bring the law down on people such as Legare mentioned in the article; people that were not previously doing "lawfully" wrong things.

Damn that was a lot of use of the word "law". <<

That is why it is ambiguously worded. So that authorities can simply let people like me through the net, but come down hard on those like Legare.

However, this is speculation on my part. If the law was used in this sense, that just may work. Regardless, this still makes what I am doing, "potentially a crime". And as such, I still disagree with it.

What I am saying is simply, it's a welcome attempt to stop terrible people, however I think it just must be more thought out; more appropriately written so that I don't feel like I've suddenly become a felon.

Good try Supreme Court, but I think you can do better.

(And this is me completely ignoring the idiocy that come to mind when one thinks about the phrase "potentially a criminal", and what it implies).

I think what really gets to me is Mark Hecht (the guy being interviewed) saying "We were pleasantly surprised..." about the ruling. For us it's a bit odd, as many of us are teenagers and young adults, which includes people who are considered "children" and people who are, well, not. So...are we not supposed to communicate with anyone who might just be that much older than us?

So uh, how's that going to work when they realize the whole internet isn't Canada?

I'd also like to hear some opposing arguments to this, if just because the news report was so one-sided in its reporting. ...Though the more I think about that, the more I think "maybe not". The hole might just get deeper.

The law ppls r sick, srsly.
*wonders the possible impacts on theO Chat's population.*

So like... What if it's a parent on a business trip who wants to chat with their kid back home? >>;

woah O_o ok starting from what age do they consider as an adult then???

Ah, dammit.

Better stay out of the Chat, James.