Bill 30 doesn't abolish extortion or authorize it, even if they can obtain personal info on you.
PLEASE READ AND SHARE THIS!!! The People Strike Back at Vic Toews!
- Thread starter gilgamesh01
- Start date
We're not misinterpreting it. If you read the whole abstract from the criminal code, threats to sue are excluded from the meaning of 'extortion'.
Rub, here's an excellent link on extortion I saved from way back. I gotta re-read it. Maybe you're right but IIRC, I think Anonymous crossed the line.
http://www.legaltree.ca/node/554
Description of the offence in the Criminal Code:
Section 346 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 sets out the offence of extortion:
346. (1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.
(2) A threat to institute civil proceedings is not a threat for the purposes of this section.
In other words, if you try to get someone to do something, and you do it by “threats, accusations, menaces or violence”, then you may be guilty of extortion.
http://www.legaltree.ca/node/554
Description of the offence in the Criminal Code:
Section 346 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 sets out the offence of extortion:
346. (1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.
(2) A threat to institute civil proceedings is not a threat for the purposes of this section.
In other words, if you try to get someone to do something, and you do it by “threats, accusations, menaces or violence”, then you may be guilty of extortion.
The vikileaks info was already public information.
Frank magazine published the same thing back in 2008 and nobody got arrested.
Frank magazine published the same thing back in 2008 and nobody got arrested.
A) Frank Magazine didn't say unless you do what we demand we will publish
B) Frank Magazine is indeed that a magazine (You know the Press, the Fifth Estate)
C) Anonymous made an extortion threat neither Vikileaks or Frank Magazie did so.
D) Vikileaks potential problems are related to from whence it was posted (Canada doubtless has a law which says I can't use a government computer to attack the government or leak information). Further who posted it which may be more a matter of House of Commons rules than the Criminal Law.
A crime? What did they blow up? Who did they threaten violence against? Quit trying to distract us from the crime against our democratic freedom that this obscene bill represents. If this bill goes through, you'll be asking to be flagged as a potential sex criminal just for logging onto terb.....not only will they you how often you log on, but they can also join terb and read your posts, knowing your real name and address. How's that for a chill on free expression? But all you are worried about is the hollow threat to embarass Vic .
Extortion is a loaded term . It sounds pretty serious.....but that is because it is usually used in regard to extortion of large sums of money or threats of violence. Every little girl uses extortion to manipulate their daddy......is that a serious crime too?
No kidding Dick Tracy. Are you paying me for my services, or is this a discussion group on the Internet that we particpate in for our pleasure?
You believe that I should take the advise you give on TERB about flying as gospel without actually sitting down with a pilot in the flesh? Likewise do you believe as has been said here on TERB one-hundred thousand times that when Lawyers or Physicians post on TERB that you should just take our advice and not bother to interact with someone in the flesh?
I don't believe anyone intentionally gives wrong information, then again do we apply due diligence. . . .this is Cocktail Party conversation.
Look at the law yourself. Extortion does not have to involve money, stop allowing your dislike of the Bill as introduced, blind you to the fact that the actions of Anonymous cross the line into extortion.
If anonymous could be charged with extortion...could not Vic Toews be sued civilly for defamation of character?He did unfavourably compare anyone who did not share his views to child pornographers.Is he protected by paralimentary rules?If i stood in a room and directed that a specific group of people were child pornographers based on their political and moral views.I'm fairly certain i would be facing legal action.
Scarey, you answered your own question. First I don't believe the statement as made was actionable, second and perhaps more importantly it was made on the floor of the House.
you are like the cop who lets the bank robbers get away because he is too busy charging someone with jaywalking. Quit slagging Anonymous and start slagging Vic's bill. If you don't I'll call you a bad name!
-signed, the extortionist
You don't have to argue it because it IS criminal, and referring to Morgentaler as an example of someone who broke the law to challenge another extreme law, means you're acknowledging that Anonymous broke the law.
If I may quote the excellent article in that link I provided (if not for your benefit, but for the benefit of the audience at large):
So, assuming a threat is actually made, what type of threat will support a conviction for extortion? R. v. Davis, discussed above, confirms that the threat need not be a threat that is otherwise unlawful. In that case the accused threatened to send nude pictures of the victims to their families if they did not perform sexual favours for him. Sending such pictures would not itself be illegal, but the accused was still convicted of extortion.
Similarly in R. v. Alexander (2005), 206 C.C.C. (3d) 233 (Ont. C.A.) the accused was convicted of extortion for a threat that was not otherwise criminal. In that case the accused’s wife was owed $7000 by another women, M.M. The accused sent M.M. a draft of a letter explaining that M.M. was involved in “highly questionable ethical and moral conduct”. The accused explained to M.M. that if she did not pay the debt, the accused would send the letter to M.M.’s employer and M.M. would likely be fired. Sending such a letter would not, in the absence of a threat, be a criminal offence (although it may found an action for defamation if the claims were false), but the court found that the accused was guilty of extortion:
A distinction between threats used to collect legitimate debts that is based exclusively on whether the conduct constituting the threat is in and of itself unlawful would undermine the rationale for the crime of extortion. The potential for a threat to overwhelm a person's free choice and compel that person to act in the manner dictated by the threat is not necessarily tied to the lawfulness of the conduct constituting the threat. Some threats, while not per se unlawful (e.g., the threat to disclose some despicable act from one's distant past), will have a much more coercive effect than a threat to do something which is in and of itself unlawful (e.g., a threat to trespass on property).
(R. v. Alexander at para. 79).
In R. v. McClure (1957), 118 C.C.C. 192 (Man. C.A.) the accused threatened to sell a story to a newspaper unless the victim paid the accused a sum of money ($200). The story would provide the details of the victim's recent criminal conviction on a charge of disorderly conduct, and publication of those details would likely harm the victim's standing in the community and his employment. In that case the threat and the demand taken together constituted powerful intimidation calculated to overcome the free choice of even the strongest person. The Manitoba Court of Appeal upheld the accused's conviction for extortion.
For Wigglee's benefit, I can even quote other examples that the thing demanded need not be money nor that the threat necessarily have to instill fear in the person being threatened. As for his example of a daughter threatening her parents, the threat must be considered in an objective manner, that is from the perspective of a reasonable ordinary person (reasonable to be considered serious by the proverbial 'man on the street test').
Now, Anonymous' tactic may have been more effective than any other method of protesting this bad law, but who's to stop them from extorting anybody else for whatever demands? Do we let these cyber hooligans run amok? Granted, this bill as is could affect the 'security of the hobby', but do we become duplicitous to protect it if that's a concern?
