10.17.2013 08:46 AM

The one good thing in the Throne Speech

Seen in this poorly-written Chronicle-Herald story: the Conservatives want to create a criminal offence prohibiting “the non-consensual distribution of intimate images.” That’s a good thing, and it’s long, long overdue. Rehtaeh Parsons’ Dad, who has worked tirelessly to push for this change (and more), deserves the Order of Canada for his efforts.

(Why is the story poorly-written, you ask? The snotty use of the word “alleges” – as in, “Her family alleges the 17-year-old was sexually assaulted at a party in November 2011 and then relentlessly bullied after a digital photo of the alleged assault was distributed.”

That allegation has been made by the police as well as the Crown, not just the family.  And that’s why two little creeps are facing criminal charges.)


  1. Notice: Undefined offset: 180 in /home/q84jy4qfdyhq/public_html/wp-content/themes/warroom/functions.php on line 314
    james curran says:

    We should look to Jerry Brown’s gov’t in Cally. Last week they passed that law. 2 weeks ago they passed another allowing minors to “erase their internet Cache” once they reach the age of consent. Many more to come from Cally I suspect.

  2. Notice: Undefined offset: 180 in /home/q84jy4qfdyhq/public_html/wp-content/themes/warroom/functions.php on line 314
    Harry de Vallera says:

    With all due respect, do journalists in Canada and the United Kingdom really have any other choice than to universally use the word “allege” or other such libel writ deflecting words – in fact, this journalist is protecting the Parsons and the Crown (airbus?) from potentially being sued by the people alleged to have being involved in these crimes.

    Of course, in the United States, with broader freedom of speech, one could write, “my daughter came to me and told me she was brutally raped by deranged drunken boys and that pictures were being circulated around the school and facebook. Legislation like this could have prevented that and the tragic suicide of my daughter” (disclaimer: the preceding is only for illustrative purposes; any coincidence to persons living or deceased is purely coincidental).

    Either one lobbies to keep current Canadian libel laws which are the equivalent of the ancient practice of dueling or overhaul Canadians libel laws along the line the of “Rachel’s Law” and ensure a robust freedom of speech environment. As this case tragically illustrates, lives depend on it.

    I wish you a pleasant evening.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.