Canpol: Election Imminent?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Actually, taping a private conversation is illegal under Canadian Criminal Code 184.

The law allows tape recording of a conversation under specified circumstances. One of which is that the person making the tape recording must get the consent of the other person before the conversation begins.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec184.html

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to

(a) a person who has the consent to intercept, express or implied, of the originator of the private communication or of the person intended by the originator thereof to receive it

That would include the person placing or receiving the call, yes?

Thank you for playing.

[KrazyHorse]

this is for the people of the sun
it's comin' back around again
this ist ror the fpeople fo the sun
it's coming back around

[KrazyHorse]

sucker.

[KrazyHorse]

nihgt night

[notyoueither]

We are all... suckers.

The Liberals are engineering an election, gay marriage will be the cause. They are pushing several members of their own caucus into voting non confidence on the next budget vote (scheduled for next week?).

They will then go on to trounce the Tories and NDP in Ontario, and elsewhere. They will then go on to form another minority (or maybe a majority) government.

And then Duceppe will lead Quebec into a third vote, and this time it will be discredited Liberals who campaign for 'Non'. Tell me how much traction they will get.

Then seperatism in Alberta especially, but also BC, and Saskatchewn will explode onto the political landscape. There are mutterings and murmerings now. All that needs be done is predjudices be confirmed, then some firebrand picks up the torch, and BOOM!

We are all suckers if we don't see this coming from a mile away.

[Agathon]

500th post!!!

NYE you are too much of a pessimist. Albertan separatism is a joke. It's an idle threat and deep down you know that.

[notyoueither]

Times change, Aggy. The history you read on a cereal box is not a good guide to the future.

[Agathon]

It ain't going to happen. Canada does not have a problem. The Liberals do not have a problem. The Conservatives have a problem: they are unelectable in their present form, and they will remain so.

If they go back to being PC style conservatives I bet you that they'd win the next election held after the end of 2006. People are sick of the Liberals, but the Tories are not offering a palatable alternative.

People in Ontario just won't go for the social conservatism. No matter what happens out west, no-one in Toronto is going to vote for that, and more importantly no-one in Quebec is going to vote for it either.

Get rid of Harper, tone down the anti-gay and morality stuff, and find a friendlier leader. Are you seriously telling me that won't work? Better to get half of what you want than spend all the time gnashing your teeth in frustration.

Add to this the fact that Harper is incompetent as a leader, as was Stockwell Day (Whoever proposed that **** for the leadership needs his head examined). The Tories should find someone from the East Coast who is nice and non-scary.

[notyoueither]

Canada does not have a problem?

Seperatism polling over 50% in Quebec and a bunch of lying, coniving Liberals who are near universally despised in Quebec our only defence?

You are sadly deluded if you think the West is the biggest concern. It should be a concern, yes, but it is not the largest.

Your hammering on the drum of social conservatism is both predictable, and tragic. It is predictable based on the coffee shop culture you are exposed to, and it is tragic that it will likely result in yet another Liberal government and the more likely dissolution of the country.

[notyoueither]

You may hate Steven Harper's soul to hell, but he is the choice of the only party that can spell the Liberals.

It must really suck to be in Ontario and not have much of a choice. I should then welcome the people of Ontario to the rest of Canada.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec184.html

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to

(a) a person who has the consent to intercept, express or implied, of the originator of the private communication or of the person intended by the originator thereof to receive it

That would include the person placing or receiving the call, yes?

Thank you for playing.

It is legal to record the conversation with the consent of the caller or person receiving the call, but it is illegal to disclose the conversation unless you have the consent of both parties.


CC 193
Where a private communication has been intercepted by means of an electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device without the consent, express or implied, of the originator thereof or of the person intended by the originator thereof to receive it, every one who, without the express consent of the originator thereof or of the person intended by the originator thereof to receive it, wilfully

[Above boils down to: if you do not have the consent of the caller or the receiver]

(a) uses or discloses the private communication or any part thereof or the substance, meaning or purport thereof or of any part thereof, or

(b) discloses the existence thereof,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

[notyoueither]

You really don't have a clue, do you?

The people in the call did the taping and the releasing. Nothing was 'intercepted'.

You are chasing red herrings.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You really don't have a clue, do you?

The people in the call did the taping and the releasing. Nothing was 'intercepted'.

You are chasing red herrings.

Intercept is the legal term for recording.

If you record your conversations, that's fine, but if you then broadcast it without the consent of the other person then you're breaking the law.

For journalists, they must, by law, get the consent, explicit or implied, of a person before recording a conversation if that conversation is going to be broadcast. If you talk into a microphone, then your consent is implied. If a reporter tapes a telephone call then the person being interviewed must give explicit consent.

Grewal was taping a telephone call, legal, but by not getting the prior consent of the other party, he was breaking the law when he released the tapes. Of course, the Liberals can't ask for charges for political reason, but that doesn't change the fact that what Grewal did was illegal.

[notyoueither]

without the consent, express or implied, of the originator thereof or of the person intended by the originator thereof to receive it...
every one who, without the express consent of the originator thereof or of the person intended by the originator thereof to receive it, wilfully...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai
For journalists, they must, by law, get the consent, explicit or implied, of a person before recording a conversation if that conversation is going to be broadcast. If you talk into a microphone, then your consent is implied. If a reporter tapes a telephone call then the person being interviewed must give explicit consent.

How do you explain hidden camera exposes on CTV and CBC in that case?

I suspect you have it wrong.