Canpol: Election Imminent?

[Tingkai]

I think not, but I can't find anything on a quick google search. I'll dig into it later after work.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by 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.

You've lived here long enough to know that it doesn't work that way.

[KrazyHorse]

Rats fleeing a sinking ship...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/08/grewal050608.html

Nothing to do with talks, Nina Grewal says
Last Updated Wed, 08 Jun 2005 08:47:07 EDT
CBC News

Conservative member of Parliament Nina Grewal claims she had nothing to do with the secretly taped talks between her husband and senior Liberals.

Grewal has remained silent since her husband Gurmant Grewal came forward with recorded conversations between himself, federal Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh and Tim Murphy, the prime minister's chief of staff.
Nina Grewal, left, with her husband Gurmant in July 2004. (CP Photo)

Her husband, who says the tapes prove that the Liberals offered him political favours in exchange for his support in a confidence vote in the House of Commons, is heard on the tapes talking about an appointment to the Senate for his wife.

But Nina Grewal said she didn't seek out any deal.

"Nobody approached me, I wasn't part of any negotiations," she told the Toronto Star.

Her husband is also heard on the tapes claiming to have consulted her about switching parties, saying "but we are not decided, we have not made up our minds yet."

She said she had no comment when asked how she felt about her husband using her as a bargaining chip.

Suspicion has been cast on the tapes after several independent audio experts, including one hired by CBC News, said they have been altered.

The Grewals are the first husband-wife team of MPs in Canadian history and both represent British Columbia ridings.

But on Monday, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper issued a statement saying Gurmant Grewal was going on stress leave.

That followed reports that Grewal is under investigation by Air Canada. The MP is alleged to have approached passengers at Vancouver Airport, asking them to take a package to Ottawa on his behalf.

Despite the controversy surrounding her husband, Nina Grewal said he's doing well.

"He's in high spirits," she said. "We're both still fighting for the right cause."

[Wezil]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I suspect you have it wrong.

And you would be correct. There is nothing illegal in what Grewal did - unethical perhaps, but not illegal.

[Tingkai]

For a bit there, I thought I might be wrong, but I'm not.

The first bit of 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,

This means if there is a recording where one person has not given their consent. If they both have agreed to taping the conversation then this section does not apply.

The Liberals did not know they were being taped, so the first part of the section is satisfied, meaning Grewal is on the way to committing a crime.

The second part of 193: every one who, without the express consent of the originator thereof or of the person intended by the originator thereof to receive it, wilfully

This says that if you do something without the consent of the caller or without the consent of the person being called then you commit a crime by making the tape public (sub section a). or saying the tape exists (subsection b).

Or put it another way: If you do not have Person A's permission, or you do not have Person B's permission, then you commit a crime if you make the tape public.



Grewal committed a crime.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
How do you explain hidden camera exposes on CTV and CBC in that case?

If the person has not consented, then that person's face can't be shown and the person cannot be identified. If the person cannot be identified then there is no invasion of privacy.

That's why hidden exposes digitally fuzz out the face of people on camera.

[notyoueither]

It's tragic.

We all know someone who has difficulty with the concept of 'or'. With your help we can make a difference in their lives. Please give generously to the Canadian Conservation Fund for People Challenged by the Concept of Or.

[Tingkai]

Read 193 again, NYE.

Think about it, and you probably want to stop your insults until you do because you're just making yourself look stupid.

It's basically saying that if you do something without the consent of person A, OR without the consent of person B then you are committing a crime.

Remember that it is not saying with the consent, it is saying without the consent.

Think about it NYE.

[notyoueither]

I'll try to be more charitable.

[embalmer42]

Yes NYE - take pity on those that don't know any better

[Wezil]

Go lay the information Tinkai. If he committed the crime and you have the proof - do your duty.

[Ming]

Over 500 posts... time for a new one