I'll deal with your comments inline. Hope this gives a clearer picture of
exactly what the issues are vis. Canadian law :-)
Post by a***@asdf.netPost by hudsonAgreed that it's a mess.
Yes it is. But are you seeing it objectively?
Post by hudsonUnfortunately, when people try to coerce others by threatening them, and
have exhibited this same pattern in the past when asked to stop, it's not
prudent to ignore, because you never know just how far they'll go.
This is happening in both directions. Blake does appear to have attempted
coercion as a weapon against a couple of people. But it can also be said
that Blake is under attack and seeking a line of self-defense. A little
visit to the newsgroup archives at www.google.com will show you just how
much has gone on from both sides.
Superficially Blake appears to have done something wrong but it's not a
crime unless he discloses protected information such as credit card
records, medical history, etc.
It's a crime even to threaten to, and you don't actually have to have the
information. Even pretending to have the information, and threatening to
disclose it is a criminal invasion of privacy. The same situation pertains
if you were to walk into a store and pretend to have a weapon hidden under
your jacket, and that you will shoot the cashier unless she opens the till.
You will be charged with uttering death threats; your inability to carry
out the threat has no bearing on the case.
Post by a***@asdf.netA lot of information can be legitimately obtained from public sources. For
example: If someone mentions their home town in articles published on
these newsgroups, a simple call to directory assistance usually gets you
their phone number and street address. That is not a crime because the
information is published with the person's permission, in the phone book.
From the other side. Blake's birth name, home address and phone number
was published on a website that dynamited his credibility and begged
people to
complain to his ISP. Google reveals thousands of articles attacking Blake,
many of which come from the person presently accusing Blake. In a
courtroom it would be perfectly reasonable to present this evidence to and
ask why this misbehavior is deemed acceptable when Blake's is not.
Blake published his own address and phone number. Additionally, since he is
adamant about never wanting to get srs, and not wanting to get professional
help, he doesn't qualify as a transexual under Canadian law, so he will
always be legally a he. Most of the posters here are either thinking about
transition, in transition, or post-transition. Both those in transition and
post-transition have the legal right in Canada to be treated in their
target gender role. This was established in a case where a federal prisoner
who hadn't completed transition went to court and was awarded the right to
(1) be incarcerated in a womans' prison, and (2) federally-funded surgery
to complete here transition.
Unless Blake has changed his position vis. srs in the last few days, I don't
see how he's being treated unfairly by those he's threatened and harrassed.
Post by a***@asdf.netWhile your concerns are understandable you must be cautious about your
biases in these situations. You appear to be making accusations of
criminality without proof and without concern for context. It seems
likely most courts would write this off as nothing but a cat-fight and
dismiss the
case when the actions of both sides are fully exposed. To make
accusations or suggest that others make accusations in such a circumstance
could open the door to reverse prosecution for harassment and making false
police reports.
I never posted to this group until I saw Blake threaten to to out someone.
As a Canadian, I am familiar with Canadian law, which most Americans
understandably would not be. Blake is subject to Canadian law because he is
posting from Canada.
In Canada, the police do not have the right to disclose the identity of a
complainant. As I said, we take our privacy laws seriously.
However, as I've made quite clear elsewhere, I am prepared to file charges
against anyone who threatens me in any way, because my past experience has
shown that people who make threats sometimes follow through with them, and
that NOT reporting such behaviour just encourages them to continue.
Post by a***@asdf.netPost by hudsonAdditionally, the evidence indicates that Blake has already outed people
who disagree with him.
Once again: what were the sources of Blake's information?
If he took information published by the victim --in phone books, here, on
various websites, etc.-- and put it all together no crime has been
committed because the information was in fact published by the victim
himself.
Moreover; if he used protected information disclosed by the victim in a
public place such as a website or here, there is no crime.
Not exactly. The threat to out someone, even if the information is available
from published sources, or from the victim herself, is illegal. Give you an
example. I tell you something that a reasonable person would conclude I
would not like my employer to know. You then threaten to tell my employer.
You have committed a crime as soon as you make the threat. I posted the
actual url to the section of the criminal code in another posting earlier
today. It makes interesting reading. Threatening smeone is a crime, pure
and simple :-)
It's all about intent. If you make threats, other than saying that you're
going to take legal action (which is the only exemption allowed under
Canadian law), you are guilty.
Post by a***@asdf.netBut if Blake published undisclosed protected information then you are
correct to think a crime may have been committed.
Once again you are left with the question of what information Blake has and
how he came into possession of it. Under Canada's laws it will fall to
the accusers and the crown to prove that Blake has protected information
and was intending to use it of malicious purposes.
As I said earlier, you don't understand how our laws work. It doesn't matter
if he has or doesn't have the information - just the threat is sufficient
cause for a complaint. All that has to be proven is that he is the author
of the threat to out someone. That the threat was made is proof enough that
there was malicious intent. "Res ipsa loquitur" - the thing speaks for
itself.
If it can additionally be proven that he actually had the information that
he claims to have, that would be grounds for an additional charge of
invasion of privacy, but that's a separate issue.
In retrospect I think I should have made it clearer that we are dealing with
several issues here:
1. Invasion of Privacy
2. Threats (in and of themselves)
3. Threats (when made against a member of a protected minority).
Each of these has a bearing on this issue. The most serious is (3) above,
which is classified as a hate crime in Canada.
Well, got to get back to work. Hope this helps :-)