While Canada eviscerates the right to free speech and association, some are apparently holding firm on the privacy rights of accused felons to warn homeowners not to post videos of thefts.
In Quebec, the police are now warning citizens not to post their doorbell videos of package thieves because they are, in the words of the spokesmen, “presumed innocent.”
Notably, these are scenes captured in public and posted by homeowners who had packages stolen from their doorsteps.
For critics, it is a continuation of misplaced priorities and policies on crime including the statement of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that “you can’t use a gun for self-protection in Canada. It’s not a right that you have..”
It is true that you can be sued for defamation. However, that ordinarily requires fault. The police are arguing that conduct filmed on your property and visible from the street is protected by privacy even if the person is guilty of the crime.
If you use an image for commercial benefits, photos in public can pose risks. In 1998 the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the decision awarding $2000 to Pascale Claude Aubry against Éditions Vice-Versa for publishing a photo of her sitting on public steps without her knowledge. However, the court stressed that it was sold for commercial gain and had no newsworthy purpose.
Of course, deterring citizens from posting these images has a direct benefit for the police. These videos go viral and highlight the lack of enforcement and deterrence. The question is whether this is about the privacy interests of the thieves or the political interests of the police. We have seen police charge citizens for years for filming them in public. Those cases have largely been rejected.
Neighbors often shared descriptions and videos of local crime. The police department is now suggesting that such images could now get them into hot water. Oh Canada.
Even the cops are becoming woke….
For goodness sake, don’t post politicians’ pictures! While they are presumed innocent until proven guilty, the proven guilty part will never happen to them!
As a Canadian let me say this stupid direction from Quebec police, and the equally stupid police decision in Toronto recently to hand-deliver coffee to anti-Israel protestors, has no public support. Most of us think our police should stop behaving like social workers and amateur lawyers and do what we pay them for: enforce the law, protect the peace.
so we should not punish criminals in the future because it might be humiliating for them and embarrassing. Canada is on the wrong side of history… Again.
Fantastic job on your latest blog post! The well-organized structure, engaging writing style, and the wealth of information make it clear that you’ve put a lot of effort into creating valuable content. Thank you for sharing your expertise!
leftists are all on drugs
Still testing…
He’s got it wrong. A criminal is not presumed innocent. A person charged with a crime is presumed innocent. A subtle but vital difference.
To explain: A crime was committed (theft). The perpetrator of the crime is a thief (obviously). John Doe is accused of being the perpetrator, and John Doe is assumed to be innocent until his identification as the perpetrator is proven in court (to whichever degree of certainty). But even if it wasn’t John Doe (he has an airtight alibi), the perpetrator of the crime is still a thief, it’s just that John Doe is not that thief.
Now, if I post a picture or video of the theft, and John Doe wishes to complain that I’m violating his privacy, he is, in effect, claiming to be the thief. But that’s his problem, and his self-identification as the perpetrator is his own doing, and he has no claim against me.
On the other hand, there is the scenario of the facts themselves being in question. For example, John Doe may claim that the package had his name on it, and was mis-delivered to a neighbor’s house instead of his own. In which case one might say “John Doe allegedly stole a box from the Deere’s house” instead of “The box was stolen, allegedly by John Doe.”
More progressive stupidity. Progressives don’t want public evidence, progressives want secret evidence. Just stupid.
Odd how police always look at surveillance tapes in a committed crime. But the victim isn’t allowed. Sick country.
There is no such thing as a right to privacy in public space.
Nor can you violate the privacy rights of someone who comes onto YOUR property.
This does not violate anyone’s right to the presumption of innocense – it is merely evidence.
We do not bar evidence of guilt from a trial because of a presumption of innocence.
If you want to bar naming the person – that might be different.
But showing an image of a public reality is not a violation of anyones right
Anytime I read the description of a criminal suspect and it does not mention race or show a picture…it means the perp is a minority.
Let’s see male, 5’10”, thin, approximately 180 lbs only fits half of the male population.
antonio
The US is building a wall at the wrong border.
Communist Canada……
LOL. Wonder what the real issue is…’privacy’ lololol. They have some clever weasels up there.
There is no presumption of privacy when you are in public. When you are stealing off someone’s porch, your are in public.
As well as trespassing.
Perhaps, we could cloud out the perp’s face, but save it in case the cops actually show up to take a report, and post the deed sans ID?
You are in public but typically on private property. The rights belong to the proprty owner.
Trudeau the Elder, arrogant intellect.
Trudeau the Lesser, arrogant finger painter.
@Canucksailor
It doesn’t matter how your Parliament functions in this context. The fact that you can be arrested and charged for saying, ‘You know, I’m not sure about this trans thing.’, does. And it absolutely can, at present. If you call that freedom, I weep for you, I really do. This is the issue with virtually every other Western country and why they are an absolute disaster as a model for anything (double for the UN, the WHO, the WEF): they do not have our 1st and 2nd, never have. Without those, you are pretty much still living under the King. Stop pretending otherwise or that you are enlightened in your submission. You really aren’t. Getting accustomed to taking it up the backside to the point it no longer bothers you is not freedom.
Thanks for the classy reply James. No one in Canada is taking it up the backside. Granted, our free speech rights are not as robust as are yours, but that doesn’t mean we are living in fear of the Stasi sweeping down on us for making the kind of statements you referenced. First of all, for that to even happen, a provincial attorney general would have to green light any prosecution. That I’m aware of, it hasn’t happened.
And fyi, we don’t live under the king. We’re a sovereign nation and the royal household is strictly decorative, with no other purpose. Try to resist making foolish remarks about things you don’t know about or understand.
https://www.themythiscanada.com/
Under idiot Trudeau, Canada is rapidly following California down the toilet of libetard d!p$h!ttery.