Angry in the Great White North

From Canada's stupidest youth wing of any federal party:

Grit paparrazi stalking Tory MPs

A war of words has erupted between the federal Liberal party youth wing and some backbench Tory MPs over a candid-camera contest launched last week.

The young Liberals say they are looking for recent pictures of Conservative MPs who are rarely seen in public because they have a history of stirring up controversy that could embarrass their party.

"As much as (Prime Minister) Stephen Harper may try to keep these guys in the back, it's important that Canadians know that this is the real face of the Conservative party," said Richard Diamond, president of the Young Liberals of Canada.

The Liberals will give an iPod as a prize for the person who can offer the best picture of one of the seven Conservative MPs on their list -- Rob Anders, Cheryl Gallant, Rahim Jaffer, Collin Mayes, Bob Mills, Pierre Poilievre, and David Sweet. The contest runs until Sept. 4.

Hey, I like a good joke. But how about something not so funny -- the law.

Check out the title of the piece from the Times-Colonist -- "stalking".

Here is an explanation of stalking, as it is defined by Canada's Criminal Code:

Stalking is a crime which Canadian criminal law calls criminal harassment. It is clearly defined at section 264 of Canada's Criminal Code. The Code states that no person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed (or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed):

• repeatedly follow the other person, or anyone known to them, from place to place;
• repeatedly communicate with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;
• "beset" or watch a place where the other person is visiting, lives or works; or
• engage in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.

The punishment for stalking can be as high as a five year jail term.

Note that engaging in any of these activities is sufficient to be charged.

This new section of the Criminal Code, passed in 1993, makes it much easier for the police to charge a stalker. The Code did contain other sections that were helpful in blatant cases of stalking but they were ineffective against the more passive but just as frightening forms of stalking. For example, the Code prohibits trespassing on another's property at night, uttering threats, indecent or harassing phone calls, intimidation and mischief to another person's property. Under the Criminal Code, you can also get a restraining order or a peace bond against a person, measures which might, in certain circumstances, be preferable in some cases of aggressive or predatory stalking.

It does not matter that these Liberal paparazzi are not trying to frighten their targets:

The new law now protects you even if the conduct of the stalker is not done with the intent to scare you. It is enough if it does scare you.

What's also interesting is that any sort of watching or prowling behaviour, even if done just once, can get you charged:

One of the key parts of section 264 of the Criminal Code is the requirement that when the conduct being complained of is "following" or "communicating", it has to be "repeated." There is no set rule on this. It can mean persistent or frequent behaviour but the "following" or "communicating" has to happen more then once for it to constitute criminal harassment.

But if the conduct is watching, prowling or "besetting" a place where you are visiting, live or work, or if there has been threatening conduct, one incident would suffice in getting a conviction under section 264.

Now here's the kicker. Given that the this is a contest, that is, one or more people are encouraging one or more other people to commit a potentially criminal act, and they are providing payment for that act, the actions of the Young Liberals of Canada could also be considered a criminal conspiracy under the Criminal Code.

The Tory MPs being targeted seem to be reacting with general good humour, using this silly contest as a way to shine a light on the stunts that are being used by a Liberal Party bereft of leadership and ideas to keep their dwindling members engaged.

But if one of these shutterbugs makes a mistake and gets into the face of one of their targets, or someone gets hurt because someone wasn't paying attention while trying to snap a picture, or property gets damaged, or someone's privacy is grossly invaded, then this could get very ugly, very fast.

It's a stupid idea with potentially serious consequences, and frankly no upside that I can see that would justify the risk.