Shunrai
Dec 8th, 2009, 04:00 AM
Internet luring now includes non-sexual chats: SCC
CTV.ca News Staff
Date: Thu. Dec. 3 2009 5:14 PM ET
A Supreme Court of Canada ruling has expanded the definition of Internet luring to include anyone having an inappropriate conversation with a child -- even if the chats aren't sexual in nature and the accused never intended to meet the alleged victim.
Justice Morris Fish, writing for the Supreme Court, said physical contact is not necessary for Internet luring because some seemingly innocent chats open the door towards a child being victimized.
"Those who use their computers to lure children for sexual purposes often groom them online by first gaining their trust through conversations about their home life, their personal interests or other innocuous topics," he said.
He said the law "makes it a crime to communicate by computer with underage children or adolescents for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the offences."
But he said the word "facilitating" could be interpreted to mean anything that would make it easier or more probable for a young person to be taken advantage of.
This includes anything that would reduce their inhibitions or exploits a child's "curiosity, immaturity or precocious sexuality."
Fish said the conversations don't need to be sexually explicit to fit these criteria.
He said the new Internet luring law "criminalizes conduct that precedes the commission of the sexual offences."
"This is in keeping with Parliament's objective to close the cyberspace door before the predator gets in to prey."
The decision was part of an Alberta man's case who admitted to online sexual chats with a 12-year-old girl in 2003.
At a 2006 trial on two sexual luring counts, the judge called Craig Bartholomew Legare's actions "despicable and repugnant," but said that since he had no intention of ever meeting the child, there was no crime. Legare was acquitted.
The Supreme Court said the judge from the first trial applied the law too constrictively, leading to the acquittal. Thursday, the Supreme Court ordered Legare to face a new trial under the new criteria.
The Alberta Court of Appeal had previously overturned Legare's acquittal. The Supreme Court, in its 7-0 ruling, agreed with the appeal judges.
Legare admitted to posing as a 17-year-old in his chats with the girl. He was 32 at the time. She claimed to be 13, but was actually 12, according to court documents.
Legare admitted to the sexual chats and to phoning the girl at home. However, he said he had no intention of meeting her and no sexual activity happened.
Mark Hecht, of Beyond Borders, an organization that lobbies against child exploitation said the Supreme Court decision will protect more children.
"There's been a very clear message that in fact this is something that is an offence, and as a result, I would think that there will now be more arrests and prosecutions of adults committing these kind of crimes," he told CTV News Channel.
"If you're an adult and if you're having conversations with a child on the Internet, be warned because even if your conversations aren't sexual and even if your conversations are not for the purpose of meeting a child and committing an offence against a child, what you're doing is potentially a crime," he said.
new legal ruling makes talking to children online a possible criminal offence, with the crime of Internet luring no longer requiring any sexually explicit communication or even any intention of meeting the child for prosecution to proceed.
According to a judge with the Supreme Court of Canada, the law against “Internet luring” now “makes it a crime to communicate by computer with underage children or adolescents for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the offences,” an expansion of the previous interpretation which required some intent to actually meet the child.
“Facilitating” is interpreted as including any act which might in some way increase the chances of a child somewhere being exploited.
Anything which exploits a child’s “curiosity, immaturity or precocious sexuality” is also criminalised under the new law, and the judge emphasised that such criminal contact need not be sexual in nature.
The judge maintains that the decision will stop the plague of Internet child molesters dead:
“Those who use their computers to lure children for sexual purposes often groom them online by first gaining their trust through conversations about their home life, their personal interests or other innocuous topics.
This is in keeping with Parliament’s objective to close the cyberspace door before the predator gets in to prey.”
The new ruling was prompted by an earlier case of “Internet luring” in which the perpetrator engaged in sexually explicit chats with a 12-year-old girl, but managed to convince the courts that he had no intention of actually meeting the girl for sex, exploiting an apparent loophole and resulting in his acquittal.
The updated ruling overturns this acquittal on the grounds that the judge’s interpretation of the law was too narrow.
Campaigners for tougher laws “protecting” children are delighted at the prospect of finally being able to lock people up for having the temerity to talk to a child:
“There’s been a very clear message that in fact this is something that is an offence, and as a result, I would think that there will now be more arrests and prosecutions of adults committing these kind of crimes.
If you’re an adult and if you’re having conversations with a child on the Internet, be warned because even if your conversations aren’t sexual and even if your conversations are not for the purpose of meeting a child and committing an offence against a child, what you’re doing is potentially a crime.”
CTV NEWS (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091203/Luring_Charges_091203/20091203/?hub=Canada)
just wondering if anybody has thoughts on this good idea or bad idea cause what they arw saying is if you live in canda and you talk to a minor even by saying "hi" you can face criminal charges guys aruges that you must know that they are under age but what if they dont tell you say something to upset them then they tell the police on you or something like that this law seem to be a double ege sword...so i was just wonder people's thoughts
CTV.ca News Staff
Date: Thu. Dec. 3 2009 5:14 PM ET
A Supreme Court of Canada ruling has expanded the definition of Internet luring to include anyone having an inappropriate conversation with a child -- even if the chats aren't sexual in nature and the accused never intended to meet the alleged victim.
Justice Morris Fish, writing for the Supreme Court, said physical contact is not necessary for Internet luring because some seemingly innocent chats open the door towards a child being victimized.
"Those who use their computers to lure children for sexual purposes often groom them online by first gaining their trust through conversations about their home life, their personal interests or other innocuous topics," he said.
He said the law "makes it a crime to communicate by computer with underage children or adolescents for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the offences."
But he said the word "facilitating" could be interpreted to mean anything that would make it easier or more probable for a young person to be taken advantage of.
This includes anything that would reduce their inhibitions or exploits a child's "curiosity, immaturity or precocious sexuality."
Fish said the conversations don't need to be sexually explicit to fit these criteria.
He said the new Internet luring law "criminalizes conduct that precedes the commission of the sexual offences."
"This is in keeping with Parliament's objective to close the cyberspace door before the predator gets in to prey."
The decision was part of an Alberta man's case who admitted to online sexual chats with a 12-year-old girl in 2003.
At a 2006 trial on two sexual luring counts, the judge called Craig Bartholomew Legare's actions "despicable and repugnant," but said that since he had no intention of ever meeting the child, there was no crime. Legare was acquitted.
The Supreme Court said the judge from the first trial applied the law too constrictively, leading to the acquittal. Thursday, the Supreme Court ordered Legare to face a new trial under the new criteria.
The Alberta Court of Appeal had previously overturned Legare's acquittal. The Supreme Court, in its 7-0 ruling, agreed with the appeal judges.
Legare admitted to posing as a 17-year-old in his chats with the girl. He was 32 at the time. She claimed to be 13, but was actually 12, according to court documents.
Legare admitted to the sexual chats and to phoning the girl at home. However, he said he had no intention of meeting her and no sexual activity happened.
Mark Hecht, of Beyond Borders, an organization that lobbies against child exploitation said the Supreme Court decision will protect more children.
"There's been a very clear message that in fact this is something that is an offence, and as a result, I would think that there will now be more arrests and prosecutions of adults committing these kind of crimes," he told CTV News Channel.
"If you're an adult and if you're having conversations with a child on the Internet, be warned because even if your conversations aren't sexual and even if your conversations are not for the purpose of meeting a child and committing an offence against a child, what you're doing is potentially a crime," he said.
new legal ruling makes talking to children online a possible criminal offence, with the crime of Internet luring no longer requiring any sexually explicit communication or even any intention of meeting the child for prosecution to proceed.
According to a judge with the Supreme Court of Canada, the law against “Internet luring” now “makes it a crime to communicate by computer with underage children or adolescents for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the offences,” an expansion of the previous interpretation which required some intent to actually meet the child.
“Facilitating” is interpreted as including any act which might in some way increase the chances of a child somewhere being exploited.
Anything which exploits a child’s “curiosity, immaturity or precocious sexuality” is also criminalised under the new law, and the judge emphasised that such criminal contact need not be sexual in nature.
The judge maintains that the decision will stop the plague of Internet child molesters dead:
“Those who use their computers to lure children for sexual purposes often groom them online by first gaining their trust through conversations about their home life, their personal interests or other innocuous topics.
This is in keeping with Parliament’s objective to close the cyberspace door before the predator gets in to prey.”
The new ruling was prompted by an earlier case of “Internet luring” in which the perpetrator engaged in sexually explicit chats with a 12-year-old girl, but managed to convince the courts that he had no intention of actually meeting the girl for sex, exploiting an apparent loophole and resulting in his acquittal.
The updated ruling overturns this acquittal on the grounds that the judge’s interpretation of the law was too narrow.
Campaigners for tougher laws “protecting” children are delighted at the prospect of finally being able to lock people up for having the temerity to talk to a child:
“There’s been a very clear message that in fact this is something that is an offence, and as a result, I would think that there will now be more arrests and prosecutions of adults committing these kind of crimes.
If you’re an adult and if you’re having conversations with a child on the Internet, be warned because even if your conversations aren’t sexual and even if your conversations are not for the purpose of meeting a child and committing an offence against a child, what you’re doing is potentially a crime.”
CTV NEWS (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091203/Luring_Charges_091203/20091203/?hub=Canada)
just wondering if anybody has thoughts on this good idea or bad idea cause what they arw saying is if you live in canda and you talk to a minor even by saying "hi" you can face criminal charges guys aruges that you must know that they are under age but what if they dont tell you say something to upset them then they tell the police on you or something like that this law seem to be a double ege sword...so i was just wonder people's thoughts