Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
So, I'm not sure if anyone has noted this yet, but I'm pretty sure this isn't against the law. At least, it's not contra the Criminal Code provision on voyeurism he was charged with, on its face. I didn't know that provision existed, so I haven't read the cases, but it's wholly prefaced on the person being voyeur...ed? being in a context where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Say, your apartment or a bathroom stall. Not the sidewalk. It's aimed at spying on people when they're in private, basically.
The whole thing might get granier when you start talking about looking up women's skirts, but I don't think it's broad enough to cover walking behind a girl on the street and filming her butt. That's just not the behaviour it was drafted to cover.
Incidentally, if it were broad enough, it'd have some interesting results, because that code provision does't distinguish between filming and mere observation. In other words, if he were convicted, it would suggest that you could be charged just for leering at girls in public. Which also seems like an unintended consequence... I suspect that some people would be in favour of such a law, even so.
|
Yeah, given the nature of the account (and similar like it), about 95-99% of it is not illegal. It's still super creepy, but not illegal. I've been following similar cases in the States were folks avoid charges with some interest, as this is a clashing point of freedoms. I've been wondering how Canada would deal with it if it came to a court challenge.