Big Brother will monitor but who will report and enforce?

[Malcolm]

Big Brother will be watching but who will watch and monitor and of course set the criteria? how will new "digital Safety Committee be appointed / filled?  What is the extent or limit of their judgments? Is there any appeal process? 

The Liberal government is proposing heavier sentences, new regulatory bodies and changes to a number of laws in new legislation to tackle online abuse.

The Online Harms Act, tabled Monday, proposes to police seven categories of harmful content online. Those categories include content used to bully a child and content that encourages a child to harm themselves.

They also include hate speech, content that incites violence or terrorism, content that sexualizes children or victims of sexual violence, and sexual content that is posted without consent.

"We cannot tolerate anarchy on the internet," Justice Minister Arif Virani told a press conference Monday.

"The safety, the mental health and even the lives of our kids and our most vulnerable are at stake."

The act would amend the Criminal Code to increase sentences for spreading hate online. It would boost the maximum sentence for advocating genocide from five years to life imprisonment.

The legislation also would make it a separate offence to carry out a crime motivated by hate.

The Canadian Human Rights Act would be amended to allow complaints about online hate speech to be filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The legislation would see the government establish a five-member digital safety commission to enforce the new rules. The commission would be empowered to order the removal of online content that sexualizes children or victims of sexual violence, and sexual content that is posted without consent.

The government is proposing to establish a digital safety ombudsperson who would offer support to victims and guidance to social media companies.

The government is also looking to amend a current law that makes it mandatory for internet services to report instances of child sex abuse images online.

It says it wants to ensure these rules apply to social-media platforms and proposes to "create authority to centralize mandatory reporting" of such offences "through a designated law enforcement body."

Virani insisted that private message services, such as email, won't be covered by the legislation.

"We're doing this now in a very measured and appropriate manner that addresses the harms as we see them, but ensures that Canadians' private communications will be exempt," he said.

 

The government's Online Harms Act would impose new responsibilities on online platforms, including a requirement to take down certain content within 24 hours after it's flagged as harmful. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)© Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The legislation would impose new responsibilities on online platforms. Companies would be expected to assess, minimize and report risks to users, and provide tools to allow users to flag harmful content.

Platforms would be expected to remove certain content — content that sexualizes children or victims of sexual violence, and sexual content that is posted without consent — within 24 hours of a complaint being filed.

 

Online platforms covered by the bill include social media sites, live-streaming platforms and "user-uploaded adult content," says the bill.

Companies that don't follow the new regulations could face fines of up to $10 million or six per cent of their global revenues.

Meta — the parent company for social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram — indicated it plans to work with the government.

"We support the federal government's goal of helping young people have safe, positive experiences online and have spent more than a decade developing industry-leading tools and policies to protect them. We look forward to collaborating with lawmakers and industry peers on our long-standing priority to keep Canadians safe," the company said in a media statement.

Liberals promised legislation during 2021 campaign

The Liberals pledged during the 2021 election campaign to introduce online harms legislation within the first 100 days of being re-elected.

Instead of meeting that self-imposed deadline, the government waited until March of 2022 to announce that it had created an expert advisory group "as the next step in developing legislation to address harmful online content."

 

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh indicated that his party would support the bill. But he criticized the Liberals for not acting sooner.

"Their inaction has meant that kids were harmed. That kids actually were exploited online because they failed to act," he said.

Virani defended the amount of time the government took to bring the bill forward.

"We did work on it for a long time because we had to get it right," he said.

[Jaydee]

Typical LEFTISTS, talking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time. One week they want to “PROTECT” young people from online harm, and in the next breath they vote down age limitations on viewing porn on the internet. They are nothing but a bunch of sickos trying to run YOUR lives for you.

 

ita all about POWER.  WAKE UP !

 

 

Edited February 27 by Jaydee

[Jaydee]

Liberals’ “online hate” bill contains $70K fines for speech and life imprisonment for hate crimes

In a move aimed at curbing the spread of what it terms “online hate,” the Liberal government of Canada has revealed its plan, including hefty fines for online speech and stringent punishment including up to life imprisonment for hate crimes. 

The centrepiece of this initiative is the proposed Online Harms Act, details of which were unveiled during a technical briefing released to reporters on Monday.

Among the categories of harmful content identified in the act are materials that incite violent extremism or terrorism, promote violence, or foment hatred.

The bill will include amendments to the Criminal Code aimed at addressing hate crimes more effectively. The Online Harms Act, also known as Bill C-63 was tabled by Liberal Minister of Justice Arif Virani in the House of Commons on the same day. 

These amendments include the introduction of a standalone hate crime offence applicable across all criminal offences, with penalties extending up to life imprisonment. 

Maximum punishments for existing hate propaganda offences are also set to be increased substantially.

New standalone hate crime offence that would apply to every offence in the Criminal Code and in any other Act of Parliament, allowing penalties up to life imprisonment to denounce and deter this hateful conduct as a crime in itself,” the technical briefing explained. 

The bill would also raise “the maximum punishments for the four hate propaganda offences from 5 years to life imprisonment for advocating genocide and from 2 years to 5 years for the others when persecuted by way of indictment.” 

Also, the bill would add a definition of “hatred” based on the past decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to the Criminal Code. 

The text of the bill defines “content that foments hatred” as any content “content that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of such a prohibited ground.‍” 

“For greater certainty and for the purposes of the definition content that foments hatred, content does not express detestation or vilification solely because it expresses disdain or dislike or it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends,” adds the government. 

Additionally, private messaging and communications like WhatsApp and other platforms are excluded from the scope of the legislation. 

Anybody will also be able to file complaints against others for “posting hate speech online” that is discriminatory against protected categories such as gender, race, disability and others. 

Amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act will let anybody file complaints against persons posting so-called hate speech with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. If found guilty, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal can order those found to violate the government’s definition of hatred with fines up to $70,000 and takedown orders for content. 

According to the text of the bill, the Tribunal has the power to order payments of up to $20,000 for victims of so-called online hate, as well as an order to pay the government $50,000 “if the member panel considers it appropriate.” 

In 2014, a similar provision under the Act dealing with online hate messages was repealed by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper after it was found to have violated the freedom of expression rights of Canadians.

The Liberals have pledged to reintroduce Section 13 which deals with “communication of hate speech” over the internet. 

“It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or any other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals based on a prohibited ground of discrimination,” Bill C-63’s text reads. 

The Tribunal will also have powers to hide the identity of those who bring complaints against anybody whom they deem to have posted online hate speech. Additionally, it can compel those who face complaints to not reveal the identity of those involved upon discovery. 

“The Commission may deal with a complaint in relation to a discriminatory practice described in section 13 without disclosing, to the person against whom the complaint was filed or to any other person, the identity of the alleged victim, the individual or group of individuals that has filed the complaint or any individual who has given evidence or assisted the Commission in any way in dealing with the complaint,” Bill C-63 reads.

To enforce rules surrounding harmful online content, including materials that sexually victimize children and deepfakes, the government plans to establish a new organization. This body, comprising the Digital Safety Commission, the Digital Safety Ombudsperson, and the Digital Safety Office, will work to ensure compliance with regulations and protect users from online harm.

Meanwhile, the role of the digital safety ombudsperson will extend to advocating for users’ rights and interests in the digital realm, serving as a watchdog for online safety issues.

Prior to the bill’s unveiling, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre said he would oppose the law, accusing the government of using the issue to legislate censorship and infringe Canadians’ free speech. 

“We will oppose Justin Trudeau’s latest attack on freedom of expression,” Poilievre responded to a question from True North’s Andrew Lawton last week. 

“What does Justin Trudeau mean when he says the worst hate speech? He means speech he hates.” 

https://tnc.news/2024/02/26/online-hate-bill-70k-fines-speech-and-life-imprisonment/

[Malcolm]

more information and a question.  Is this forum 

"an online platform"?  The government says the new rules would apply to social media sites

Five things to know about Canada's proposed law to guard against online harms

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government has tabled its long-awaited legislation to better protect Canadians, and particularly youth, against online harms. Here are five things Bill C-63 proposes to do.

1. Target specific types of harmful content

The government wants to target the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, including deepfakes generated by artificial intelligence and content that "sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor." The bill would also cover anything online that is used to bully a child or urge them to commit self-harm.

Content that incites violent extremism or terrorism, along with material that incites violence or stirs hatred, would also be subject to the new law.

There is overlap with five categories of content the government proposed tackling in a 2021 consultation document. One key difference: the earlier plan included provisions around hate speech writ large, whereas the new bill does not.

2. Add fresh responsibilities for online platforms

The bill would usher in new rules for online platforms, one of which is broadly defined as the "duty to act responsibly." Companies would be expected to reduce exposure to harmful content by "continuously" assessing risks, developing mitigation strategies and providing tools for users to flag harmful content.

The legislation would also require platforms to publish "digital safety plans" to outline measures to reduce the risk of exposing users to harmful content and track their effectiveness. Companies would also have to share data with researchers.

The government says the new rules would apply to social media sites, "user-uploaded adult content" and "live streaming services" with a certain number of users, a threshold that would be spelled out in detail in coming regulations. Cabinet would have the power to target smaller services "when they pose a significant risk of harm."

3. Create a new regulator and a new ombudsperson

The government seeks to create a new "digital safety commission" comprised of five individuals appointed by cabinet. It would have the power to order the removal within 24 hours of images shared without an individual's consent, as well as content that sexually victimizes a child or survivor of abuse.

The commission would be separate from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, which regulates traditional broadcasters. "Frivolous" complaints would be screened out.

A new "independent" ombudsperson, also appointed by cabinet, would advocate on behalf of users. It would provide information about complaints they wish to file and make recommendations to social media services, the regulator and the government.

4. Strengthen reporting around child pornography

The government also plans to amend a current law that says it is mandatory for internet services to report instances of child sex abuse images on the internet. Changes would apply those rules to social media platforms and "create authority to centralize mandatory reporting" of such offences "through a designated law enforcement body."

The amendment would also extend how long such data can be preserved to assist in police investigations. It would also extend to five years the current two-year limitation period for prosecution.

5. Change the Canadian Human Rights Act and add stiffer sentences for hate crimes

The government plans to add online hate speech as a form of discrimination under the law and allow people to file complaints against individuals posting such content to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

It would also make changes to the Criminal Code, including by increasing the maximum punishment for four hate propaganda offences.

For example, someone found guilty of advocating genocide could face life imprisonment, up from five years in prison.

The government is also looking to create a new hate crime offence that could be applied to every other offence, instead of only listing it as an aggravating factor during sentencing.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 26, 2024.

[deicer]

Thank you for providing factual information and yes, this forum counts.

 

[Malcolm]

3 hours ago, deicer said:

Thank you for providing factual information and yes, this forum counts.

 

Always try to provide factual information.   It appears that our host will need to do some work to meet the new requirements.  

[Jaydee]

40 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

Always try to provide factual information.   It appears that our host will need to do some work to meet the new requirements.  

The next election will solve all Canadas ills. Don’t panic yet.

Edited February 27 by Jaydee

[Malcolm]

LILLEY: C-63, the Online Harms Act, misses the mark

Opinion by Brian Lilley • 16h

 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaks during a news conference in Vancouver on Tuesday, Feb. 20, 2024© Provided by Toronto Sun

The Trudeau government suddenly wants to get tough on crime, some kinds of crime, anyway. Their new Online Harms Act, Bill C-63 , calls for life sentences for hate crimes or promoting genocide.

The bill more than doubles the maximum prison term for other offences and proposes fines of up to $25 million on companies that violate the act.

 

This is all a bit shocking coming from the government brought you Bill C-5, Bill C-75 and Bill C-83. These three bills lowered sentences for violent repeat gun offenders, made bail the default position for judges, and made it easier to move dangerous offenders like Paul Bernardo to a medium-security prison.

Bill C-5 did away with mandatory minimums for repeat offenders on serious gun crimes like smuggling and selling illegal guns or extortion with a gun. Bill C-75, in addition to making bail the default, also reduced some terrorism offences to a summary conviction, meaning six months in jail.

Now, though, the Trudeau government means business with this new bill.

“Everyone who commits an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, if the commission of the offence is motivated by hatred based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life,” the bill states.

The same penalty is recommended for advocating genocide.

“Every person who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life,” the bill reads.

Recommended video

The bill also calls for moving maximum sentences from two years to five years for inciting hatred, promoting hatred, or promoting anti-Semitism or denying or downplaying the Holocaust. Later in the bill, there is also the call for fines as high as “8% of the operator’s gross global revenue or $25 million, whichever is greater” for breaking the law.

 

These are harsh sentences — something that I’m generally in favour of — but in these instances, they seem out of step with where the government is on other aspects of the Criminal Code. It is unlikely that they would survive a court challenge, if implemented.

This bill is designed to show that the government is taking this issue seriously and taking strong and serious action, and frankly, that’s my problem with the bill.

When politicians, of any stripe, act like this, they are performing for the crowd, not engaging in serious public policy. Life sentences right now are reserved for charges like first-degree murder, or for high treason — not hate crimes.

By the way, these crimes are already on the books with lower sentences and neither police nor prosecutors pursue them at the level they should.

With lesser sentences, cops won’t lay charges and prosecutors won’t push cases forward. Somehow, we are meant to believe that by making these offences doubly illegal and now with stiffer sentences, we will see a rise in charges and convictions.

 

The argument here isn’t that these aren’t serious issues; it’s that the government’s response to these issues is not serious.

Dealing with hate is difficult; it is an emotion, and it is challenging to use legislation as a remedy. When it comes to incitement to violence or other actions, these are already chargeable offences, that — as has been demonstrated — are not brought forward enough.

The online harms bill may start with good intentions, but as my colleague Warren Kinsella pointed out in his column on the matter, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. What we need are good outcomes, a serious contemplation of the problems at hand and how to address them.

On these counts, Bill C-63 fails.

[Malcolm]

20 hours ago, Jaydee said:

The next election will solve all Canadas ills. Don’t panic yet.

The following article shows a disturbing trend re vaccination.  I wonder if this a result of a the large number of new residents coming from countries where vaccination does not happen or?

and the latest study shows:

Opposition to vaccination among parents grows, poll suggests

Story by CBC/Radio-Canada • 35m

A growing number of Canadian parents say they are opposed to vaccinating their children, according to a new poll, amid a resurgence in potentially deadly diseases such as measles.

The opinion poll, released Wednesday by the Angus Reid Institute, comes as public health officials try to catch up on routine vaccinations among children after a drop off during the pandemic. 

Among survey respondents, 17 per cent of parents of minors said they are "really against" vaccinating their kids, compared with four per cent in 2019. A majority, 67 per cent, said they would vaccinate their child "without reservation," down from five years prior. Meanwhile, 16 per cent said they weren't sure.

An increased number of parents also said they were opposed to mandatory vaccination in school, which is a policy in place in Ontario and New Brunswick. Opposition to this idea climbed from 24 per cent to 38 per cent between 2019 and 2024.

The pandemic likely led to increased skepticism among some Canadians about vaccination, according to Caroline Quach-Thanh, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist at Montreal's Sainte-Justine Hospital.

She said programs where parents can meet with a health provider and ask questions can help address any concerns.

"I think it's through discussion that people can change their mind," she told CBC News. 

She stressed that routine vaccinations are safe and effective, and that failing to get protection against diseases such as measles can have grave consequences, not just for one's own children but for other vulnerable individuals who aren't eligible to get immunized.

Public health officials across the country have been working to get Canadian children back up to date on immunizations, after routine childhood vaccinations fell during the pandemic.

In 2021, nearly 300,000 children had missed or delayed routine immunizations, according to a survey by 19 to Zero, a not-for-profit coalition of medical and public health experts that facilitates vaccination.

Explosion of measles cases

Measles cases have recently spiked in Europe, as well as parts of the United States.

Experts have raised concern Canada could soon be the site of outbreaks as well.

Canada eliminated measles back in 1998 through widespread vaccination programs.

In this country, the vaccine is given to children astwo doses of a combined shot that also protects against a combination of infections — either measles, mumps and rubella, or measles, mumps, rubella and varicella. 

 

Measles cases have recently spiked in Europe, as well as parts of the United States. Experts have raised concern Canada could soon be the site of outbreaks as well. (Yuri Cortez/AFP/Getty Images)© Provided by cbc.ca

The annual case count remains small — only a dozen confirmed infections were reported country-wide in 2023 — and most cases are now acquired through travel outside the country.

But experts say outbreaks are still a risk. Canada, like many other countries, hasn't hit the 95 per cent vaccination coverage required to prevent its spread.

 

Measles is airborne, highly infectious and can have serious consequences, including blindness, deafness and death.  

Importance of vaccines

The Angus Reid survey was conducted online between Feb. 16 and Feb. 19 among 1,626 Canadian adults. For comparison purposes, a probability sample of this size would carry a margin of error of plus or minus two percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The survey also noted that the question of vaccination has become more difficult to discuss among friends and family since the pandemic. 

One in five of those polled said they worry about vaccination being brought up in social circles. 

It found that perception of vaccines varies widely among Canadians, with 29 per cent viewing them as "very effective," while, on the other side of the spectrum, 14 per cent believe vaccination is harmful and unnecessary.

Medical experts stress that vaccines are the best way to prevent against serious disease. 

 

Two doses of the measles vaccine, for instance, is 97 per cent effective and has saved an estimated 57 million lives between 2000 and 2022, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In Canada, vaccines prevent illnesses such as diphtheria, whooping cough, polio, rotavirus, hepatitis B, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, pneumococcal and meningococcal diseases, human papillomavirus virus (HPV), influenza and measles.

[Malcolm]

Police now need a warrant to get a person's IP address, Supreme Court rules

Ruling states that under Charter, there is 'reasonable expectation of privacy' associated with IP addresses

Peter Zimonjic · CBC News · Posted: Mar 01, 2024 8:40 AM MST | Last Updated: 1 minute ago

The Supreme Court of Canada made a key privacy ruling Friday that will mean police will first have to obtain a warrant or court order if they want to get someone's IP address. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

Social Sharing

• Facebook
• X
• Email
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

The Supreme Court of Canada made a key privacy ruling Friday that will now require police to first obtain a warrant or court order to obtain the numbers making up a person or organization's IP address. 

The top court was asked to consider whether an IP address alone, without any of the personal information attached to it, was protected by an expectation of privacy under the Charter.

In a five-four split decision, the court said a reasonable expectation of privacy is attached to the numbers making up a person's IP address, and just getting those numbers alone constitutes a search. 

Writing for the majority, Justice Andromache Karakatsanis wrote that an IP address is "the crucial link between an internet user and their online activity." 

"Thus, the subject matter of this search was the information these IP addresses could reveal about specific internet users including, ultimately, their identity."

Writing for the four dissenting judges, Justice Suzanne Côté disagreed with that central point, saying there should be no expectation of privacy around an IP address alone.

• Supreme Court says people can sue cities over snow removal activities that cause injury

• Supreme Court says diplomatic immunity does not shield soldier from search that led to sex assault conviction

• Supreme Court restores conviction of man whose Charter rights were violated in impaired driving case

The court's decision is based on the case of Andrei Bykovets, who was convicted of 14 online fraud for purchases from an Alberta liquor store.

In 2017, the Calgary Police Service investigating the alleged crime discovered that the store's online sales were managed by Moneris, a third-party payment processing company. 

Police contacted Moneris and asked for the IP address associated with the purchases, without providing a court order or warrant. Moneris gave two IP addresses to the police. 

Appeal court dismissed privacy claim

Calgary police then went to the internet service provider with a court order to get the names and addresses associated with the IP addresses. One address belonged to Bykovets, the other belonged to his father. 

Police used the names and addresses to get a warrant to search their residences. Bykovets was arrested and charged with possession of a third party's credit card and identity documents. 

At trial, Bykovets argued that he was the victim of an unreasonable search and seizure, a violation of Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because he had an expectation of privacy with respect to his IP address.

The trial judge disagreed, saying there is no expectation of privacy related to an IP address and so the Charter was not violated.

The Alberta Court of Appeal majority decision sided with the trial judge, but one judge of the appeal court disagreed, saying there is an expectation of privacy associated with IP addresses. 

Protecting online privacy in a digital world

In the Supreme Court majority decision, Karakatsanis said that only considering the information associated with an IP address to be protected by the Charter and not the IP address itself "reflects piecemeal reasoning" that ignores the broad purpose of the Charter. 

The ruling said the privacy interests cannot be limited to what the IP address can reveal on its own "without consideration of what it can reveal in combination with other available information, particularly from third-party websites."

It went on to say that because an IP address unlocks a user's identity, it comes with a reasonable expectation of privacy and is therefore protected by the Charter.

"If [the Charter] is to meaningfully protect the online privacy of Canadians in today's overwhelmingly digital world, it must protect their IP addresses," the ruling said. 

The dissenting opinion

Justice Côté, writing on behalf of dissenting justices Richard Wagner, Malcolm Rowe and Mary Moreau, acknowledged that IP addresses "are not sought for their own sake" but are "sought for the information they reveal."

"However, the evidentiary record in this case establishes that an IP address, on its own, reveals only limited information," she wrote.

Côté said the biographical personal information the law was designed to protect is not revealed through access to an IP address. Police must use that IP address to access personal information that is held by an internet service provider (ISP), or a website that tracks customers' IP addresses to determine habits.

• Supreme Court strikes down law requiring sex offenders to be automatically added to registry

• Supreme Court rules Premier Doug Ford's mandate letters to be kept secret

"On its own, an IP address does not even reveal browsing habits," Côté wrote. "What it reveals is a user's ISP — hardly a more private piece of information than electricity usage or heat emissions."

Côté said placing a reasonable expectation of privacy on an IP address alone upsets the careful balance the Supreme Court has struck between Canadians' privacy interests and the needs of law enforcement.

"It would be inconsistent with a functional approach to defining the subject matter of the search to effectively hold that any step taken in an investigation engages a reasonable expectation of privacy," the dissenting opinion said.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

[Malcolm]

an example of our catch and release system

 

As a result of the investigation into the initial 911 calls, Akol Acuil PIOK, 36, has been charged with three counts of robbery, two counts of assault with a weapon and two counts of failure to comply with a probation order. He will next appear in court on Monday, March 4, 2024.

Case # CA24081992/4984  Charges laid following officer-involved shooting in Temple (calgary.ca)

 

[Malcolm]

Another case as reported by the Calgary Police.  They catch the suspect, charge him and then some how he is out on (I guess bail) now of course he is on the lamb ....

 

Quote

 

Police search for suspect following shooting in the southwest

We are asking for the public’s help to locate a man who is wanted on warrants in relation to a targeted shooting that occurred in February 2024.

On Monday, Feb. 12, 2024, at approximately 4 a.m., police were called to a residence located in the 1600 block of 22 Avenue S.W., for reports of a man in medical distress.

Upon arrival, police located a man who was suffering from what appeared to be a gunshot wound. He was transported to hospital in life-threatening condition.

In the days following the incident, police continued their investigation by reviewing evidence and speaking to witnesses. It was later determined the victim was shot by someone well-known to him following an argument that began several hours prior to the incident.

On Thursday, Feb. 22, 2024, a search warrant was executed at the residence located in the 1600 block of 22 Avenue S.W. During the search, police uncovered evidence that led to one man being charged.

As a result, Cosmos LOWINGALI, 25, of Calgary, is wanted on warrants for the following offences related to this incident:

·         Aggravated assault

·         Discharging a firearm with intent

·         Using a firearm while committing an indictable offence

·         Possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose

·         Pointing a firearm

·         Possessing a firearm without a licence

·         Possessing a restricted/prohibited firearm with ammunitions

Police have exhausted all efforts to locate LOWINGALI and are now asking for the public’s help.

LOWINGALI is described as approximately 5’6” tall, 120 pounds, with a slim build, black hair and brown eyes.

Anyone with information about this incident or LOWINGALI’s whereabouts is asked to contact police by calling 403-266-1234.Tips can be submitted anonymously to Crime Stoppers through any of the following methods:

TALK: 1-800-222-8477

 

 

[Malcolm]

And in Ontario:

 

Toronto police, the Bolo Program and Crime Stoppers have announced a reward of up to $50,000 for a tip that leads to the arrest of Kamar Cunningham – a man convicted of firearms trafficking offences. Jaden Lee-Lincoln Reports.

LEAVE A COMMENTSHARE THIS ITEM ON FACEBOOKSHARE THIS ITEM ON TWITTERSEND THIS PAGE TO SOMEONE VIA EMAILSEE MORE SHARING OPTIONS

 

DESCREASE ARTICLE FONT SIZE

INCREASE ARTICLE FONT SIZE

A reward of up to $50,000 is being offered for information leading to the capture of a convicted firearms trafficker after he was released on bail for a third time and skipped his sentencing, Toronto police say.

Kamar Cunningham of Toronto was arrested as part of Project Patton in June 2018 for his involvement in an organization that trafficked guns over the U.S. border, Toronto police said.

Supt. Steve Watts said at a press conference Tuesday that Project Patton resulted in the single largest seizure of firearms in Toronto’s history at the time. Seventy-five people were arrested.

Cunningham was convicted on Nov. 27, 2020 of several firearms trafficking charges.

“He has been released on bail three times,” Watts said.

“Each time he has violated his release conditions before being arrested and released on bail again…. Not surprisingly, he did not appear once again for a sentencing hearing.”

[Airband]

40 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

now of course he is on the lamb ....

Add bestiality to his list of offences?

[Malcolm]

To my point re "ENFORCEMENT"

DESPITE THE COMMENTS BY THE PAROLE BOARD, HE WAS GRANTED PROBATION .........

Mount Royal University criminologist Doug King says it’s important to understand that there are limited resources available to ensure criminals stay on the straight and narrow once they’re released.

“If the offender is engaged in things like possessing firearms, or using illegal substances, the parole officer would have a very hard time knowing that,” he explained. “So there is no kind of follow up to do say a visit at a home and do a search — that doesn’t fly within the context of our criminal justice system.

“So often times the only time we find out that someone has violated conditions of their release is when they do something illegal, as in this case, something extraordinarily dangerous,” King added.

Aside from weapons, the documents show Kimmel  had issues with substance abuse. It was those issues, along with a fight he had with an ex-partner that led to his day parole being revoked back in 2022.

During a meeting about his conditions breach, Kimmel became very angry and swore at his parole officers, documents show.

---

READ MORE:

• Man dead after 30-hour stand-off in Penbrooke Meadows had history of violence
• Threat to public safety in Penbrooke Meadows over: Calgary police

---

“It is clear that you continue to require assistance in managing your substance abuse and emotional problems. Following a treatment plan will encourage you to become involved in both structural correctional programming and community counselling to begin to work through long-standing emotional issues. It is assessed that you still require significant intervention and treatment in order to be ready for community supervision,”  the parole board said in its decision.

Kimmel was assessed as a moderate risk to reoffend. The parole board predicted that if he was to reoffend, the crime would most likely involve weapons.

During the 30-hour standoff questions arose as to why police waited so long to intervene.

King said the answer is simple: officer safety.

“If you say ‘OK, we are going to breach the door and barge in, and gunfire starts happening, officers can get killed,” he said.

Dave Sweet, a retired Calgary Police detective agrees, saying officer safety was likely top of mind in decision making.

“Although it can be inconvenient and unsettling for people, it is also them [police] working through the process of trying to resolve it in the best way they possibly can for the safety of the officers that are there, the safety of the public, of course, and then hopefully the safety of the person that they are there to deal with, ” he said.

[Malcolm]

Thank Goodness for an alert Police force, now of course , if he is charged, will the system grant him bail? Sure hope not. 

Calgary, AB,

19

March

2024

Man wanted on warrants located

Thanks to the swift actions of Calgary Transit Peace Officers, James Francis PRITCHARD, the man who was wanted on warrants in relation to a sexual assault that occurred at a bus stop earlier this month has been arrested and is now in police custody.

We wish to thank our partners at Calgary Transit for their collaboration and assistance in this incident. 

CA24095445/4808