On 4 April 2013, Rehtaeh Parsons attempted suicide after facing months of harassment online. She was taken off life support three days later after she slipped into a coma. Cyberbullying claimed yet another young person. In response to the tragic incident, numerous reports and evidence hunting commenced; the police were not spearheading the operation. It was the media, Rehtaeh’s friends and family, and Anonymous (A hacking community) who were calling the shots. Subsequently, pressure from several quarters in the public and the justice system, a new law came into effect to protect anyone who faced cyberbullying. The law came into effect on 25 September 2013. However, this case did not end here.
On 11 December 2015, Nova Scotia’s Justice Glen McDougall struck down the law terming it as unconstitutional while hearing a case involving two adults. Despite reasoning that the law provides protection for young children, the Judge ruled that young children were not the primary statistic relating to cases of cyberbullying. Justice McDougall refused to review his decision (Ruskin, “Court strikes down anti-cyberbullying law created after Rehtaeh Parsons's death”). This unexpected outcome intensified the debate on whether the new law made any difference and if this law was worth appealing for. This paper examines the case on why this new law is required however; not in its present state.
Laws prior to Cyber-safety
The laws in existence prior to the Cyber-safety act of 2013 are not clear or dedicated to deal with cyberbullying. However, there are a collection of laws that come into effect once a case of cyberbullying presents itself. There was scope to pursue the case for defamation, inducing suicidal thoughts, intent to harm, child pornography if the victim was below 18 years and images used, and involuntary manslaughter. There were no specific laws to protect, increase accountability, and punish the perpetrators. If the cyberbullying case ends in the victim committing suicide, there was scope for prosecution of the perpetrators. However, other incidents were not taken up seriously (CBC News, “Cyberbullying-linked suicides rising, study says”). The case of Rehtaeh Parsons is an example of how a cyberbullying case works with these laws.
The primary issue with this case was the victim reporting her sexual assault in a delayed manner. This creates an opportunity for the perpetrators to disguise their tracks. The police findings that the sexual behaviour was consensual based on hearsay evidence is deplorable. There were several indications in the evidence from social media that the incident was sexual assault. In addition, there were a slew of minor violations also ignored by the police. For example, the presence of vodka in a party hosted by underage teenagers is an aberration. Yet the police were unwilling to investigate until the teenager attempted to kill herself. The indifferent attitude by the police, their inability to bring any serious charges against the perpetrators, and the inadequate justification point to the fact that existing laws are ineffective against cyberbullying.
Cyber-Safety Act – Is it required?
The recently struck down Cyber-Safety Act brought protection, increased accountability for online communications, and punished those who violated the law. The police set up a separate division to deal with such crimes and hired technical experts for remote monitoring. In an equivocal sense, it resembled the US Patriot Act that the United States passed to counter terrorism (Mayer, “New cyberbullying law has 'larger agenda,' expands police powers”). This Act protected young children from bullies and kept them safe from emotional distress. However, expanding the Act to cover adults was unnecessary. Social media websites and messengers have stipulations that no one under the age of 18 can hold an account with them. Hence, it is acceptable that even the service providers knew that the environment was unsuitable for children.
Criminologists state that any person under the age of 21 is unable to judge lawful behaviour in its entirety. When teasing and bullying in schools are not taken seriously by the teachers and administration, children assume that it is alright to reciprocate similar behaviour online. The provision of an internet connection or a smartphone to a child is the root cause of the problem especially without proper supervision. The psychology of a child especially in teenage years is fragile. Peer pressure dominates the stage and acceptance from peer groups’ hinge on activities that the group perceives as acceptable. A lack of presence online can disqualify a teenager from acceptance within the group.
When the same situation involves adults, the outcome is different. If Rehtaeh Parsons was an adult at the time of her sexual assault, the first place she would have gone after the incident was to the police. The timeliness of the complaint will prove sufficient for the police to take decisive action. There would be no opportunity for the perpetrators to publish their dastardly accomplishments online and Rehtaeh Parsons would be alive today. Hence, the writing of this law for all age groups is not an acceptable action. Furthermore, grownups have the maturity to handle bullying and are unlikely to commit suicide over it. Justice McDougall struck down the Act while presiding over a case that involved two adults. He saw it fit that this law was inapplicable in their situation. While the Cyber-Safety Act of 2013 is required to protect children, it need not extend to adults over the age of 21.
Charter of Rights – Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Speech according to the Canadian Charter of Rights is not unconditional. There are significant restrictions for the Canadian Freedom of Speech right. The speech cannot contain hate or obscenity. This condition holds good for any medium or source of communication. Legal action is possible against publishing obscene images also. Hence, there is sufficient ground for anyone to seek legal assistance since there is no question of unconditional freedom. Cyberbullying cannot take refuge under the Freedom of Speech since it will contain obscene words or images and promote hatred. However expressing dissent is not a violation of Freedom of Speech (Butt, “Canada’s law on hate speech is the embodiment of compromise”). Any law written in contra is unconstitutional. Justice McDougall contention that the Cyber-Safety infringed on the Charter of Rights holds good.
Social responsibility
The society is responsible for the presence of any criminal act since it is impossible to commit the act if in entirety, society opposes it. In the case of Rehtaeh Parsons, there was considerable support for the boys engaged in the sexual assault against the victim. The Cyber-Safety Act was in fact covering for the inactions of societal figures such as police personnel, media, social media websites/messenger services, school administrators, teachers, and parents. The police have a duty to all citizens and have to exhibit the same zeal to provide justice uniformly. They cannot allow perpetrators to slip through the cracks in the system. School administrators and teachers have the responsibility to impress values upon students that dissuade them from bullying anyone, anywhere.
Media houses should exhibit responsible behaviour while covering news stories and not publish whatever they perceive as a scoop. Social media websites and messenger services generate vast revenues from their services. It is their responsibility to have comprehensive background checks before allowing the creation of an account. Finally, parents cannot slither away from responsibility by blaming the Justice system. The parents of Rehtaeh Parsons are no different. They did not know her friends or their about their vodka party. They did not know of her sexual assault despite her living under their care when it happened. They had no idea about their daughter’s social media activities (PREVNet, “What Parents Can Do”). If any of the societal figures lived up to the expectations, Rehtaeh Parsons would still be alive today. In the absence of such responsibility in the society, the Cyber-Safety Act becomes essential.
Economic considerations
The complete implementation of the Cyber-Safety Act constitutes to heavy spending of taxpayer’s money. A mechanism to connect remotely into laptops, computers, or mobile phones and hire personnel with such expertise is an expensive process. Since the law applies to everyone, the requirement will be somewhat similar to the internal spying conducted by America’s National Security Agency. The cost will run into billions of dollars. However, when the law only focuses on a limited population, anyone under the age of 18 for victims, the number of cases of suitable scope reduces drastically. Although it will still cost millions of dollars to keep the law operational, it will help save the lives of young people in the country and save several thousands of dollars in health (mental) services. A revised Cyber-Safety Act for only youngsters is a viable option economically (novascotia.ca, “Cyber-Safety Act”).
Political Overtures
The first target for criticism is always towards the political establishment in the country. In the case of cyberbullying, the legislature, in attempting to fix the issue opted for overkill. The objective of the Act was to safeguard young victims, the outcome was a fiasco where it became legally possible to punish anyone who expresses dissent. The law’s design is so fragile that jilted boyfriends/girlfriends, divorced spouses, sibling rivalry, and business rivals can use it to get back at their antagonists. The law in its present form is a mockery of the Charter of Rights and clearly unconstitutional. However, the action of the political fraternity indicates the intent to curb any form of bullying including cyberbullying comprehensively. A revised version of this law will prove that its enactment in 2013 was not a reactionary measure.
Conclusion
The Cyber-Safety Act is essential to keep children safe and parents accountable for their actions. It prevents cyberbullying by dissuading individuals with the threat of substantial fines and even jail sentences. In addition, the seizure of equipment and combined liability for punitive damages will impress upon parents to keep a closer watch on their wards. The Act is an essential component in a society that does not conform to its responsibility uniformly. However, the Act should have revisions to cater to only its primary audience; anyone below the age of 18.
Works Cited
Butt, David. “Canada’s law on hate speech is the embodiment of compromise” The Globe and Mail Inc. The Globe and Mail Inc., 19 January 2015. Web. 29 February 2016. <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canadas-law-on-hate-speech-is-the-embodiment-of-compromise/article22520419/>
“Cyber-Safety Act” novascotia.ca. novascotia.ca, 25 September 2013. Web. 29 February 2016. <http://novascotia.ca/just/global_docs/Cyberbullying_EN.pdf>
Mayer, Andre. “New cyberbullying law has 'larger agenda,' expands police powers” CBC News. CBC News, 21 November 2013. Web. 29 February 2016. <http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-cyberbullying-law-has-larger-agenda-expands-police-powers-1.2434797>
Ruskin, Brett. “Court strikes down anti-cyberbullying law created after Rehtaeh Parsons's death” CBC/Radio-Canada. CBC/Radio-Canada, 11 December 2015. Web. 29 February 2016. <http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cyberbullying-law-struck-down-1.3360612>
“What Parents Can Do” PREVNet. PREVNet, 2015. Web. 29 February 2016. <http://www.prevnet.ca/bullying/cyber-bullying/parents >
“Cyberbullying-linked suicides rising, study says” CBC News. CBC News, 20 October 2012. Web. 29 February 2016. < http://www.luxuryrehabcenter.com/blog/is-non-alcoholic-beer-a-safe-option-for-alcoholics/>
