Today, the speaker of the House of Commons prime facie ruled against “Anonymous”. “What!” you may be asking yourself, how is that possible? It’s possible because of Parliamentary privilege. Still don’t get it?
It’s an interesting thing, that our speaker could even do this, but he can, and whether or not you with agree with the government and their actions regarding Bill C-30, this ruling actually has some merit. Ignoring the practical objections to holding “anonymous” responsible, for a second.
Let’s also quickly ignore our Conservatives hypocrisy in this dealing.
The speaker outlines from the House of Commons and Practice, Second Edition:
It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and as such constitute prima facie cases of privilege. However, some matters found to be prima facie include the damaging of a Member’s reputation, the usurpation of the title of Member of Parliament, the intimidation of Members and their staff and of witnesses before committees, and the provision of misleading information.
This was specifically used to apply to the “Anonymous” videos outlining their demands and methods here. There doesn’t appear to be anything illegal being done in the video, nor is there subsequently in “Anonymous”s following videos. There is no confidential information being spread, but there is sensitive and private information being “leaked”. This is legal. There are no violent threats, either. Since the information they planned (and did) release is already publically and legally available.
Perhaps, though, a preliminary look at this from the government’s perspective does make the speaker’s ruling somewhat valid. The video doesn’t violently threaten the Minister. But it does threaten the Minister. Not with any illegal act, or any harmful act – but merely with disseminating information deemed to be private and personal.
Nothing illegal, merely pointing out he’s a hypocrite through his own private information. If you continue with this bill that will give the government warrantless access to our data, we will continue to slash you with unflattering sensitive facts. Perhaps you’ll think twice next time about giving the government easier means of accessing Canadians’ personal data.
But could this threat interfere with his duty, and government’s interest in passing this legislation? Arguably. And that’s all a prime facie ruling requires. A mere case to be made. If a citizen, or a group of citizens do something to threaten or obstruct a Parliamentarian’s duty, then that’s a breach, and it’s completely understandable for it to be reported to the speaker and investigated further.
I think it’s a more important discussion to have whether or not this is a trivial issue, or whether or not the way the media and government is focusing on “Anonymous” and its sort-of-ally “Vikileaks” is wrong. It may be more important to focus on the prime message of “Anonymous” – that Vic is a hypocrite, and if he wants to do what he’s doing, then it’s only fair his information be spread. It may be more important to explain how silly this seems, given the non-threat “Anonymous” is.
Alas, readers, this post is about my nuanced critique of “Anonymous” and I just wanted to get my minor concession with this ruling down-in-text. This has merit.
***
“Anonymous” comes off as vaguely ominous and threatening, this is their intent. It is indeed to intimidate, even if their means of intimidation is merely speaking truth to power; disseminating facts less known in order to prove a point. Their tone is sinister and malicious, even if they’re fighting for the right side. Their style is menacing, even if they think they’re doing the world a favour.
For example, from one of their earlier videos, a fairly veiled (non-violent) threat:
Your actions will not stand. You cannot run. You cannot hide. For every one of us you arrest or imprison, a dozen more will emerge to take their place. You have underestimated the power of the internet in the hands of the people. Tyrants have once again created the weapons of their own destruction. You will pry the internet, our most valued and precious weapon against oppression, from our cold dead hands.
I do not have any anonymity (get it?) with “Anonymous” and their message and goal; it’s the tactics and presentation they use to purvey their ideological and philosophical ends. They may be ideologically correct, they may be legally and constitutionally well-balanced, but it’s how they go about and getting their desire that’s callow, somewhat immature and very tactless.
With this, “Anonymous” allows for some legitimate technical rebukes based on the mere vaguely ominous nature of these videos; rather than focusing on the (important) message and purpose behind them, the blatant presentation gets the attention, thus obscuring the message, and thus limiting the discussion. Furthermore, making the whole operation less of a success, and more of a counter-intuitive failure. With their callow tactlessness, they open the possibility for the conversation to be shifted. Away from the important and significant points, to a more superficial objection the presentation of these points made by “Anonymous”.
People who want to be active politically should be active, but they should be careful with how they choose. Without discretion, your whole idea can get discredited like that. Be careful, you anonymous peoples.
