slug.com slug.com

11 16

I never knew recording a phone call without telling the person that they were being recorded was worse than obstructing justice on a federal government level.

Did you?

OneGodlessWoman 7 Apr 2
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

11 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

I believe you cannot record any conversation you are not part of. The legal test goes along the lines of: does the person you are having the conversation with expect the conversation to be privacy form you? If you're part of the conversation, it's obvious that there is no expectation of privacy from you as you are part of the conversation. It is no different than taking notes on the conversation you just had. In fact, it is more accurate and totally legal.

0

Sanctimonious little bitch, isn’t he?

1

Justine has only his side of justice , the rest of us have to follow actual laws !

1

I think it is a matter of opinion, but it seems to be the opinion of the government when it comes to dealing with the "perpetrator". In the midst of a sustained campaign of harassment,, a person might feel the need to obtain corroborating evidence, especially when confronted with additional pressure from someone who is obviously in a position of power. Would this not be acceptable in cases of workplace harassment? In this case, the person had been placed in a position that questioned her credibility, with no ability or freedom to corroborate her earlier testimony. The recording was then played a a "hole card", which fully corroborated the testimony. To me, the end fully justified the means.

1

I thought only a judge could authorize a wiretap.
oh right, she is a judge.

1

Uh...
Actually I think that was changed to “As long as one person is aware that the conversation is being recorded ...”
Though I think that was for wire tapping purposes ... that is, as long as one person in a two person call ...
Still, the concept of that rewrite is comical since OBVIOUSLY the person Making the Recording is Aware that the Recording is being made ...

1

It is allowable to record a conversation if harassment is expected. If none materializes, the recording can then be destroyed.

2

It isn’t. Smoke and mirrors. They can’t take the heat so they need to start chipping away at these ladies’ abilities to defend themselves. They are removing any privileges they have being part of a caucus. Remove abilities and access to resources. Saw it coming. Classic beta male mentality in panic mode trying to protect themselves. They are VERY afraid of the other good stuff these ladies have yet to reveal. I smell a fire burning in the PMO lol and the fire extinguishers are getting emptied fast. Let Rome burn. I hear a violin playing in the background.?

Love your comment.

3

No, and I'm expecting all phone calls and emails would be recorded in ottawa. It's pretty weird how they all sing the same song - "she's breaking the rules" Oh how righteous they act, that trudeau gang! All phone calls I would heavily suggest, are recorded on both sides. And to think not, is a mistake...

"Transparency..."

2

They are trying everything they can to obfuscate or derail.

1

Talk about a mind fu--...

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:27058
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.