On February 14th, while advocating for Bill C-30 Vic Toews claimed that Canadians

can either stand with us or with the child pornographers [source]

A day later, Toews denies having stated it.

Same day… different interview…

Evan Solomon: That’s pretty explosive language, minister, do you think
anyone who disagrees with this legislation is standing with child
pornographers?

Vic Toews: You know, I said that in the context of a vote in the House of
Commons. But the point is, even your introduction, you indicated that I
had used the word “support,” which was misleading. I think we have to
be very clear. You torque up the rhetoric in order to make a point. And
that’s unfortunate, so let’s…

Evan Solomon: With all due respect, minister, when you say you either
support, or stand with us…

Vic Toews: No, I didn’t, see you said it again…

Evan Solomon: You said, you either stand with child pornographers, you
stand with child pornographers. I just showed the quote. Isn’t that, aren’t
you the one that;s torquing the rhetoric up, not me?

Vic Toews: No, you just, in fact what you indicated was to try to slide it
into another issue. The issue of supporting child pornographers is an
entirely different issue. And I’m glad you played the full quote. At least
you played the full quote, so that Canadians could see exactly what I
said and why I said it.

Evan Solomon: But minister, my point here is in a sensitive issue that
has to do with judicial oversight, by using that kind of language,
standing with child pornographers, does it all of a sudden polarize an
issue and mean that we cannot have a dispassionate discussion
because you are calling the opposition to this standing with child
pornographers? Meaning, delegitimizing some legitimate questions
about this bill.

Vic Toews: Look, we will entertain any concerns or legitimate questions
about this. But it is clear that presently the legislation does nothing to
stop the proliferation of child pornography, which is a huge problem in
this country. It’s a huge problem worldwide. Canada, in fact, is out of
step. What we are doing is bringing legislative framework into place that
places us exactly in the same place that the Americans are in and that
the Europeans are in, in order to deal with an international problem.
[source]

Same day, @Vikileaks30 appears…

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews’s divorce has become fodder for critics
of controversial legislation he’s sponsoring to give Canadian police new
powers to watch the Web.

The minister denounced the attack as sleazy and refused to address it.
“I won’t get involved in this kind of gutter politics. Engaging in or
responding to this kind of discussion leads nowhere,”  [source]

and so it begun… the social media war against Toews…

On top of that, they’ve released a real hornet’s nest with this one. If you
still don’t really get what Twitter can be good for, head over there now
by following this link for the #TellVicEverything discussion to see Twitter
at its best: as a tool for spontaneously creating a community through
shared expression of a prevailing mood in quick, witty statements.

The tag #TellVicEverything is trending in Canada — an endless stream
of hilarious and inane comments about what people are up to, just in
case Minister Vic Toews wanted to know without a warrant.

It must be the greatest fear of the Conservative government coming
true. They are now getting huge floods of unwanted information from
law-abiding Canadians, something they said they never, ever wanted or
deserved. Oh well, I’m sure they’ll put it to good use. [source]

As in any good story, the bad guy is temporarily beat…

In an interview airing Saturday on CBC Radio’sThe House, Toews said
his understanding of the bill is that police can only request information
from the ISPs where they are conducting “a specific criminal
investigation.”

But Section 17 of the ‘Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act’
outlines “exceptional circumstances” under which “any police officer”
can ask an ISP to turn over personal client information.

“I’d certainly like to see an explanation of that,” Toews told host Evan
Solomon after a week of public backlash against Bill C-30, which would
require internet service providers to turn over client information without a
warrant.

“This is the first time that I’m hearing this somehow extends ordinary
police emergency powers [to telecommunications]. In my opinion, it
doesn’t. And it shouldn’t.”

Toews confirmed the bill will be sent to committee before second
reading, which he said will allow for the opportunity to amend the bill
beyond its original scope.  [source]

BUT THIS IS WHERE THE REAL STORY BEGINS UNFOLDING

The Conservative government is attempting to pass an unconstitutional bill while reducing public
debate on this complex issue on superficial and rhetorical arguments against child pornography.

No, this bill has little to do with child pornography and much to do with our personal freedoms to
live our private lives free from government intrusion. This is a basic right guaranteed by the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  To those who believe Bill C-10 is actually about child
pornography alone, I must urge you look into the patterns of our government that has been
slowly establishing a surveillance state. 

So here are some relevant questions:

1. Is Vic Toews qualified as Minister of Public Safety? Does he measure up to the mandates of
the position?

2. How can Ministers introduce and advocate for such complex bills when Ministers in charge do
not know the contents of these bills?

3. Was Vic Toews being a hypocrite when belittling opposition MPs suggesting that opposition
MPs are to first READ the bill before addressing them?

4. Is Vic Toews just that incompetent as not to know, or so ideologically driven to fail to
comprehend the bill he presented?

5. Based on the case of Bill C-30 and Toews, should Canadians NOT demand at this point an
official re-evaluation of all other decisions that have been made by Vic Toews and his Ministry? I
can think of his Wanted War Criminal Lists and the US-Canada border projects that he has
advocated so far… Is it safe for Canada to assume those decisions and projects were indeed
made on behalf of Canadians?

6. Are these the politicians that are supposed to represent us? How do they get away
blatantly lying to our faces, trying to manipulate us applying pitiful rhetoric of fear?

7. Should we not require a full mechanism of transparency and accountability on all
of these controversial bills? Should we not demand that these decisions actively engage
public discussion rather than secrecy and limitations?

8. And why are all these bills – having such far reaching implications – being rushed through
Parliament? Why are Canadians allowing these to happen? What can we do to stop this?