ndallen@contact.uucp (Nigel Allen) (03/20/91)
Eight years ago, I received a series of harassing phone calls: one more or less explicit threat, "You're dead, Nigel!", and subsequently, over the next several weeks, a series of calls where the caller would simply not say anything. (I had worked with the person who decided to make my life unpleasant; if anyone wishes further details of his motives, they can e-mail me.) The one good thing about the whole episode is that it taught me how the Canadian criminal justice system deals with harassing phone calls. In TELECOM Digest V11 #205, Eric Skinner (443114@acadvm1.uottawa.ca) writes: > Interestingly, I had a friend in Montreal who was receiving a large > number of *harassment* calls, and Montreal police refused to do > anything about it. Bell Canada refused to do anything, saying it was > completely the police's responsibility. The police's line was that > since they were "too busy," they did nothing about harassment calls > unless "physical harm" was "explicitly threatened." Hardly a surprise. There are some serious problems with the criminal justice system in Canada, and particularly in Quebec. The Montreal police and the Quebec provincial police can be extremely unpleasant. However, the Canadian criminal justice system does allow someone who has received threats to ask a judge to order the alleged harasser to post a "peace bond" (in effect, to promise to keep the peace). This procedure, something like an injunction, means that a judge can order the alleged harasser to stay away from the complainant. Being ordered to post a peace bond does not count as a criminal conviction, but breaking a peace bond is considered a criminal offence. This is most often used to protect a woman from an abusive ex-husband or boyfriend. As well, Eric Skinner's friend might have considered swearing out a charge privately. At that point, the police might have been somewhat more interested in dealing with the matter. U.S. readers may encounter similar obstructionism from the police if they receive harassing calls. In that case, they may want to consult their state justice department or local legal clinic about what their options are, including swearing out a complaint or filing charges themselves. However, in some areas (such as Peel Region, just west of Toronto), the criminal court system is severly congested, and it can be several months before a case goes to trial. The emotional investment in being a complainant in a trial is significant, particularly if the alleged harasser has a competent lawyer. Of course courtrooms across North America are filled with trials for things a lot worse than harassing phone calls, but knowing that doesn't make things much easier. > The solution was to switch phone numbers ($27.00) and get an > unlisted number ($4.00/month or so). We were not impressed. When I was receiving harassing phone calls, Bell Canada waived the service charge for a new number. I suspect that if you ask for a number change, Bell wants its service charge; if you wait for Bell to suggest a number change, you get it free. Nigel Allen ndallen@contact.uucp
JKOSS00@ricevm1.rice.edu (Jordan Kossack) (03/24/91)
In article <telecom11.219.1@eecs.nwu.edu>, ndallen@contact.uucp (Nigel Allen) writes: > U.S. readers may encounter similar obstructionism from the police if > they receive harassing calls. In that case, they may want to consult > their state justice department or local legal clinic about what their > options are, including swearing out a complaint or filing charges > themselves. If these harrasing telephone calls are considered so unimportant by telco and the police, perhaps one should forward the calls to them since they don't thinkc it is a problem. No - scratch that, although it might be emotionally satisfying to do such, the police dispatchers don't make the policy and shouldn't suffer as a result. Now, if you could only forward such calls to a 900 number and have the harassing caller pay for it ... at $50 a call, they'll stop soon. :-0 Of course this assumes that such calls are arriving at a time of day such that you are unlikely to receive ligitimate calls - like 4am or some such. Too, you need Call Forwarding. On the other hand, if the calls get bad enough, perhaps they SHOULD be forwarded to whatever official(s) are responsible for Caller-ID not being available in your area. Either that or (if your employer and friends have a sense of humor) change your answering machine to something like "FBI, please hold." followed by appropriate 'music on hold.' As a side note, what happens if you forward your calls to yourself? Will the callers get a busy signal? What if you do/don't have Call Waiting? Just curious ... but not curious enough to order these things just to find out. Thanks. jkoss00@ricevm1.rice.edu | Jordan Kossack | n5qvi | +1 713 799 2950 [Moderator's Note: Previously here in Chicago, if you forwarded a call to yourself, the call was forwarded to you. Of course you had to dial twice to establish call forwarding, since the first time you dialed the line was busy ... :) Then we got new generics which if you forwarded to yourself (you still could do so) subsequent callers got a busy signal forever until you cancelled it. Now the latest software forbids the entry. Trying it, I get a re-order (fast busy) tone and it was not accepted no matter how many times I re-dialed it. PAT]