Manitoba passes bill targeting intimate image used without consent

Following the end of the spring session at the Legislature, the Manitoba government passed several new bills late Monday night, that will become law after receiving royal assent.

Those bills including Bill 24, The Intimate Image Protection Amendment Act, which has been renamed and strengthened to give plaintiffs additional civil remedies.

The legislation is now called the Non-Consensual Distribution of Intimate Images Act, and will require the government to make supports available to assist people who have had or who believe that they have had an intimate image used without their consent, along with a provision that allows them to sue the person who distributed the image.

RELATED: Manitoba spring legislature sitting ends; more than 20 bills become law

The definition will also be expanded to include visual recordings that were created or altered using electronic means, including software, machine learning, and other types of artificial intelligence

“We see this as really enabling those groups that support victims and victim services within the Department of Justice to be able to use these tools to be able to protect these victims and be able to send a clear message to the perpetrators that this is something taken very seriously and there are serious consequences,” said Matt Wiebe, Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

Professor David Gerhard, says this bill will hopefully make those using intimate images think twice, but says how rapidly it is evolving, it’s an ongoing battle

“It really is peace meal in places and it will depend on which particular activities we find that need to fill gaps in legislation where we didn’t imagine a person could do a thing, but now they can and we need a rule to say they shouldn’t,” said Gerhard.

While the new bill gives plaintiffs more ways to sue the person who distributed the image, it does not involve litigation against the apps and A.I. companies that some of these images come from.

“If we legislate the tool itself then we are going to be restricting the thing it can do it can do both good and bad, personally I’m more interested in legislating the behaviour as opposed to the tool that enables that behaviour,” said Gerhard.