Slashdot Mirror

Before you write, read. Read the whole discuss paper. The paper covers many different areas not covered in the news article. Some parts, such as the intercept proposals, aren't acceptable. Other parts of the paper make a lot of sense.

For example read the section on Interception of Email. The gist of this section is that email interception can and has fallen under two conflicting sections of the Criminal Code. In some cases a judge ruled that the email was a private communication and subject to those laws. In another case a judge ruled that email was subject to the less onerous search and seizure laws. The criminal code is not clear on the matter. So the discussion paper simply asks 3 questions:

* should there be a specific provision in the Criminal Code in relation to how an e-mail should be acquired?

* if such a provision should be included, what kind of procedural safeguards should be imposed?

* should the type of order to be obtained in order to acquire an e-mail vary depending on the stage of the communication or delivery process?

These are three important questions! How do you want your email protected under the Criminal Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? The Dept of Justice is asking for your inpupt on these and other important questions regarding your privacy.

Read the whole paper and send send in your opinions. You do not need to comment on all sections. Specify which section your comments reference. Be clear. Check your spelling (unlike me). Check your grammar. Reread what your wrote. Wait a day after writeing before sending (from some sober second thought).

I must state outright that I agree with the poster to whom you are replying. As I am a Canadian, when I first read this, I almost immediately fired off an email to la-al@justice.gc.ca (the privacy commissioner's office) stating that I was against the act. However, before I did this, I took the time to find the full text and I am very glad that I did.

First of all, this is a proposal. Just that. Nothing more. It is a suggestion that the Canadian Government look into the issue of passing and Act or Statute which will enable the lawful interception of computer data, in conjunction with the EU convention.

Furthermore, as I read the proposal, I realized that most of it made sense and that I agreed with it. It clearly mentioned in the preamble the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its intent to uphold it. I was actually surprised to find that the documents authors' held true to their word: after every major section or point that they make in the document, there is a section entitled "Issues to be Considered" in which they outline every single one of the privacy concerns that had come to my mind while reading the above section.

As well, all the way through the document, considerable effort was made to insure that due process (namely search warrants) would have to be undertaken before any of these searches could be undertaken.

In all I was quite pleased at how the document was presented, but one item piqued my interest. When reading the subject regarding "Interception of Email" (which btw, dealt as much with criminal's interception of email as it did with law enforcement's) I was initially disturbed to find that previous, already passed legislation had determined that only oral conversations can be considered "extremely private". All letters, bothe written and electronic, are considered to be "private". This means that one only needs a standard search warrant to lawfully intercept these communications whereas to intercept oral communications, a police officer must present extra evidence to obtain a warrant. However, on reflection I think this seems reasonable.

I would now finally like to reply to your direct question by asking you another one: could you not think of ways in which internet logs could possibly be useful in a criminal investigation? Keep in mind this may also include times once a person has already been arrested and the crown is building evidence against them.

I must state outright that I agree with the poster to whom you are replying. As I am a Canadian, when I first read this, I almost immediately fired off an email to la-al@justice.gc.ca (the privacy commissioner's office) stating that I was against the act. However, before I did this, I took the time to find the full text and I am very glad that I did.

First of all, this is a proposal. Just that. Nothing more. It is a suggestion that the Canadian Government look into the issue of passing and Act or Statute which will enable the lawful interception of computer data, in conjunction with the EU convention.

Furthermore, as I read the proposal, I realized that most of it made sense and that I agreed with it. It clearly mentioned in the preamble the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its intent to uphold it. I was actually surprised to find that the documents authors' held true to their word: after every major section or point that they make in the document, there is a section entitled "Issues to be Considered" in which they outline every single one of the privacy concerns that had come to my mind while reading the above section.

As well, all the way through the document, considerable effort was made to insure that due process (namely search warrants) would have to be undertaken before any of these searches could be undertaken.

In all I was quite pleased at how the document was presented, but one item piqued my interest. When reading the subject regarding "Interception of Email" (which btw, dealt as much with criminal's interception of email as it did with law enforcement's) I was initially disturbed to find that previous, already passed legislation had determined that only oral conversations can be considered "extremely private". All letters, bothe written and electronic, are considered to be "private". This means that one only needs a standard search warrant to lawfully intercept these communications whereas to intercept oral communications, a police officer must present extra evidence to obtain a warrant. However, on reflection I think this seems reasonable.

I would now finally like to reply to your direct question by asking you another one: could you not think of ways in which internet logs could possibly be useful in a criminal investigation? Keep in mind this may also include times once a person has already been arrested and the crown is building evidence against them.

The central tenet of the proposal is that service providers would be required to have the technical capability to provide access to the entirety of a specific telecommunication transmitted over their facilities, subject to a lawful authority to intercept. This would include the content and the telecommunications-associated specific data associated with that telecommunication.

link to proposal

The law is that caffeine may not be added to any beverage unless it is a cola-type beverage. The addition of caffeine to beverages has been rationalized by the soft drink manufacturers as giving their product a distinctive flavour. Since caffeine is a drug, it has been restricted to only being added to cola because of the historical use of caffeine in these products. Or something. Here's the text of the relevant section of the food and drug act. Search the page for the word caffeine.

It's not legal because you say it is. Please point me to the law that says you can legally download mp3s from napster and share them with friends. Oh and the law that says teh same for library cds as well.

> This little naming issue gets worse as sizes get bigger too. I built several multiterabyte
> RAIDs and it really becomes apparent then. 1TB in hard disks are really only 931 GiB.

You're flat out wrong on this one as far as official standards are concerned. Check out the UK Metrication website. And I quote...

On 7 April 1795 (18 Germinal, year III) the Convention decreed that the new "Republican Measures" were to be henceforth legal measures in France

* mètre (length), are (surface), litre (volume), gram (mass), bar (pressure). The prefixes were Greek words for multiples
* déca- (x 10), hecto- (x 100), kilo- (x 1 000), myria- (x 10 000) and latin prefixes for fractions
* déci- (1/10), centi- (1/100), milli- (1/1 000)

Last I heard, there were still 1,000 metres in a kilometre and 1,000 grams in a kilogram. For the official US standards, check out the NIST website for official prefixes. In Canada check out The WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT and click on PART V
"Prefixes* for Multiples and Submultiples of Basic, Supplementary and Derived Units of Measurement". They use a weird "folio" system for maintining the webpage, so deep links aren't stable.

I don't know how it is in the States, but in Canada there seems to be a legal bias in favour of whoever currently has possession of real property, in terms of expelling trespassers and the like. The police could probably get a warrant of some sort, however.

Refer to the Criminal Code, 40-42.

Read the statute. It's available at The MOJ and the Criminal Code is quite easy to follow. It says that intent is necessicary in order to commit this crime. No intent to pirate == no crime.

Yes it's legal to use your mod chips.

There is absolutely no reason why free speech is a required right, it may be desireable but it is never required and society can function extremely well without it (look at pretty much anywhere outside of the USA).

You can't be serious. You think that there's no such thing as free speech outside of the USA? What about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? In particular, check out the section titled "Fundamental Freedoms". I guess I probably have to remind you that Canada is, in fact, outside of the USA.

Anyone else live outside the USA and have freedom of speech? Speak up!

If Australia's laws are anything like Canada's, it may not have been illegal anyways. See:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/36498.html#rid-3 6621
and tell me if a CD copying kiosk would be illegal in Canada. I'm sure the record companies don't want the Canadian public to know about this law.

Pity that our neighbors to the north rejected the invitation to place themselves under its jurisdiction

What invitation is that? To place ourselves under the US Constitution?! We've got our own Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms thank you very much. Keep your U.S. Constitution to yourself.

where banning the private possession of firearms inevitably leads to control of political speech and association ending in totalitarian democracy.

As a Canadian I can attest to the fact that whoever uttered this statement needs to go back to grade school.

Actually, I stated that as the NRA position, I merely think it highly probable.

Your pride in having a document defining your rights that lacks a guarantee of free speech and press is misplaced, that's in Part 1...

As an American, I suggest you learn about your system of government before bringing your ignorant whines into a public policy debate.

Your precious Charter can be shitcanned or modified into uselessness any time enough members of Parliament want it to be, after which it needs a "Mother, may I" from the Brits.

Do you really think that Canada would have difficulty getting a UK Parliament to sign off on replacing the current version with a new and more restrictive version friendlier to repressive governments, particularly given RIP and the growth of an Orwellian "surveillance society" as the UK government has approved?

It seems easier than getting 34 independent US state legislatures to sign off on gutting the US Bill of Rights.

Have you read the US Constitution? Or for that matter, your own Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Since you probably haven't, yours is at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

If you had, you might have read the following:
"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

Sounds good... until you take a hard look at it. Who defines "reasonable"?

I would love to see if they could pull this off in my work environment. It's a legal environment (that is very overcrowded) in the government, and therefore most of the workers here are lawyers. Most of the tools that lawyers need are in electronic format. Statutes, caselaw, treaties, etc are all available on-line. Files are located centrally and can be retrived quickly. In addition, our lawyers tend to work in teams, and may on clients sites, on special projects and to be able to relocate in order to work together would probably be more efficient. It will be interesting to see if this could will in an IT setting and whether or not this could be transferable to an environment where the computer is just a tool rather than the focus.

And you're posting as AC why? If you really are an IP lawyer, you've read Canada's Copyright Act. Here I quote Section 80:

(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,

(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or

(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied

onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

Limitation

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):

(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;

(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or

(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.

So if I do it for ME and NOBODY ELSE, it's legal. If I make a copy for a friend it's illegal. Makes sense to me.

For those who want to check it out: here is a link.

Though I think you do deserve your Insightful modpoints - your Article 3 ("as is Deemed Apt for the Preservation of a Free and Fair Societie.") is pretty much how the Canadian definition of free speech would have been written in an older dialect of English.

For you Americans who don't quite get what I'm on about, in Canada, you have free speech (and other civil rights) only insofar as the government decides you need them. Your rights are "only" subject to whatever "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" - as per Section 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Freedom of speech, just watch what you say.

If that's not enough, there's Section 33 - the "notwithstanding clause", which states, in effect, that even if a law does break the Charter, you can still pass laws that violate the Charter as long as you admit it while you write the law. Basically, you invoke it by adding a phrase like "notwithstanding that this law is unconstitutional, we're passing it anyways."

That's why you can still go to jail for having English on a sign in Quebec, even though such a law is blatantly unconstitutional.

Uuuuh, you have a pretty twisted view of Canadian politics. We have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms here. Many Americans are not aware of this - this grants a base list of freedoms and expectations similar to your consitution. I would also sumbit that a number of our laws are a) much more sane, and b) much more intelligently enforced (for example, we don't give people 15 years in a federal FPMITAP for minor drug possession).

Unlike the US Consistution, there has been no widespread effort to undermine these freedoms, either. You can be stopped and searched without cause in the United States too, you even glorify it on Fox (ever see Cops?). It's only if you have money and intelligence to work the legal system you an enjoy those rights.

Calling Canada totalitarian is sheer trolling.. yes, there's a little too much hand holding here, and the tax rate reflects that, but things have the potential to change here. When's the last time the official political opposition in the US has been anything but democrat or republican, hrmm? Compare crime rates recently?

Yes you can copy audio legally for your own pesonal use, part VIII of the Copyright Act.

But the greedy media mogals will still call you a criminal though.

Yes you can copy audio legally for your own pesonal use, part VIII of the Copyright Act.

But the greedy media mogals will still call you a criminal though.

Nowhere in the act does it specify you have to own the music that you copy under the Private Copying section.

It specifies that you have to be the one doing the copying, but not that you have to own the original copy.

Go reread it again. Section 80 is what you want to look at.

If you go read the CPCC's rationale behind the increased tariffs, you will see that thier reasoning takes into account that a larger portion of the music than previosly thought being copied is not owned by the copier, and as such the "discount" that was applied to the previous run of the tariff should be reduced from 37.5% to 5% to reflect this.

You might be able to use services like this legally, if you can claim that you were only copying for your own use (and not for the purpose of sharing).

The relevant section of the Copyright Act can be found here.

You might be able to use services like this legally, if you can claim that you were only copying for your own use (and not for the purpose of sharing).

The relevant section of the Copyright Act can be found here.

Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of (a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording, (b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or (c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

Unless I'm misunderstanding? Please correct me if I am.

> Canada is a separate and sovereign nation independent of the crown but acknowledges its past history with it.

Canada constitution was patriated in 1982. SOURCES OF CANADIAN LAW

Just one question:

Can *anyone* show me a definition for "patriated" -- because I can't find it *any* dictionary!

Originally (Until 1982) none of Canada's democratic institutions existed in Canada's constitution.

Not true. See part IV of the Constitution Act, 1867, for example.

A major constitutional ammendment requires: The support of all ten provincial legislatures and a 70% majority in a federal referrendum, and a 2/3 majority in the Commons and Senate.

Where are you getting this from? A referendum is not required, let alone a majority of 70%, and a 2/3 majority in the House of Commons and Senate is not required either. Furthermore, many amendments only require 2/3 of the provinces representing 50% of the population. See part V of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Originally (Until 1982) none of Canada's democratic institutions existed in Canada's constitution.

Not true. See part IV of the Constitution Act, 1867, for example.

A major constitutional ammendment requires: The support of all ten provincial legislatures and a 70% majority in a federal referrendum, and a 2/3 majority in the Commons and Senate.

Where are you getting this from? A referendum is not required, let alone a majority of 70%, and a 2/3 majority in the House of Commons and Senate is not required either. Furthermore, many amendments only require 2/3 of the provinces representing 50% of the population. See part V of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Check with a British IP lawyer before either:

• Believing in common sense being represented in the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 or
• Accusing me of being an American.

As it so happens, I live in a country which has a very similar Copyright Act to yours (or theirs; perhaps you're not a Brit, but you certainly write like one).

While I despise Anne's bill as much as anyone, you are a stupid cunt. Nobody has been arrested, and the bill passed on 24 Dec Details here. If your friends have been arrested it was under existing legislation, weeks before c36 (By your own timeline), and I would suggest you rethink who your friends are.

> But to those who believe in the right to bear
> arms up here - we can't.

We can bear arms. We don't consider it some sort of fundamental right. What, exactly, about being human confers the inalienable right to posses objects whose primary purpose is to kill other humans? You may want that right, but that doesn't mean the majority of people agree with you.

> To those who believe
> that we have freedom of speech? Freedom of the > press? Not in Canada. The government can
> censor you if they so choose.

What in the gibbering fuck are you talking about?!

From The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

Read it yourself

• Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
  • freedom of conscience and religion;
    
  • freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
    
  • freedom of peaceful assembly; and
    
  • freedom of association.
    

But they're taking away my right to do something that is perfectly legal in my country, make a copy of a CD(Or other audio recording) for my personal use. You know that levy that Canadians pay on blank CDs? Well, you can bet your ass that I'll fight it if I can't make a LEGAL copy of my legally purchased CD.

the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

2. Fundamental Rights
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

One of the main issues with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is that pretty much every right granted has an escape clause that allows it to be taken away. You have a right to free speech ... unless you offend someone. You have a right to communicate in whatever language you want ... unless a province overrides your rights (like Quebec). You have the right not to be discriminated against ... unless you are a white male.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

This is referred to by some as "The Mack Truck Clause". It's not truly clear whether "reasonable limits" are a strength or a weakness, but it is definitely subject to abuse.

Well, here is the entire Canadian constitution. Here is a site that explains how Canada's justice system works. Remember that most of Canada's justice works on a federal level, so you don't have to look up the sites of the provincial governements. Look at the Criminal Code of Canada, it's our main source of law in this country, notice that there are hate crime laws, and also laws about invasion of privacy.

Well, here is the entire Canadian constitution. Here is a site that explains how Canada's justice system works. Remember that most of Canada's justice works on a federal level, so you don't have to look up the sites of the provincial governements. Look at the Criminal Code of Canada, it's our main source of law in this country, notice that there are hate crime laws, and also laws about invasion of privacy.

DirecTV isn't licensed to broadcast in Canada.

what that means is that anyone who receives their signals does so in contravention of the Broadcasting Act, and in particular, s. 32(2).

however, DirecTV cannot prosecute under the Broadcasting Act; Canada has to. so in order to get Canadian pirates, they have to persuade the CRTC to go along. so far the CRTC hasn't cared much. this may eventually change, if more Canadians start getting DirecTV and StarChoice or somebody whines enough.

DirecTV isn't licensed to broadcast in Canada.

what that means is that anyone who receives their signals does so in contravention of the Broadcasting Act, and in particular, s. 32(2).

however, DirecTV cannot prosecute under the Broadcasting Act; Canada has to. so in order to get Canadian pirates, they have to persuade the CRTC to go along. so far the CRTC hasn't cared much. this may eventually change, if more Canadians start getting DirecTV and StarChoice or somebody whines enough.

DirecTV isn't licensed to broadcast in Canada.

what that means is that anyone who receives their signals does so in contravention of the Broadcasting Act, and in particular, s. 32(2).

however, DirecTV cannot prosecute under the Broadcasting Act; Canada has to. so in order to get Canadian pirates, they have to persuade the CRTC to go along. so far the CRTC hasn't cared much. this may eventually change, if more Canadians start getting DirecTV and StarChoice or somebody whines enough.

It's not stealing in Canada...

Actually, it's a matter of dispute. Recent court rulings have supported pirating DirecTV signals in Canada. However, the Crown is appealing the decisions.

The law seems fairly clear:

No person shall

(c) decode an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed otherwise than under and in accordance with an authorization from the lawful distributor of the signal or feed;

(d) operate a radio apparatus so as to receive an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed that has been decoded in contravention of paragraph (c); or

(e) retransmit to the public an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed that has been decoded in contravention of paragraph (c).

In any case, the main issue is whether it is ethical to pirate DirecTV even if there is a loophole in Canada's perverse telecommunications laws.

There is a similar question of whether it is ethical to even pay for DirecTV in Canada since DirecTV cannot be legally sold in Canada. The practical reason is that DirecTV can disable illegal receivers. Their measures might now work against the device described in this article.

Professor William Schabas,Université du Québec à Montreal:The second point that came up in the testimony over the last few weeks dealt with the so-called reverse onus provision, namely, clause 53 of the draft legislation. In effect, paragraph 2 of clause 53 eliminates the notion of reasonable doubt in prosecutions under this bill. That means that in submitting defences at any point in these cases, an accused will not have to raise a reasonable doubt but will have to prove innocence. That is a far-reaching provision. I am not aware of many provisions that strong in our criminal law. To get such a provision past the Supreme Court, you would have to demonstrate that the prosecution absolutely needs it in order to obtain convictions and that it cannot enforce the legislation without it. What the courts have done -- and the Supreme Court did this in a recent case -- is read down this kind of provision by saying that maybe it was all right to impose a burden on an accused to raise a reasonable doubt but it was going too far to impose a burden on an accused to prove innocence. The distinction is an important one. The Supreme Court said that if all you are doing is allowing someone to raise a reasonable doubt, you are not violating the notion of proof of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, you are in accordance with the law. The Charter provisions that are raised by this are sections 11(d) and 7.

...

I do not know of any law in Canada that reverses the burden of proof to the extent that people are guilty until proven innocent. To make someone guilty until proven innocent would mean that the police could lay a charge against someone or the prosecution would present a charge and then, in the absence of any evidence, that person would have to prove his or her innocence. I do not know of any legislation that does that.

We often do allow, on the proof of certain facts, other facts to be presumed. We then require the defendant to reply to those facts and to rebut them. In some cases, the defendant rebuts them by simply raising a doubt; in other cases, the defendant must rebut or refute these presumptions by proving the opposite. For example, the Oakes case concerned possession for purposes of trafficking in narcotics. Upon proof that someone was in possession of a certain quantity of narcotics, he was then presumed to be in possession for the purpose of trafficking and had to get in the witness box to prove the opposite. This provision states that if someone can raise valid defences to these things -- exception, exemption, excuse or qualification then he has to prove them instead of merely raise a reasonable doubt about them.

Normally, the general rule is that if you want to raise a reasonable doubt defence, you raise that doubt by saying you have, for example, an exemption. For example, let us say an 11-year-old child is charged with an offence under the act.

The Chair: He cannot be charged because he is a young offender.

Mr. Schabas: Exactly. Theoretically, he could be charged because the Crown may think that the young person is actually aged 19 years old. That person could then raise that argument. He would have to prove it and not just raise a reasonable doubt. He would have to raise not only a doubt about it, which is the normal principle in criminal law, but also prove it to the satisfaction of the trier of fact.

Professor William Schabas,Université du Québec à Montreal:The second point that came up in the testimony over the last few weeks dealt with the so-called reverse onus provision, namely, clause 53 of the draft legislation. In effect, paragraph 2 of clause 53 eliminates the notion of reasonable doubt in prosecutions under this bill. That means that in submitting defences at any point in these cases, an accused will not have to raise a reasonable doubt but will have to prove innocence. That is a far-reaching provision. I am not aware of many provisions that strong in our criminal law. To get such a provision past the Supreme Court, you would have to demonstrate that the prosecution absolutely needs it in order to obtain convictions and that it cannot enforce the legislation without it. What the courts have done -- and the Supreme Court did this in a recent case -- is read down this kind of provision by saying that maybe it was all right to impose a burden on an accused to raise a reasonable doubt but it was going too far to impose a burden on an accused to prove innocence. The distinction is an important one. The Supreme Court said that if all you are doing is allowing someone to raise a reasonable doubt, you are not violating the notion of proof of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, you are in accordance with the law. The Charter provisions that are raised by this are sections 11(d) and 7.

...

I do not know of any law in Canada that reverses the burden of proof to the extent that people are guilty until proven innocent. To make someone guilty until proven innocent would mean that the police could lay a charge against someone or the prosecution would present a charge and then, in the absence of any evidence, that person would have to prove his or her innocence. I do not know of any legislation that does that.

We often do allow, on the proof of certain facts, other facts to be presumed. We then require the defendant to reply to those facts and to rebut them. In some cases, the defendant rebuts them by simply raising a doubt; in other cases, the defendant must rebut or refute these presumptions by proving the opposite. For example, the Oakes case concerned possession for purposes of trafficking in narcotics. Upon proof that someone was in possession of a certain quantity of narcotics, he was then presumed to be in possession for the purpose of trafficking and had to get in the witness box to prove the opposite. This provision states that if someone can raise valid defences to these things -- exception, exemption, excuse or qualification then he has to prove them instead of merely raise a reasonable doubt about them.

Normally, the general rule is that if you want to raise a reasonable doubt defence, you raise that doubt by saying you have, for example, an exemption. For example, let us say an 11-year-old child is charged with an offence under the act.

The Chair: He cannot be charged because he is a young offender.

Mr. Schabas: Exactly. Theoretically, he could be charged because the Crown may think that the young person is actually aged 19 years old. That person could then raise that argument. He would have to prove it and not just raise a reasonable doubt. He would have to raise not only a doubt about it, which is the normal principle in criminal law, but also prove it to the satisfaction of the trier of fact.

Do not comment on what you clearly do not understand. As for Communism, it is probably one of the greatest evils ever inflicted on man. Horror, strife, demoralization and death of the human spirit are born of this atrocity.

Interesting getting such a lecture from a citizen of a country without free speech. Anyway we've wasted enough time. Back to work. Nose to the grindstone citizen we have a 5 year plan to complete!

safety Sorry No. Go down and have a look at the 'murder' columns, shows a value of deaths per 100k. US ends up w/ double digits with countries like the USSR, Latvia & Brazil - Drastically higher than sub 2 values of star performers like Canada, Belgium, Greece and Japan..

freedom Sorry No. Have a look at the Corruption Index (Scroll to Table 1), American Imperialism (and here), McArthyism.. I wont bother with the links: DMCA, Marijuana Prohibition, Prostitution, Collusive Monopolies (RIAA/MPAA), The Cuban Embargo, Kent State Massacre, Vietnam, Cambodia, Bay of Pigs, Iran-Contra Affair, Watergate, Assassinations of John/Bobby Kennedy & MLK, Invasion of Granada, The War on Drugs, Internet Censorship in Schools/Libraries, Consumerism, Work holism, Invasion of Dominican Republic, Gulf War, Systemic Racism (weak gay rights)... etc etc

quality of life Sorry No. Canada has the highest Standard of Living on the planet - 7 years running...

I went to Chicago for NewYears eve to visit some friends. On the way home we heard a news reporter 'lead out of a story' by saying "...and after all; we are the richest and most powerful people in the world." What I began to think is that Americans have begun to treat their 'democracy' (*ahem*) like a Religion. There is no debate. They have enjoyed a very good 150 years - and like all successful civilizations; it will eventually end. If America didnt have such a large piece of 'virgin' North America to exploit for natural resources, and did host a World War (or two) Im betting the world would be a very different place. The 'success' of America dosnt prove the 'rightness' of Capitalism - so get that out of your head. America's 'success' is not success at all! (See adbusters.org about consumerism and mindlessness). America would do itself a favour and learn a little collective humility. Surely the last election has taught you something...

The system has been horribly corrupt by politicians and business people 'on the take'. Their is no longer anyone in Washington who intends to lead Americans. To help America lead and become better global citizens - and try their best to help set a good example - and take examples from those who are already doing good. No person on this planet should be without the rights described in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the US Constitution (or similar documents written or yet-to-be written). Like it or not this is a Global Village and we should be working together for the good of us all.

I refuse to become cynical and jadded. People will respond that this is 'The Real World' - to that I suggest people decide what we are choosing to make this 'Real World' become? Like it or not our collective action/inaction everyday sets the course for the future. We need to stop the 'present' America from setting the course that it is now (and using arms/propaganda to force others into capitulating). (I wont bother with the globalization/imperialist/enslavement/end-of-the-p lanet scenario that is our current future).

Please American PEOPLE do something about your government.

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

There is no "Constitution" in Canada; nothing like what the States has, anyhow.

Check your facts. From 1867 to 1982, the Canadian Constitution was the British North America Act. That is, it was the act that Britain passed which made Canada a Dominion. It lived in London, and therefore any changes to it had to be made by the British Parliament. For example, in 1929 Nellie McClung et al. had women declared as persons under the law by going to London and arguing before the Privy Council.

In 1982, Prime Minsister Pierre Trudeau brough the Canadian constitution home to Canada, under the Constition Act which meant that we could change and rewrite it without the approval of the British Parliament. This Act, plus the subsequent amendments and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms make up the Canadian Constitution.

And if there were, it would have a very different idea of what it considers basic rights.

You're both right and wrong. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (written in 1982) is actually quite similar to the Bill of Rights -- partly because it took a lot of its ideas FROM the Bill of Rights. There are some key differences, however:

• The American Bill of Rights forms everything as a negative right. Thus, Americans don't have the right TO free speech -- they have the right to NOT have their rights to free speech taken away. This is part of the reason why in the States, free speech issues are particularly messy, and things like Gun Control Laws are hard to pass.
• The first thing in the Charter states that all of our Guaranteed Freedoms are subject to &quotReasonable Limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" This allows for things like laws against hate literature.

So Sydney is NOT asking the Canadian Government to defend American rights in a more enlightened manner, he's asking them to defend OUR rights, in a more enlightened manner. Which makes sense since (IMHO) our rights were granted to us in a more enlightened manner. (Mind you, we had 200 years of the American example to learn from.) There is no inherent hypocracy in the article.

The only thing that annoys me more than Americans who spout off incorrect garbage about Canada are Canadians who spout off incorrect garbage about Canada.

There is no "Constitution" in Canada; nothing like what the States has, anyhow.

Check your facts. From 1867 to 1982, the Canadian Constitution was the British North America Act. That is, it was the act that Britain passed which made Canada a Dominion. It lived in London, and therefore any changes to it had to be made by the British Parliament. For example, in 1929 Nellie McClung et al. had women declared as persons under the law by going to London and arguing before the Privy Council.

In 1982, Prime Minsister Pierre Trudeau brough the Canadian constitution home to Canada, under the Constition Act which meant that we could change and rewrite it without the approval of the British Parliament. This Act, plus the subsequent amendments and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms make up the Canadian Constitution.

And if there were, it would have a very different idea of what it considers basic rights.

You're both right and wrong. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (written in 1982) is actually quite similar to the Bill of Rights -- partly because it took a lot of its ideas FROM the Bill of Rights. There are some key differences, however:

• The American Bill of Rights forms everything as a negative right. Thus, Americans don't have the right TO free speech -- they have the right to NOT have their rights to free speech taken away. This is part of the reason why in the States, free speech issues are particularly messy, and things like Gun Control Laws are hard to pass.
• The first thing in the Charter states that all of our Guaranteed Freedoms are subject to &quotReasonable Limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" This allows for things like laws against hate literature.

So Sydney is NOT asking the Canadian Government to defend American rights in a more enlightened manner, he's asking them to defend OUR rights, in a more enlightened manner. Which makes sense since (IMHO) our rights were granted to us in a more enlightened manner. (Mind you, we had 200 years of the American example to learn from.) There is no inherent hypocracy in the article.

The only thing that annoys me more than Americans who spout off incorrect garbage about Canada are Canadians who spout off incorrect garbage about Canada.

This is not cool. And this bit about abridging free speech to only poitical matters: no way. I'm sorry; the US government is bad in a lot of ways, but it's done one thing I'm proud of: it's the only nation with a free speech clause in its Constitution.

May I take this time to point out how ignorant you are and direct you to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

You might enjoy freedom 2 b, I know I do.

-- iCEBaLM

You want a good one? Check out the Government of Canada vs. the US tobacco firms.

Good case :-)

Actually it is covered by the C anadian Copyright Act. S ection 31 covers Retransmission. This is half out of the jurisdiction of the CRTC. I say half because they have influence over the Broadcasting Act.

Retransmission of local signals
(2) It is not an infringement of copyright to communicate to the public by telecommunication any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work if
(a) the communication is a retransmission of a local or distant signal;
(b) the retransmission is lawful under the Broadcasting Act;
(c) the signal is retransmitted simultaneously and in its entirety, except as otherwise required or permitted by or under the laws of Canada; and
(d) in the case of the retransmission of a distant signal, the retransmitter has paid any royalties, and complied with any terms and conditions, fixed under this Act.

The Globe and Mail has a number of articles on iCraveTV that give a better explanation of the court date and give a thorough background on Mr. Craig.

The information I have read is conflicting over whether this is a Canadian company or a company based out of Pittsburgh.

Checking with NSI it looks like their domain is registered in Pittsburgh.

Registrant:
WILLIAM R. CRAIG CONSULTING (ICRAVETV-DOM)
904 Beaver St
SEWICKLEY, PA 15143
US

Domain Name: ICRAVETV.COM

Administrative Contact:
REGISTRAR, DOMAIN (DR13484)
dom@ACEMAIL.COM
416 410 6245X33 (FAX) 416 410 6245
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
WILLIAM R. CRAIG CONSULTING (WR948-ORG) no.valid.email@WORLDNIC.NET
412 741 8139
Billing Contact:
WILLIAM R. CRAIG CONSULTING (WR948-ORG) no.valid.email@WORLDNIC.NET
412 741 8139

Record last updated on 24-Nov-1999.
Record created on 26-Oct-1999.
Database last updated on 29-Jan-2000
01:24:44 EST.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS1.ACEMAIL.NET 205.207.26.2
NS2.INTERLOG.COM 207.34.202.6

Actually it is covered by the C anadian Copyright Act. S ection 31 covers Retransmission. This is half out of the jurisdiction of the CRTC. I say half because they have influence over the Broadcasting Act.

Retransmission of local signals
(2) It is not an infringement of copyright to communicate to the public by telecommunication any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work if
(a) the communication is a retransmission of a local or distant signal;
(b) the retransmission is lawful under the Broadcasting Act;
(c) the signal is retransmitted simultaneously and in its entirety, except as otherwise required or permitted by or under the laws of Canada; and
(d) in the case of the retransmission of a distant signal, the retransmitter has paid any royalties, and complied with any terms and conditions, fixed under this Act.

The Globe and Mail has a number of articles on iCraveTV that give a better explanation of the court date and give a thorough background on Mr. Craig.

The information I have read is conflicting over whether this is a Canadian company or a company based out of Pittsburgh.

Checking with NSI it looks like their domain is registered in Pittsburgh.

Registrant:
WILLIAM R. CRAIG CONSULTING (ICRAVETV-DOM)
904 Beaver St
SEWICKLEY, PA 15143
US

Domain Name: ICRAVETV.COM

Administrative Contact:
REGISTRAR, DOMAIN (DR13484)
dom@ACEMAIL.COM
416 410 6245X33 (FAX) 416 410 6245
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
WILLIAM R. CRAIG CONSULTING (WR948-ORG) no.valid.email@WORLDNIC.NET
412 741 8139
Billing Contact:
WILLIAM R. CRAIG CONSULTING (WR948-ORG) no.valid.email@WORLDNIC.NET
412 741 8139

Record last updated on 24-Nov-1999.
Record created on 26-Oct-1999.
Database last updated on 29-Jan-2000
01:24:44 EST.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS1.ACEMAIL.NET 205.207.26.2
NS2.INTERLOG.COM 207.34.202.6