Slashdot Mirror

The only part that's wrong is your post.

In Canada: S.1 stipulates, " 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."

In other words all following sections including the "fundamental freedom" in S.2 exist at the behest of the government, courts, and all that jazz. This is why we have "hate crime" kangaroo courts up here, which could and in some cases still do walk all over you and your case will never be seen by a jury, or even a judge. But by appointed bureaucrats.

just pretend he said canadian charter or rights and freedoms

Which is part of the Canadian constitution...

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html

The other option of course being what we have in the USA that people simply die from lack of treatment.

I hope you realize that this happens in the "socialized system" too. Happens in Canada, happens in the UK, and so on. We have several shining cases of people being transferred around, and around, and around to different hospitals so they can get emergency life saving treatment...only to die in the ambulance after the 3rd hospital is shut down.

I don't know if it's funny or sad, that you guys in the US are just now catching on that this was a freaking disaster. I said that a few years ago, and the /. crowd blasted me for it. Stupid to ignore someone who lives under such a system already. Let me point out again, that in Canada the Health Act at the federal level can fit on a couple of 8x10 sheets of paper, in a standard font. What's that monstrosity down in the US now? 1200, 1500 pages or something?

Pft. Idiots, the entire lot of you for sucking at the great and grand idea that federal level control is the way to do it. State/Provincial control is the only way to do it.

in Canada this would actually make it _more_ illegal (oddly enough). By welding it so it is non-functional, that changes the class of firearm from Non-restricted (loosely: rifles) or Restricted (loosely: handguns) to Prohibited (it's now a replica firearm....). Be sure to consult appropriate legal advice before attempting this stunt.

Under Canadian law, deactivated firearms (i.e., those welded up to be non-functional) are a separate legal category from replica firearms. Replica firearms are prohibited devices, deactivated firearms are chunks of metal with no legal status. They have very different legal consequences, despite being indistinguishable without close physical examination (which most police officers will not be trained or interested enough to do).

This makes no sense whatsoever, but is how Canada's firearms laws actually work.

Verification sources: Canada's Firearms Act and the Canadian Firearm's Program's call centre (1-800-731-4000 from Canada and the U.S.).

However, section 1 does set limits on the rights granted in other sections.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html#h-40

Rights and freedoms in Canada

1. 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 why hate speech and obscenity laws are enforceable.

The one regarding " fraudulently obtaining telecommunications services" is pretty straight forward.

326. (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently, maliciously, or without colour of right,

        (a) abstracts, consumes or uses electricity or gas or causes it to be wasted or diverted; or

        (b) uses any telecommunication facility or obtains any telecommunication service.

Noting:

(2) In this section and section 327, "telecommunication" means any transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images or sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, visual or other electromagnetic system.

That charge can be laid against someone who illegally uses access to a telecommunication service--meaning phones, illegal wiretaps, and so on. Also including breaking into wifi networks and so on.

You mean the Fox News that is banned up here in Canada because it is too biased and inaccurate for it to be allowed to be called a news program?

You know, if you're going to lie. Make it believable, it's available in Canada as a specialty channel. I should know, I was one of the key people who got it carried here, being an ardent charter believer that S2 of the Charter means what it says.

Indeed. Our laws are far more specific and deal with different mediums in different ways. While far from perfect or comprehensive there are 20 different types of exceptions. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-42/

The one that protects individuals in a huge way is http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-42/page-21.html#h-31 - especially since it can allow for costs. You can still gain revenue from the work so long as you do not gain overall or in a substantial way (ie: advertising revenue is likely not going to recover the costs of producing said videos)

Indeed. Our laws are far more specific and deal with different mediums in different ways. While far from perfect or comprehensive there are 20 different types of exceptions. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-42/

The one that protects individuals in a huge way is http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-42/page-21.html#h-31 - especially since it can allow for costs. You can still gain revenue from the work so long as you do not gain overall or in a substantial way (ie: advertising revenue is likely not going to recover the costs of producing said videos)

The limitation of liability in Canadian cases is $5k for all infringement in a court case for non-commercial copyright infringement, but the more likely "get" is just $100. When their first "successful" case goes through the court system with a judgement of $100, it will make the news headlines and their business model will be destroyed.

A COMPANY violating the copyrights of artists by using their images without permission on their BUSINESS website doesn't sound like non-commercial copyright infringement. What's the penalty for commercial copyright infringement in Canada? According to Canada's Justice Laws website section 35.1 states:

35. (1) Where a person infringes copyright, the person is liable to pay such damages to the owner of the copyright as the owner has suffered due to the infringement and, in addition to those damages, such part of the profits that the infringer has made from the infringement and that were not taken into account in calculating the damages as the court considers just.

and section 38.1 states:

38.1 (1) Subject to this section, a copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of damages and profits referred to in subsection 35(1), an award of statutory damages for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally,

        (a) in a sum of not less than $500 and not more than $20,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for each work or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for commercial purposes; and

        (b) in a sum of not less than $100 and not more than $5,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for all works or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for non-commercial purposes.

Now does each photo they are alleged to have copied without satisfying the terms of the license count as a separate infringement or are they all lumped together? If the former, that could be very, very bad for them.

As long as they guarantee the right within reasonable boundaries, what's the problem with registering...? Unless you believe that your government is already fascist, in which case it's too late to worry about it.

Hello, welcome to Canada. The following line allows the courts and government to strip away any right if they can "demonstrate" why they can should be allowed to do so, so here are a few examples.

1. 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.

That there little line has allowed: Warrantless stops(AKA the RIDE program), to allow the searching of cell phones without a password without a warrant--despite the fact that Sec. 8 states no unreasonable search and seizure. Oh and we don't have property rights here.

I could go on, but there's really no point.

Who's to say what they're going to do with that [contact] information besides launch a bullshit lawsuit?

Not "who", but "what" : Canada's PIPEDA law explicitly prohibits Personal Information collected for one purpose from being used for a different purpose (without consent).

I suspect that by modest changes they mean that they are going to gut our rights. Anyone who works in government quickly learns that control of information is power. It makes them angry that they can't get more information and it makes them scared that we can get so much.

Well, my first question is do you actually live in Canada? If you did you'd already know that the SCC has a history of upholding the charter of rights and freedoms against intrusive laws unless the government can justifiably demonstrate that there is a valid S.1 argument. And there have been very few cases where the SCC has let the S.1 argument give leeway. Probably the best case to show where the government has been given leeway under that is the RIDE Program, where warrentless stopping of a vehicle is considered a small enough violation of public rights vs the protection of society as a whole.

Remember now, that this has already been to court in terms of the warrentless wiretap, and the SCC struck it down as an overeach of power. This bill is to come into compliance to the SCC's ruling, it will end up being challenged again, and if the bill is found to be in breach or an excessive overreach the SCC will strike it down again.

1. The Currency Act already has provisions for jokers like you. The penny is not legal tender for a payment of over 25 cents. Similar limitations are in place for all coins.

2. Worn? You're talking about a steel disc. Pennies don't wear out, they get considered worthless and tossed in jars (or worse, the trash) and more need to be made to maintain its availability for circulation.

The people who actually hold the copyright says you don't have a license.

The act of downloading itself is a violation of copyright, yes. You are making a copy when you have no license to do so. There is no exemption in the DMCA for personal use of something you didn't pay for. Exemptions in the DMCA include unlocking your phone for carrier portability and research purposes in an effort to maintain functionality/compatibility when there is no reasonable way to do so with the copyright holder's consent (i.e., company/product is dead, NOT update / new version is more expensive).

Copyright holders have a short list of approved sources. A scene release of a BluRay rip isn't one of them. Despite what we all may want, we are not allowed (under the DMCA) to rip our DVDs / BluRays. Even if we have the right to format shift our content (and this is nebulously defined at best with regards to CDs, but they've given up that fight) we do NOT have the right to break the encryption.

*sight*, I know I shouldn't FTT, but...

1) Canadians have a legal right to have and use (private use only) format-shifted versions of content they have purchased (i.e., they have the Blu-Ray or DVD disc in their hot little hands), but...
2) Canadians are not allowed to circumvent digital locks to create their own format-shifted media, ergo...
3) The only way for Canadians to assert their right to create a for-private-use, format-shifted copy of the media they have already legally obtained is to download a copy with the DRM bullshit already stripped out, presumably by someone in another country with less dog-chasing-its-tail legislation. They'd have to leech, though, because while downloading a copy for private use is not explicitly defined as infringement, 'giving the reproduction away' (i.e., uploading) is. See C-42, Section 29.22.

If the content providers don't like it, they are heartily encouraged to provide their media in a format without digital locks, so the average Canuck can assert their right to format shift directly. Heck, if they ever clue in, they would make a crap-ton of money simply by directly providing the content that people want already encoded in the format they want it, while still allowing their users the freedom to shift their purchased content to meet future technology.

I don't see iTunes, Google Music or Amazon MP3 sales negatively affecting their parent companies any...although admittedly these services are slowly killing the sales of physical media, since people don't have to waste time buying the disc, ripping it, then finding a place to let it collect dust. Why do you suppose the same model would not work for video? Why do you believe that, in 5-10 years, optical media will still be relevant? I can so easily see even BluRay going the way of vinyl records and cassettes: a quaint format that will be kept alive by nostalgia-seekers, but certainly not the primary distribution format.

Yes, such a model would mean they can't go back to the trough every time the user changes their end devices, but that was always a transparent, rent-seeking money grab to begin with. If your bookcase breaks and you have to replace it, should you be forced to re-purchase all of the books you kept in it? What if you want to move to a fancy automated bookcase with robotic seek-and-find capabilities or integrated visual title/author tracking? Forcing their users to repurchase media every time they want to access the same content in a different way, or from a different device, or without having to be bombarded with the 'optional' (yet somehow unskippable) advertising crap before seeing the content they paid for has fully backfired on them. Their users finally have the tools to fight back against the greed, and I for one am glad to see them in widespread usage.

They don't have any freedom of speech rights specified in their constitution.

Bullshit. About twenty seconds of Googling would have uncovered this section of 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.

I was going to print some plastic knuckles on my 3d printer for fun but after looking for some designs, I stumbled onto the government website that brass knuckles or any similar device is a prohibited weapon. It is kind of scary to think If I get a virus on my computer and it prints an illegal object, I would be subject to prosecution under the criminal code. I don't think I will attempt printing a handgun.

They are called Grooming Laws

I believe that you are referring to section 172.1 of the Criminal Code.

However, the language is quite explicit: "for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence [...]".
Which is contrary you your original assertion.

(right after a court case where a pedo who never intended to meet his victim got off)

I apologize for getting this discussion off the original topic, but your statement is, for a lack of better word, interesting.

Firstly, if the person "never intended to meet [the child]", and presumably didn't, why would you call the child "his victim"?

Secondly, you seem to be conflating two different concepts. To wit:
A pedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children.
A child molester is a person who physically abuses children (sexually or otherwise).

To illustrate the difference, ask yourself two simple yes/no questions:
Q1. Are you sexually attracted to beautiful women?
Q2. Are you a rapist, a potential rapist or an equivalent thereof?

If you answered "yes" to the first question but "no" to the other, please consider your reasons and try to apply them to other, similar, situations.

If you mean this Canada Health Act then no it does not fit on a 8"x11" sheet of paper. Also the Canada Health Act grew out of provincial plans for universal health care. There are no equivalent plans in the US. There are no state health care acts that require every citizen to pay premiums for health care as there were in some provinces in Canada. The Canada Health Act defines what must be done by the provinces and the provinces implement it. It is this way because the British North America Act 1867 stipulates that health care implementation is a provincial area. I know of no similar law in the US.

Right now most health care in the US is provided to people who have private health insurance usually paid for by their employers. That puts many people in the US without adequate health care. Perhaps if there was a better way of providing health care for everyone in the US than obanacare might agree but as of now there is not.

So you can specify a minimum level of health care on one 8x11? Bullshit. You are a liar.

Yes, you can. You're just an idiot. And the entire bill is a power grab. Oh here's the "entire " of the CHA. Or the Canada Health act. This is the entire legal framework which all healthcare in Canada is based on for "socialized medicine."

The person who wrote the law was brilliant, and was able to condense the entire act simply and fill in everything fully. Ensuring that the provinces were fully responsible. While the federal government provided a fully hands-off approach to the entire system. So, now don't be so naive.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-6/FullText.html

Short title

1. This Act may be cited as the Canada Health Act.

1984, c. 6, s. 1.

INTERPRETATION
Marginal note:Definitions

2. In this Act,

âoeAct of 1977â

âoeAct of 1977â[Repealed, 1995, c. 17, s. 34]

âoecash contributionâ

 contribution pécuniaire Â

âoecash contributionâ means the cash contribution in respect of the Canada Health and Social Transfer that may be provided to a province under subsections 15(1) and (4) of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act;
âoecontributionâ

âoecontributionâ[Repealed, 1995, c. 17, s. 34]

âoedentistâ

 dentiste Â

âoedentistâ means a person lawfully entitled to practise dentistry in the place in which the practice is carried on by that person;

âoeextended health care servicesâ

 services complémentaires de santé Â

âoeextended health care servicesâ means the following services, as more particularly defined in the regulations, provided for residents of a province, namely,

(a) nursing home intermediate care service,

(b) adult residential care service,

(c) home care service, and

(d) ambulatory health care service;

âoeextra-billingâ

 surfacturation Â

âoeextra-billingâ means the billing for an insured health service rendered to an insured person by a medical practitioner or a dentist in an amount in addition to any amount paid or to be paid for that service by the health care insurance plan of a province;

âoehealth care insurance planâ

 régime dâ(TM)assurance-santé Â

âoehealth care insurance planâ means, in relation to a province, a plan or plans established by the law of the province to provide for insured health services;

âoehealth care practitionerâ

 professionnel de la santé Â

âoehealth care practitionerâ means a person lawfully entitled under the law of a province to provide health services in the place in which the services are provided by that person;

âoehospitalâ

 hÃpital Â

âoehospitalâ includes any facility or portion thereof that provides hospital care, including acute, rehabilitative or chronic care, but does not include

(a) a hospital or institution primarily for the mentally disordered, or

Canada has its own constitution.

In Canada, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act bans "Cannabis, its preparations, derivatives and similar synthetic preparations".

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-38.8/page-24.html#h-27

Okay, let's just clear something up about Canadian hate propoganda laws. What, exactly, is forbidden?

1. Advocating or promoting genocide.
2. Inciting hatred where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.

That's all. I can stand around all day shouting that I hate Jews, or Mexicans, or people with purple hair. As long as I'm not telling other people that we should kill them all, or beat them up, or burn their houses and rape their wives, I am not committing an offense under the Criminal Code.

Are you seriously going to argue that this is an unjust law?

BTW - reference, if you care to check it - the Criminal Code of Canada. Look at sections 318 and 319 for the hate propoganda laws.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/

The entire article is flamebait as it stands. 10 years is the maximum you can get. And our judicial system is built around the judge deciding the punishments anyway. So you might have 10 years on the books, and end up with them having a S/C(summery conviction) style sentence applied. 30days-weekends, 2 years less a day(no federal time served), community service.

I already mentioned this in another post but 351 does NOT cover wearing a mask/ect while committing an I/O. Full text of course:

351

        351. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on them, has in their possession any instrument suitable for the purpose of breaking into any place, motor vehicle, vault or safe under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the instrument has been used or is or was intended to be used for such a purpose,

                (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

                (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
        Marginal note:Disguise with intent

        (2) Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

CC 351(2) only covers S.351 that's it. Meh typical CBC tripe and garbage, can't even be bothered to ask someone from the legal dept. to check to make sure that their understanding of the law is correct. Let alone call the upper canada law society, they give out advice on this stuff for free!

Sadly I don't think the author understand that 351 of the CC is for B&E's aka entering a dwelling house(home), vehicle, etc, etc, etc. 351 does NOT cover wearing a disguise while committing a I/O. It only covers it in s.351.

351 in the full text:

351. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on them, has in their possession any instrument suitable for the purpose of breaking into any place, motor vehicle, vault or safe under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the instrument has been used or is or was intended to be used for such a purpose,

                (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

                (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
        Marginal note:Disguise with intent

        (2) Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

What this law would deal with is the same as what Quebec passed about 10 years ago to deal with black-block and anarchists, and other shit rats who like to hide their faces and smash property, businesses and all the rest. Protest all you want. But if you riot, your ass is going to be nailed for that and trying to hide. It would be so much easier if they simply started using the riot act again.

Canadian Politicians know most Canadians would never vote for anyone threatening their healthcare.However, I think there is more to this, and it's about the Canada Health Act itself:

The Canada Health Act is all about money.
Failure to comply with it means that the federal Government will not give any money out to the Provincial Health Authority.
Canada Health act on Wikipedia

PURPOSE
Marginal note:Purpose of this Act
4. The purpose of this Act is to establish criteria and conditions in respect of insured health services and extended health care services provided under provincial law that must be met before a full cash contribution may be made.

Canada Health Act

tl;dr
I think that The Alberta Wildrose Alliance stance on Healthcare is more because they are catering to a Canadian population and making sure they continue receiving Federal Funds rather than whether they lean Left or Right.

Just Like how in the U.S. the Department of Transportation is cutting and gutting into businesses that want to create roads and charge people to use them because you know, they're Gov't funded so can undercut these businesses even to the point of providing roads that can be travelled on for free cause they can just use funds given to them and don't need to charge the users.

No i do not see how the CBC is exceeding their funding mandate. probably because i've actually you know, read it. maybe you should give that a go too.
below is an excerpt from the CBC Site which i find relevant:
 

"...the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains; ...the programming provided by the Corporation should: ...be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose,

it would seem that they are doing exactly this.

The Full Broadcasting act is available here
I am unable to find anything in it that makes it seem that the CBC would be exceeding their funding mandate.

Plus, the CBC being a Crown Corporation, is run by the state and funded by tax dollars, which also allows for many unfair advantages - They're claiming non-proft, getting the tax break, and being funded by tax dollars to begin with, don't even need to be profitable or self-sustaining, and is, as a result, undercutting big media.

Contrary to what people here (who really will just say anything to avoid just coming out and saying that all this hoopla is because they want things for free), might insist, this is a huge dick move by the CBC, and they have every reason to be pissed.

How is it a dick move to do precisely what they were set up to do?
from their mandate:

The 1991 Broadcasting Act states that...
"...the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains; ...
be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose, and ...

this would seem to be the most efficient means to provide this service.
the fee was negotiated and agreed to. you can't change your mind afterwards unless you hold that right as part of the initial agreement.

Canada has decided as a country that they wanted to set up a body to make entertainment available to all its citizens the CBC is doing that in the best way possible. sorry if you don't like that but well, deal with it.

And all this talk about innovation is patently absurd, you'll see these very same people in any other thread arguing about how "blah blah blah ON A TABLET" is invalid and not innovative, but now, "blah blah blah, BUT FOR FREE" is the be all, end all of innovation?

1. They're not trying to patent a model for free distribution of music.
2. Their distribution method is not exactly the same as big media, only free.

The best part is how the plaintiff claims that their case depends on "Section 63" of the CPC act. There is no section 63!
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-10/

The victim of an assault pointed at her photo and said she committed the assault. That is why she was arrested. Going in for the interview merely set the time and place that the arrest would occur. If she declined the interview, they would have come to her home or workplace and taken her to the police station. Arrests occur upon serious suspicion, not upon establishment of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The only way to avoid arrest is to lower the level of suspicion. Silence does not reduce the suspicion. Having your statement come from your attorney does not reduce the suspicion any more than if it came directly from you. If she went to her attorney and said I have a couple of text messages and an alibi from a boyfriend the attorney would have probably said "you are going to need more than that, lets go get some affidavits from other people who attended the art opening art opening before we talk to the police". Such is the value of an attorney.

This. It's also worth pointing out that in Canada, there's no such thing as a 5th Amendment. The closest we have is section 11c of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ( http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/page-1.html ) which says you can't be compelled to bear witness against yourself.

She should definitely sue the city for legal expenses... this definitely sounds like they violated her Section 9 right not to be arbitrarily detained. The police developed tunnel vision, and ignored her alibi. They basically discounted her testimony on the word of somebody who had been drinking and could not have had the best recollection of the sequence of events. When they drop the charges, it's not a judgement in her favour, which means she has to do more than file a motion asking for reimbursement for expenses.

Also, despite what some people are saying, she's not an unknown within the art community. I have heard of her, and don't even live in Toronto. (though to be fair, I'm the kind of person who would rather go to a vernissage than a sporting event).

The relevant clause of our Charter of Rights in Canada:

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

It is a good ruling. Because this whole thing, the ruling, the idea, the whole concept of 'protected content' exists to "protect" canadians from the "evil" american culture. You know, despite the fact that the majority of the population lives within 100 miles of the US. And can get FTA broadcasts. It's actually so bad here, that they simulcast stations, stripping out american channels and replace them with canadian ones. So you only see what the government(cancon) allows you to see.

For those that don't understand let's try this as an example, on channel 3(cdn) you have family guy. On channel 7(US) you have family guy. Now, they pull channel 7, and put channel 3 in it's place. So, now you have channel 3, on channel 7's place as well. Enjoy. Oh, did I mention that American satellite dishes are illegal in Canada? It's a $10k fine if you have one(theft of service). You can't get subscriptions legally here either. Though you can get around it, kind of by having a US address, it's a grey area still. There was actually a few cases a few years ago where the police were going around and seizing the equipment of people, dishes and all that.

Oh Canada, land of the free and all that right? Remember, what S.2 of our charter of rights and freedoms says:

Fundamental 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.

What does S.1 says?

1. 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.

Yep, you read that right. Your fundamental rights are determined by what the government, courts, and special government bodies(like the CRTC) says they are. In other words, the charter is worth less than the paper it's written on.

"Well it is not like anyone is even shown evidence that the holocaust ever happened"

You can go to Europe and look for yourself. Several of the Nazi prison camps have been preserved. There are lots of records as well, many of them kept by the Nazis themselves, others eyewitness accounts from liberators, citizens and observers of many different nations.

If you don't believe a scientist, you're free to check what he says. You might have to invest a considerable amount of time, but you can. If you don't want to do it personally, there are others who will, and do. Priests... not so much.

"As for Canada (my country as well), I believe you are wrong. I don't think anything is really said about hate speech."

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=canada%20hate%20speech%20laws&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHate_speech_laws_in_Canada&ei=664cT-eiMOb00gGpus3KAQ&usg=AFQjCNGr3grkKI0DzF70DLOo_yZAbIK8Bw

or, if you prefer, the actual criminal code (check sections 318 and 319):

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/FullText.html

Don't "believe," find out. It's a little bit of work to see evidence of the holocaust with your own eyes (originals, anyway). It's beyond your reach to verify all of science, but you can do spot checks if you feel like it, and things like the computer you typed your message on verify some of the rest. But that last thing you could have checked in about thirty seconds with an elementary Google search.

There's also the "Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act" (They couldn't agree on a short title) that was passed last year, though the implementation of it is moving at a glacial pace.

Every internet/media company should be subject to the same legal standards of privacy as the others, and all companies should be monitored for compliance.

Canada has had federal laws regarding information privacy since 1985. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-21/index.html

It's probably due for some updating, but there is legislation in place that these companies are required to abide by if they want to serve the Canadian market.

Was the stealing shameful or not?

It's only stealing if the "victim" does not consent to it.

Depends on where you live. Theft is defined, for example, in Canada's Criminal Code here (the definition says "if you take something without having been specifically allowed to" rather than "only if you are specifically denied the right to").

But that definition is mostly irrelevant here since OpenWRT code wasn't stolen.

That said, the UK does not have 'Free Speech' (neither do we in Canada)

Canadians enjoy a freedom of expression, as explained in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Fundamental 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.

For example if somebody reposts a post of mine (of which I automatically own the copyright) in part or in whole, they're breaking my copyright.

Just want to point out that you are perpetuating a common misconception - two, actually.

1. Not everything you post is automatically copyrightable.

For example, if you posted "1+1=2", that is not subject to copyright. It is neither original nor creative, as well as being a non-copyrightable fact.

Also, things that are trivial are not copyrightable. Look at the whole linux header files debate.

Then there's this HUGE hole - people think that they can protect an idea by copyright, when copyright doesn't allow it:

(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

This is why you can't copyright the rules of a game - just the artwork, etc.

2. People can repost your post without your permission under certain circumstances without breaking your copyright.

Fair use is just one example. Libraries and archives are another. In Canada, news media can repost it under section 29.2 of the Canadian Copyright Act without compensation as long as they provide attribution.

It didn't.

While Canada does indeed have the charter of rights and freedoms. And we adhere to the charter of human rights. In Canada, freedom of speech, expression and so on are not absolute rights.

Ala:

Rights and freedoms in Canada

1. 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 limits the individuals rights and freedoms as described by the government. Americans like to whine how much their freedom has been curtailed and all this other shit. But they don't actually have it spelled out in their bill of rights that the government via law or the courts arbitrarily curtail them. Luckily this has only happened in a few cases. S.1 applying to the RIDE program for instance which gives automatic search powers.

Wow, you mean Canada's copyright implementation fails to fulfill the mandate of the constitution of another country?

First let me clarify: Nowhere did I intend to imply that a foreign country's constitution was the basis underlying Canadian copyright. But the framers of the 1982 constitution had to be aware of its neighbor's mandate. In fact, what mandate underlies Canadian copyright? #91 gives none. And the country that has such a mandate likewise has an orphan works problem.

This being Canada, and all that. We take a very dim view of this type of stuff. So cheaters beware, you will be criminally nailed to the wall for it.
Ala:

404. Every one who falsely, with intent to gain advantage for himself or some other person, personates a candidate at a competitive or qualifying examination held under the authority of law or in connection with a university, college or school or who knowingly avails himself of the results of such personation is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Summer conviction means 2 years or less.

If Canada doesn't have a charter of rights, then what's this?

I think you're confusing age of consent and age of majority. In Canada, the age of consent for sexual activity is 16 years, prior to 2008 it was 14. The age of consent for sex workers is 18. Sex workers under the age of 18 in Canada are by definition child prostitutes. Canada also enforces the 18 year age of consent for sex workers on it's citizens when they travel abroad.

The age of majority refers to the age at which people become adults in the eyes of the law (voting, signing contracts, etc) and has nothing to do with sexual activity.

In Thailand, the age of consent is 15 for non sex workers and 18 for sex workers. Although prostitution is quite accepted in Thailand, child prostitution is not.

This is untrue. The Copyright Board of Canada has advised that the levy DOES protect copying and P2P downloading.

I believe you are incorrect. The section of the revised Copyright Act only grants a limited right to making a private copy.

While subsection 1 of section 80 does indeed grant a limited right to make a private copy, it has restrictions, as noted in subsection 2:

(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):

(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;
(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.

You can certainly make a copy of your own CD. You can't use a P2P program to share (and because even leachers need to at least take part in sharing the data as to what parts they need of the .torrent, it can be argued that they are also taking part in (c) above, and not exempt).

The big print giveth, the fine print taketh away.

I'll also note that you haven't at all refuted the key question, which is whether there is sufficient evidence to believe the individual whose extradition is sought committed the crime and merits a trial. Honestly, it's hard for me to imagine any other question that's relevant.

Canadian extradition works under a simple (well, sort of) premise:

Is there enough evidence for the accused to go to trial in Canada if charged with the same crime?

If the US has not provided the details of the accusation then by matter of law, he should be released. By law, he should have been released after 30 days, 90 if the minister approves an extension, but no longer than that (see sections 40-43 of the Extradition Act.

If Canada is continuing to hold him, they most certainly are breaking law, and there can be severe repercussions for doing so.

Not all writable media.

Currently, it is 24 cents per audio cassette (which you can't buy anymore -- you can correct me if incorrect) and 29 cents on all blank CD (R, RW) or minidisc.

Blank DVDs, hard drives, MP3 players, and the sort are exempt from the tax.

Sources:

Wikipedia

If you don't like Wikipedia, you can read it in the mess of legalese in The Canadian Copyright Act C-42.

Looking at the wiki page and the Government of Canada Justice department web site http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-42/page-5.html#anchorbo-ga:l_VIII it looks like copying for private use is NOT piracy. "Copying for Private Use ... 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." I guess it's not the file sharers the US doesn't like, it's the Canadian government.

Time to drag out the serious tools. Under the "Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (2000, c. 17)" http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/P-24.501 there must be a way to seize their assets. There's no end of evidence that "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" are fellow travellers, so it is reasonable to presume that drug trafficing has been instrumental (at least peripherally) to their business. With the reverse onus, it then becomes their job to prove it wasn't if they want the presumed proceeds back. That could include most of their catalogues...

I hope that criminal charges are pressed by the federal Crown (government) prosecutor, such massive scale for-profit (criminal) infringement cannot be tolerated. (Section 42 of the Copyright Act)

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/1.html