Slashdot Mirror

Not a big deal, you're trying to make an issue out of a law that's not enforced, but still on the book. Canada has a similar law:

Blasphemous Libel

Offence
296. (1) Every one who publishes a blasphemous libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Question of fact
(2) It is a question of fact whether or not any matter that is published is a blasphemous libel.

Saving
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 260.

So yes you're missing something, you have a hate-on for Israel. In fact, several european countries have functioning blasphemy laws, and they're being used right now to suppress dissent.

I'm from Canada.. and I've never been in the situation, but as I understand it...

In Canada, just as in the United States, we have uninformed people with no legal training or law enforcement experience willing to make inaccurate and misleading pronouncements about how screwed up our laws are.

Canadian law provides for the use of force - up to and including lethal force - to repel forcible entry into one's home. Section 40 of the Criminal Code of Canada (my emphasis added):

Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling-house without lawful authority.

Google gets dragged into Federal court and charged with [insert large number] counts of violation of the Canadian PIPEDA act.

From the text:

28. Every person who knowingly contravenes subsection 8(8) or 27.1(1) or who obstructs the Commissioner or the Commissioner’s delegate in the investigation of a complaint or in conducting an audit is guilty of
(a) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000; or
(b) an indictable offence and liable to a fine not exceeding $100,000.

While the judge would set the actual fine, it could be as high as $10,000 * [insert large number].

In this case there is the CBCs own mandate "actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression" http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/about/mandate.shtml and nothing does that more than the creative commons which does it freely.

In relation to Canadian law there is also this "(ii) encourage the development of Canadian expression by providing a wide range of programming that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity, by displaying Canadian talent in entertainment programming and by offering information and analysis concerning Canada and other countries from a Canadian point of view," http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/B-9.01/page-1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I-gb:s_3. In one fell swoop they have excluded all Canadians who make use of and contribute to the creative commons and they have effectively barred CBC from contributing to the creative commons in contravention to the law that governs the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

In this case not only should the illegal contract get overturned but the criminals that signed it should be fired.

That's because the Canadian Constitution is a loose collection of written and unwritten law. It's not a single written document.

Um, what? http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/Const_index.html

Also, except in indictments specifically enumerated in section 553, it is up to the accused, not the judge, to decide whether they will have a trial by judge alone or by jury. See section 554. Also sections 558 and following. Don't take my word for it - here's the Canadian Criminal Code directly from the government website: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/FramesView.html

Hope this makes it a bit clearer.

Defamation (there's no such thing as libel in Canada, just "defamatory libel" - not the same thing) is different from the US. The truth is not an absolute defense. However, they screwed up, because the police, being public figures, are more subject to open criticism than the average citizen. This is intimidation, pure and simple.

The web site is in New York, so it's outside the Canadian courts' jurisdiction, pure and simple. The US 5th Amendment takes precedence on US soil.

So we have the problem of venue. If the defamatory statements were published in the US, and if Canada doesn't have a long-arm statute (we don't, except for child abuse and terrorism), the RCMP are SOL. Sorry boys, you don't get your man this time.

Also, sections 309 - 310 of the criminal code:

Public benefit

309. No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes defamatory matter that, on reasonable grounds, he believes is true, and that is relevant to any subject of public interest, the public discussion of which is for the public benefit.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 273.

Fair comment on public person or work of art

310. No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes fair comments
(a) on the public conduct of a person who takes part in public affairs; or
(b) on a published book or other literary production, or on any composition or work of art or performance publicly exhibited, or on any other communication made to the public on any subject, if the comments are confined to criticism thereof.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 274.

When truth a defence

311. No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel where he proves that the publication of the defamatory matter in the manner in which it was published was for the public benefit at the time when it was published and that the matter itself was true.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 275.

Do the RCMP sometimes lie? That's been proven in court. Instead of trying to suppress publication in another country with a SLAPP criminal proceeding, maybe they should address the issues, and realize that when you're a cop, what you do is public, same as a politician.

We do actually have freedom of speech: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I-gb:s_2

#2b, Fundamental freedoms: "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:... freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;"

It's interesting that the thieves in your case will be charged with "grand theft". It's interesting mostly because that offense doesn't exist in Canada. There's no such thing as grand theft, or even grand theft auto for that matter (the equivalent charge in Canada is "Taking motor vehicle or vessel or found therein without consent")
 
There is exactly one charge available for theft of property and interestingly enough, it's "Theft", though the punishment is different if the value of the property exceeds $5000
 
I, by the way, am not a lawyer, and make no claims to be such. In the future, before you claim to be a lawyer, please at least make sure you have correct information.
 
Of course, I wouldn't just tear you a new asshole without proper citations, so here you go:
 
  Criminal Code of Canada
 
The relevant sections are 326 through 334(b)

I've got my private investigator and security guard certificate here in Ontario. Which means that for being an investigator, you pay $80 and go through a standard background check. To get both, you pay $160, and have a standard background check. They're both required by law to legally operate in Ontario. Either as a PI, or security guard.

As for what's considered a weapon in Canada:

"weapon" means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use
(a) in causing death or injury to any person, or
(b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person

and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a firearm;

health insurance raises cost and/or lowers the quality of health care immensely

Canadians live longer and healthier lives, on average, than Americans, at a fraction of the cost.

police services mostly devoted to drug enforcement and harassing the population about petty things

Possession of small (personal, a few grams or so) amounts of marijuana isn't criminal here. If you're driving your car and the cops stop you, they just take it away; the penalty for having it is less than having open liquor in the car.

fire departments mostly serve insurance companies

This one I just don't get. It doesn't matter if you have insurance or not, the fire department will still try to save your house when it catches fire. They don't discriminate.

curb-side trash removal only begrudgingly provided, with new restrictions constantly added

Actually, garbage collection has been improving. In my city, for example, the province improved recycling pickup a few years back so that it didn't have to be sorted (which greatly increased the number of recycling boxes I see at the curb), and they're taking pickup efficiency and environmental concern seriously

labor regulation supports busting unions

Not sure what you mean on this one.

environmental regulation a bureaucracy that will issue a waiver to destroy any feature of the environment you please

Funny when you consider that Canada was the first nation in the world to take action against BPA. Canada has historically been shown to be among the leaders in environmental concerns.

judicial services a pretense to cover widespread injustice.

And yet, according to studies, Canada had the 11th fairest judicial system in the world as of 2003, above the UK and the USA.

And all of these wonderful services are delivered with the utmost dishonesty at the bargain price of 3x what they should cost!

Says who? We pay 10% more in taxes than across the border, but I'd say we get more than 10% more. A national broadcaster, large government subsidies for universities, and a complete healthcare program to name a few.

"We also are encouraging Canada to provide its customs authorities with the authority to seize pirated and counterfeit products," McCoy said

So it's not enough that you expect Canada to bend over on command re: copyright law. More than that, you'd like our government to ignore the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (article 8) for your convenience? Dear Mr USTR: you can kiss my infringing, frost-bitten ass.

Would be tough... Patents are a property right. We don't normally take peoples' property away if they're not using it in ways that we'd like, but maybe you could make an argument under Kelo v. City of New London that it's an eminent domain taking. Plus, it wouldn't be invalidating the patent - it would be assigning it to the government, who then releases it free into the public domain.

Some patent laws provide provisions by which a patent holder can be seen to be abusing their patent and have conditions forced upon them, but these seem to get rarely used (Here's Canada's Patent Act as an example).

And here's the transcript of a letter from a priest who cooperated with the Vatican for picking # 1.

Now the funny thing is that it's MANDATORY to report suspected cases of child abuse, and yet the priests who covered it up have never been charged. Covering it up after the fact also makes them accessories after the fact.

Maybe it's time to do like some people in Great Britain are thinking of doing, and have the Pope arrested if he comes visiting.

Any bets that he cancels the September visit?

I already pointed other poster here for an example of a law that was not written for lawyers. It covers more then the US equivalent (i.e. it not only reforms Health Care but it also institutes a national single-payer system) and yet it is somewhat short of 1100 pages - a product of times and a place where lawyers did not yet run the show completely. If attempted today, the same bill would probably resemble the US monster quite handsomely.

Total bullshit. Here is the Canadian Health Act (single-payer and all). You will notice a significant shortfall from 1100 pages... even though the "issue" is, well, exactly the same.

The only difference is that the Canadian lawmakers were somewhat less besieged by lobbyists and their multi-billion-dollar "vested interests" and had a tad more integrity at the time...

Again, are you sure you're understanding it correctly? I've re-read the article again, and the closest I can get to your interpretation is that he was ordered to take down all illegal torrents (i.e. the burden is on him to figure out which torrents are illegal) - not that he has been handed an exhaustive list of torrents that are claimed to be illegal (as it goes by DMCA).

Also, since this all happens in Canada, DMCA rules don't apply here.

I didn't actually know if there are any safe harbor laws in Canada, so I had to go and Google - and sure enough, it is there in the Copyright Act:

2.4 (1) For the purposes of communication to the public by telecommunication, ...
(b) a person whose only act in respect of the communication of a work or other subject-matter to the public consists of providing the means of telecommunication necessary for another person to so communicate the work or other subject-matter does not communicate that work or other subject-matter to the public

In other words, a safe harbor if all you do is provide a communication channel.

Accessing CP is a crime in Canada. It's even in the next subsection Criminal Code (163.1(4.1))!

Accessing child pornography

(4.1) Every person who accesses any child pornography is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of fourteen days.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/page-4.html#codese:163_1-ss:_4_1_

If you're quoting the Copyright Act, you should at least quote the relevant sections of it:

Copying for Private Use

Where no infringement of copyright
80. (1) 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.

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):
(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.

1997, c. 24, s. 50.

Right of Remuneration

Right of remuneration
81. (1) Subject to and in accordance with this Part, eligible authors, eligible performers and eligible makers have a right to receive remuneration from manufacturers and importers of blank audio recording media in respect of the reproduction for private use 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.

Other sections in there establish procedure for collecting the levy and distributing it to copyright holders.

1. p2p software is not illegal in Canada. You can use it to share linux distros, etc.
2. downloading copyright music w/o the copyright owners' permission has always been a civil copyright violation. The "making private copies" is copies that YOU already have legal access to (eg: format-shifting, an extension of time-shifting from the vcr days).
3. it is NOT a "loser pay legal system" in the sense you think. The loser is only responsible for certain costs, such as filing fees. Even if you lose, you don't pay the other sides lawyers fees, since those costs were entirely at their discretion. You would have to sue them.
4. paying the levy doesn't give you the rights to the song any more than paying a fine for shoplifting means you keep the goods, or doing the time for bank robbery means you get to keep the money, or doing community service for stealing a car means you get to keep the car.
5. unauthorized distribution of copyright material already a criminal act in Canada.

   42. (1) Every person who knowingly
   (a) makes for sale or rental an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists,
   (b) sells or rents out, or by way of trade exposes or offers for sale or rental, an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists,
   (c) distributes infringing copies of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists, either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
   (d) by way of trade exhibits in public an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists, or
   (e) imports for sale or rental into Canada any infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists
   is guilty of an offence and liable
   (f) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both, or
   (g) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding one million dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both.

You are "distributing" the music when you copy it from your computer to the mp3 player. You are no longer just a downloader, you are uploading it to the player.

Yes, the US has a screwed up view of who the copyright to photographs, engravings, portraits belong when those items are ordered for hire.

Canadian law makes so much more sense in this particular case:

Ownership of copyright
13. (1) Subject to this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein.

Engraving, photograph or portrait

(2) Where, in the case of an engraving, photograph or portrait, the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration, and the consideration was paid, in pursuance of that order, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom the plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright.

If I order someone to take my pictures, for any reason at all, and I pay them, I own the copyright to those pictures, and it is correct, I want to own the copyright to them, those are my pictures, I ordered them and all I want is service of taking them.

I had a case where I had a very unpleasant experience with a company in Ontario, they tried to get me to sign away my rights by stating in the original contract, that I will not be able to get the original files unless I sign some other document later on, which they did not even present to me at the moment of signing the original contract. Obviously this is an illegal move, you can't bind me by a contract, which contains a clause, that says I will be bound by another contract later on, without showing the details of that other contract to me before I sign everything. They made this mistake, I got the originals and the copyrights and I will never deal with them again. There are some slimy people out there.

The DMCA does not apply, but the blogger didn't have the right to republish the material. I am not familiar with Canadian law, but I am assuming that there's a provision similar to that aspect of DMCA...

I'll assume that you haven't had your morning dose of caffeine yet :-)

Don't take my word for it - after all, who am I? Here's the actual text of the appropriate section of the Canadian Copyright Act, taken from the Justice Department website:

Exceptions
Fair Dealing

Research or private study
29. Fair dealing for the purpose of research or private study does not infringe copyright.
R.S., 1985, c. C-42, s. 29; R.S., 1985, c. 10 (4th Supp.), s. 7; 1994, c. 47, s. 61; 1997, c. 24, s. 18.

Criticism or review

29.1 Fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:
(a) the source; and
(b) if given in the source, the name of the
(i) author, in the case of a work,
(ii) performer, in the case of a performer's performance,
(iii) maker, in the case of a sound recording, or
(iv) broadcaster, in the case of a communication signal.
1997, c. 24, s. 18.

News reporting
29.2 Fair dealing for the purpose of news reporting does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:
(a) the source; and
(b) if given in the source, the name of the
(i) author, in the case of a work,
(ii) performer, in the case of a performer's performance,
(iii) maker, in the case of a sound recording, or
(iv) broadcaster, in the case of a communication signal.
1997, c. 24, s. 18.

I hope this clarifies things.

Articles on the site that deal with this are clearly news: http://www.njnnetwork.com/?p=33411, http://www.njnnetwork.com/?p=33242,

Also, the IOCs "reasons" are bogus: "One is to protect the IOC's exclusive rights and those of the official broadcasters. The other is the IOC feels it's disrespectful to the Kumaritashvili family."

The IOCs rights are protected solely by copyright - and while the copyright protection protects the entertainment value, it cannot be used to censor news, as the copyright law clearly allows the reporting, using 3rd-party copyright material, provided it is credited to the rights-holder. This is a public-interest issue, and the IOC is trying the "jailhouse copyright" that is so popular, and so mis-informed, in the US.

"jailhouse copyright": People (including crooked politicians, pedophiles, etc) think that they can "protect" or hide, their name by claiming copyright to their name and all information connected to it. It doesn't work that way, but it sure sounds good to someone sitting in the pokey looking for ways to keep their name out of the news. They send notices to the news media, and the news media publishes their name anyway, because copyright simply doesn't work that way.

You're underlying issues arnt (sic) with google but with all search engines because they are required to keep this information.

Search engines aren't "required to keep this information." Case in point - scroogle.

Nobody is required to keep the information - google only does because it's part of their user tracking so they can better target YOU with ads. In doing so they paint a bigger target on you.

If they were just serving up ads that did not track, they wouldn't have much of this data in the first place.

If there were such a requirement, they could get around it by moving their servers to Kanuckistan (aka Canada), where the government actually goes after companies for breaking the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act or otherwise infringing on individual rights and freedoms. And they'd get better natural cooling for their data centers at the same time - just leave a window open in the winter.

By considering them in that context it failed the standard of the bloody obvious but high court judgements get used as precendents in related cases so he had to be careful.

There is no "standard of the bloody obvious" in court. In the court of law, all that matters is what is written in the law. You can interpret it when it is not clear, or when a case comes up that challenges what's actually in the law*, but when something meets a definition that is set out in law, you cannot simply ignore the law because you personally disagree. If you feel that the law is wrong, you can lobby to have the law changed, but until it is changed, you still have to abide by what's written.

* - As an example of a case where the law needed to be interpreted, you can look at the Constitution Act of 1982 in Canada. Section 1 of the Constitution Act, better known as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Paragraph 15 of the Charter reads:

(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Affirmative action programs

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

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

While not specifically named in the Act, subsection (1) has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada to include sexual orientation (homosexuality) and sexual identity (transgenderism), both as subsets of "sex" which is specifically mentionned. But note that this is in keeping with the spirit of the law, which is to guarantee all citizens equal rights and protections under the law.

In Canada it is legal, under Section 80 of the Copyright Act, to copy a recording for one's personal use. It is not legal to distribute copies.

" ... You're so full of shit. ..."
" ... What an idiot. ..."

Well, at least now I see why you prefer to post via cut-and-paste. When you use your own words, the Tourettes' takes over.

" ... Indictments == felonies. Summary convictions == misdemeanors.

Sexual assault is a dual-mode or hybrid offense. It can be a felony or a misdemeanor. It's up to the prosecutor to decide how to proceed - I've posted links to the federal prosecutors' handbook elsewhere in this thread for those who want the gritty details. ..."

You make distinctions and conclusions that do not exist in Canadian Law.

Offenses punishable by Indictment, Offenses punishable by Summary Conviction (Part XXVII, Criminal Code of Canada), or hybrid offenses (where the prosecutor can choose between either) are all part of The Criminal Code of Canada.
All convictions under any statues of the Criminal Code of Canada, where by indictment or summary conviction result in a Criminal Record.
Appeals of decisions where the Crown proceeded by Summary Conviction are by Indictment (PART XXI APPEALS -- INDICTABLE OFFENCES, 675; 1,1)

The closest the Criminal Code ever gets to the word "misdemeanor" is when it refers to "less serious offenses" of the Criminal Code. The word "misdemeanor" never appears at any time in the Criminal Code of Canada.

It is your word, which you interpret rather freely.

Search of all acts at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/

" ...
  Act(s) match your query for:
Text >

Results 0 - 0 of 0

Sorry no results were found matching your request.
Edit Search ..."

Well... for the treaty to actually be enforceable in Canada, they'd have to change our constitution. Specifically, section 1 of the Constitution, better known as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That's not likely to happen.

Section 8 of the Charter states that:

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

And section 11 of the Charter states that:

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;

(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;

(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

(e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;

(f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;

(g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;

(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and

(i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.

Note, that's not somebody paraphrasing the law, that's the actual text of the law. Reference.

Now... if our government *did* sign off on the treaty, all it would take would be another John Scopes to challenge it. They wouldn't even have to be previously convicted of the alleged "crime" at that, either... the day it gets signed into law, they could turn around and file a challenge in the Supreme Court and have it struck down. I know of a few lawyers in this country who would be champing at the bit for a chance to do something like that.

(other interesting reading in that law... section 13, I'm pretty sure, was written with the US 5th Ammendment in mind, and section 15 is always fun.)

There is always a pre-sentence report, often a psychological assessment, etc. There is no procedural difference between a case where the defendant pleads guilty and where he pleads not guilty, and the defendant can change his plea at almost any stage of the trial. Occasionally, a judge will refuse to accept a Guilty plea from the defendant, insisting he wait until the evidence has been presented.

Nice try, but not really accurate. In cases of summary convictions, there are no pre-sentencing reports, no psych assessment, etc. Also, there is no right to trial by jury for summary offences.

Canada has plenty of these dual-mode or hybrid offences, where the person can be charged for the same crime either by summary procedure (less serious) or by indictment (more serious).

Here's the Federal Prosecution Service Handbook.

19.2 Crown Elections in Dual Procedure Offences

In dual procedure offences, Crown counsel has the discretion to proceed by summary conviction or indictment. This discretion allows Crown counsel the flexibility of taking the specific circumstances of a case into account to ensure that in each case the interests of justice, including the public's interest in the effective enforcement of the criminal law, are best served.

19.2.1 Statement of Policy

When deciding whether to proceed summarily or by indictment, Crown counsel shall examine the circumstances surrounding the offence and the background of the accused. The following factors are of particular importance:

• whether the facts alleged make the offence a serious one;
• whether the accused has a lengthy criminal record or a record of criminal convictions for similar types of offences;
• the sentence that will be recommended by Crown counsel in the event of a conviction;
• the effect that having to testify at both a preliminary inquiry and a trial may have on victims or witnesses (if procedure by indictment is chosen, this may lead to the preferral of a direct indictment; and
• whether it would not be in the public interest to have a trial by jury.

If the accused is charged with a number of offences arising out of the same transaction, Crown counsel should consider entering elections that avoid a multiplicity of litigation. Such a course may benefit the accused, by reducing his or her court appearances, as well as serving the interests of the administration of justice. This approach will be beneficial not only at the trial level, but also in the event of an appeal.

Where, based on the above criteria, Crown counsel would normally elect to proceed summarily but the limitation period for a summary proceeding has expired, Crown counsel should not elect to proceed by indictment unless:

• the accused contributed significantly to the delay;
• the investigative agency acted with due diligence but the investigation continued beyond the limitation period because of the complexity of the case;
• the particular circumstances of the offence did not come to light until shortly before or at some time after the limitation period expired, and the offence is serious;
• the accused has refused to give consent, pursuant to s. 786 of the Criminal Code, to have the matter proceed by summary conviction; or
• the public interest otherwise warrants prosecution

It's only in trials by indictment that the defendant has the right to choose either a trial by judge and jury, or judge alone, so there are definitely options for how to proceed, for both the prosecution and the defence, and there's just as much bargaining going on as in the US. Bargaining, for example, to being charged via summation rather than indictment, in return for a guilty plea, and a lesser range of penalties (summary convictions are like "punishment lite"). Same as plea bargaining anywhere else.

First of all there is no "right to travel".

In Canada there is. Section 6. (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, subtitled "Mobility of citizens" says:

Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

You do have the right to travel, but there is no right to operate a motor vehicle on a public road. That is a privilege granted by law.

And as a result of Section 6, the Canadian government was recently obliged by the courts to issue a passport to a Canadian citizen who happened to be a known terrorist (with a history of giving his passport to other terrorists), because without a passport he was unable to exercise his right to enter & leave Canada.

the Westboro Baptists are pretty offensive when they practice their rights to carry "Pray for more dead soldiers" signs at a serviceman's funeral

That's disorderly conduct in Canada.
Disturbing religious worship or certain meetings

(2) Every one who wilfully disturbs or interrupts an assemblage of persons met for religious worship or for a moral, social or benevolent purpose is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Idem

(3) Every one who, at or near a meeting referred to in subsection (2), wilfully does anything that disturbs the order or solemnity of the meeting is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 172.

The important fact that needs to be noted here is that this decision was made in Canada where under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all rights and freedoms are subject to reasonable limits that are prescribed by law (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I-gb:s_1). This essentially allows the government to limits rights and freedoms provided they are deemed reasonable and justifiable in a free and democratic society. This differs from the US Constitution where the First Amendment prevents Congress from infringing upon the freedom of speech (among other freedoms).

Also, I find it funny how so many people on Slashdot can cry fowl that all blank CD sales in Canada include a tax that goes to the recording industry (on the assumption that someone will illegally copy music onto the media),

I find it funny that people keep repeating the music industry line that such copying is illegal. It's not. Read the Copyright Act, paragraph 80. It's very clear that copying music for private use is legal in Canada. That's the point of the levy.

> Nobody broke any standards because they never
> agreed to play by them in the first place.

I don't know anout the rest of the planet. but kilo/mega/giga/etc are powers of 10 according to the "Weights and Measures Act" in Canada. See "Part V PREFIXES FOR MULTIPLES AND SUBMULTIPLES OF BASIC, SUPPLEMENTARY AND DERIVED UNITS OF MEASUREMENT" http://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/Statute/W/W-6.pdf Anybody else have pointers to equivalant legislation elsewhere?

These prefixes have been powers of 10 ever since France invented the metric system 1791. Powers of 2 as kilo/mega/etc are plain wrong.

One place to start is to look at best practices of other governments.
I'm un-characteristically proud of what the government of Canada did in the Privacy Act, and the creation of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

Of course, it's not perfect, but It's pretty good. Especially compared to what I see in the rest of the world.

IANAL and all that, but so far as I understand it, it is legal to criticize religious (or whatever) groups in Canada, but not legal to incite others to commit violence against them.

This is false.

In Canada, publication of verses of the bible to promote a religious view (however repugnant) is hate speech.

For the tl;dr group, this is illegal in Canada:

The bumper sticker in the advertisement displayed references to four Bible passages: Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, on the left side of the sticker. An equal sign (=) was situated in the middle of the sticker, with a symbol on the right side of the sticker. The symbol on the right side was comprised of two males holding hands with the universal symbol of a red circle with a diagonal bar superimposed over top.

This is clearly promotion of an opinion (an opinion that is hate of another group), it is CLEARLY not inciting violence.

Canada's hate speech laws specifically outlaw not "inciting violence" but rather "inciting public hatred", which is what that bumper sticker encouraged.

Whether the law is just or not, I don't know. But we need to get it right.

Here's the law itself.

318 outlaws promotion of genocide.
319 outlaws promotion of hatred.
320 permits permanent government seizure, and disposal of anything that violates 318 and 319.

There are probably laws against inciting violence/riots (in general), but they aren't under this part of the Criminal Code.

"Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: [...] freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;" - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b)

Hockey is our national sport.

Actually, it's Lacrosse.

It's both. Hockey is the official winter sport, Lacrosse is the official summer sport. Check out the National Sports of Canada Act:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cs/N-16.7///en

You have to wonder how much time the politicians used up drafting this. The curling lobby must be pissed.

You're actually both wrong.

It's both hockey and lacrosse.

See the National Sports of Canada Act

LOL, you think Industry Canada can't do this as well (8.2b)? Hell, in Canada the Queen can comandeer any radio transmitter she likes, by law (7.1).

At least in the USA, if you get a license, you can broadcast just about anything you like, as long as it meets some basic obscenity guidelines (and even those tend to be relaxed for radio). In Canada, radio and TV stations are told just how much non-Canadian content they'll be allowed to play each hour. And that's just the start... In this country you're not even allowed to pay the broadcaster to receive a broadcast if it's isn't approved by the government (don't get any funny ideas, decrypting it without paying is illegal too) (9.1cd).

Attempting to get a license for a low-power "indy" station requires going to court in this country.

To rub salt into that wound, an attempt was made only a few years ago to pass laws that would prohibit the import of any receiving equipment that wasn't approved by a government licensed broadcaster. Lucky for us, the government changed hands before a vote could be held.

Canada has one of the most restrictive sets of laws governing broadcasts of the entire free world. The only way I can think of to make it worse would be to require payment to the CBC to receive their broadcasts, similar to paying the BBC to watch TV in the UK.

Officially we are ruled by a Queen and only elect officials to give her advice.

That's okay, according to our constitution, she only works for the big boogy man in the sky anyway:

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

Off I go to legaly download some music.

Morally OK dowload some music, yes. Legally, not so much.
[...] No ruling ever stated that it was legal, and the laws don't mention anything about it being legal because of that (totally stupid) levy.

I agree we should either remove that damn levy, or assert that its legal to go on a download spree...but as of today, neither are set.

Hmm... if it's not stated elsewhere, then in Canada at least it's generally fair game. Our constitution guarantees certain things must be legal and is largely used to establish a baseline for equality. Our other laws largely focus on things that are illegal because they harm society or individuals. Behaviour that falls in the middle ground may become illegal if there's a law written to do so, however in the meantime it is legal.

So... do you have a reference for the illegality of downloading music in Canada? Here's a helpful link to Canadian Law.

Does anybody know which ones pertain to this?

Where I live, political discrimination is not protected.

" 3. (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted. "

That's pretty interesting, considering that it's already against the law in Canada to incite hatred on the basis of religion (as well as race, sexual orientation, etc). Here's a link, and some info from a page on Wikipedia. What part of the UN proposal does Ottawa object to?

Freedom of communications is not in the hands of governments to regulate.

Uh.. yes it is in Canada and the United States. It's the Government that grants and protects your right to Freedom of Speech.

However, if, as you say, you're that worried about it, don't forget War-Driving, regular postal mail and anonymizing services like Tor.

Canada doesn't have a right to free speech in the same way as America

You are correct in so far as Canada words it differently, but Canada has Free Speech. American Free Speech has some limitations added as well. I don't think the US constitution specifies them, but there are other laws that limit freedom of speech in the US.

Does anyone have a reference for this, I'm reasonably sure Americans have similar limitations (although somewhat less restrictive). For example, they still can't get away with shouting FIRE in a crowded movie theatre.

The Canadian limitation essentially boils down to, you have freedom of speech so long as what your speaking doesn't cause harm to others. This does get taken to the limit in charging people with Inciting Hatred, and that brings us back to what the court case is ultimately about.

No free speech? Have a look at the Canadian charter or rights and freedoms.
Here is an excerpt:

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.

Maybe try implementing a "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" like we have in Canada? http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/ I think Canada as a similar Commonwealth country might be a good precedent, and this would certainly stop the politicians from abdicating basic freedoms ... which this seems to entail? I mean, what politician is going to say "no, we want lessor rights than Canadians", or "no, we don't want Australians to have basic freedoms"? Just a thought that this precedent might help.

I live in Canada. According to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, "15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability." Also - 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. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

Well, I don't know what else to say that I haven't said before...
Check the Canadian Copyright Laws for yourself if you don't believe me: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/index.html

Actually it is perfectly legal, I have not only talked to several lawyers about it, but I also looked it up in the Canadian Copyright laws myself.

I don't understand how so many people have this misconception.

If you are intitled to the information on that disk, not the disk itself. The disk itself is meaningless.

If I buy a CD, and then copy it 100 times. That would be perfectly legal if I only use 1 copy at a time. If I wanted to use two copies at a time, I would need to buy 2 disks regardless of how many copies I have made.

It's like if you buy Windows XP, you can only use it on one computer, otherwise it's copyright infringement. But copying the disk to a second CD is perfectly legal, and is often used in large corporations to integrate extra service packs or drivers.

As long as you are only using the number of copies you purchased, how many copies you have is irrelevant.

From the Government of Canada's website:

(2) It is an infringement of copyright for any person to
(a) sell or rent out,

(b) distribute to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,

(c) by way of trade distribute, expose or offer for sale or rental, or exhibit in public,

(d) possess for the purpose of doing anything referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c), or

(e) import into Canada for the purpose of doing anything referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c),

If you are feeling adventurous, feel free to read the whole thing at: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/index.html

I must admit it has been quite a few years since I have studied Canada's copyright laws, so if you can poke holes in what I am stating, feel free, but quote the Copyright Act and include links for my reference.