Slashdot Mirror

I would be somewhat surprised if Canadian law didn't already have a set of exemptions to its copyright laws prior to 1997 (such as for instance for educational purposes, reference, backup, etc.).

Let me preface this by saying I am not a lawyer, just a concerned citizen and copyright holder.

I don't know about prior to 1997, but looking at the Exceptions to the Copyright Act, fair dealing seems to cover research or private study, criticism or review (if the source is mentioned), and news reporting (again, if the source is given). There are also exemptions for educational purposes, provided there is no "motive for gain." (I'm not sure how that could be accomplished, as using a copyrighted work for educational purpose would at least result in someone gaining knowledge). Also, I don't think the educational exemption applies if the work is commercially available.

This article states "unlike the fair use doctrine, fair dealing in Canada does not contain exceptions for parody and satire." Take that with whatever amount of salt you normally apply to Wikipedia entries; I see no specific mention of parody and satire in the Act. (An example of the chilling effect the lack of protection for satire and parody can have can be found here. In this example, the publication is invoking trademark law, and the defendants are citing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but if satire and parody were specifically sanctioned by the Copyright Act it would have helped to strengthen their defense).

Last summer, our federal government tabled a contentious bill to ammend the copyright act, granting us the right to record TV programmes, and copy music to our iPods, but it would also outlaw the circumvention of DRM technologies, effectively making the new rights useless.

That bill died when the Conservative government violated its own fixed election date legislation and called an election in October. They are currently struggling to maintain their minority government status (despite not having the confidence of our elected Parliament), and stated in their throne speech "Our Government will proceed with legislation to modernize Canada's copyright laws and ensure stronger protection for intellectual property."

That doesn't sound to me like they intend to strengthen the concept of fair dealing to protect the rights of Canadian citizens, but rather they intend to adopt policies closer to the US DMCA, to protect the interests of the "big four" media companies in the US, UK and Japan. I guess time will tell.

- Do you think the government has a real, and appropriate, interest in knowing who and what is coming in and out of the country?

- If so, why is it inappropriate to check at the borders (or at the nearest available transit points) that those crossing have their citizenship documentation or passport and visa documentation, as they are required to carry by law for all cross-border travel?

But that's the issue: the checkpoints are not at the border. They are well within the country, long after people have completed all necessary customs and immigration formalities and been lawfully granted entry to the country. They may have never left the country at all.

The U.S. Constitution sounds really good on paper, but it's the application that is failing here. These are the principles on which your country was founded (good ones, IMHO), and it's high time people stood up to them. You might try reading the constitution of the former Soviet Union as an example of what's on paper and how it's actually applied. Article 29 is particularly amusing in retrospect.

Here in Canada our Constitution has an explicit opt-out clause (Section 33, commonly known as the Notwithstanding Clause), that allows governments to pass legislation that violates certain sections of the Charter, but only for a limited time, and only certain sections. Quebec used it when their French-language sign law was challenged in court. Alberta have threatened to use it to block gay marriage.

What are the equivalent U.S. provisions?

...laura

Right, thank you for being more specific.

Here is the section of the copyright act that deals with copying for private use:

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 performerâ€(TM)s performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or

(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performerâ€(TM)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 performerâ€(TM)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.

Ok fine then!

Canadian Human Rights Act

But I wasn't arguing against you, and saying that "No we do! have free speech rights!" but rather the reverse.

Most people just assume we (I'm Canadian) have it, when all we really have is the freedom to try, and that may or may not lead to consequences. "freedom of expression" basically just means we have the allowance to think and make opinions, and maybe make a gesture, provided that gesture isn't associated with racism or sexism. :| But, that depends on how you define Expression if dictionaries start omitting "communication" as a part of "expression" we are in serious trouble...

On the other hand, personally I think that "freedom of expression" is better than "free speech" in my deffinition of it, because "expression" includes things like artwork, theatre, or even spitting (in the general direction) of someone, etc, but thats not how it seems to be interpretted by courts, and government.

The hell it isn't!

We've got a Bill of Rights here, and I quote from it:

PART I
BILL OF RIGHTS

Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms

1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;

(c) freedom of religion;

(d) freedom of speech; (emphasis mine)

(e) freedom of assembly and association; and

(f) freedom of the press.

If I may quote from the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms:

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.

That said, internet is not a fundamental right in Canada.

It's about causing violence and trying to cause violence, not offending. Read the Criminal Code on Hate Propanganda: Section 318 is about advocating genocide. Section 319 subsection 1 is about inciting hatred, in a public place, that would likely lead to violence. Subsection 2 is about inciting hatred, which I find very vague; it's addressed in R. v. Keegstra but I haven't read the entire thing yet. To me these do not communicate that nobody should be offended. "Jews have big noses" is protected.

I'm not a laywer, obviously, but I'm willing to muddle through the law in the Slashdot tradition.

How much disinformation do we need on this issue? Let me clear up some of this.

No, British Columbia doesn't. British Columbia can't, as that would be a criminal law, which is of federal jurisdiction. It is a federal law which establishes the Human Rights Tribunals and it is federal law which bans hate speech, see the criminal code http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_318//en#anchorbo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_318. While there have been somewhat questionable cases before, it is usually the ilk of white supremacists and neo-Nazis who run afoul of hate speech laws, generic criticism of Islam without advocating, for example, the expulsion of Muslims from Canada, has generally not been found of a criminal nature by the courts of Canada.

Human Rights Tribunals, for the most part, are for discrimination complaints in housing and employment and the provision of government services.

This particular issue has come up before with Mark Steyn's articles (including an excerpt from his book America Alone to Maclean's magazine, a leading news magazine in Canada. Complaints were lodged with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. The Ontario Humans Rights Tribunal issued a statement in April of 2008 condemning Maclean's publication of the work, but acknowledged that material printed by private citizens is outside of its jurisdiction and dismissed the case http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=433915.

In addition, while the Humans Rights Tribunals are easily abused and perhaps too quick to jump to censorship, their rulings may be appealed to proper federal courts, all the way to the Supreme Court, should they deign to hear the case.

The limits of free speech in these matters is hardly a settled matter in Canadian law and until superior courts or the Supreme Court give guidelines on the matter, it is probable that a variety of conflicting rulings will come out of the lower courts and tribunals.

We have the Competition Act, which replaced the Combines Investigation Act back in 1986 ...

Also the CRTC.

Bell was able to build out their network thanks to their monopoly position for many decades. The network infrastructure, since it was paid for by the excess levies and guaranteed returns allowed under that monopoly, should be nationalized.

The Canadian "Private Copying" provisions are not linked, in any way at all, to the "Blank Media Levy". (A quick visit to Mr. Dictionary shows us "levy" is another way to spell "tax".)

The provisions are both in the same Part of the Act (VIII), but the sections (80 and 82) aren't linked. So, it isn't relevant: personal use copying of audio recordings is fully legal, regardless of whether or not you paid the levy on the media you're using.

And I'd be more than happy to argue in front of the Supreme Court of Canada that changes in the marketing of video recording make them equivalent to audio recordings with today's technology and pricing models. At the time Part VIII was added, video recordings were priced and marketed much differently--when regular consumers were not expected to own video recordings, only rent them. Today, I can easily find movie DVDs for sale for less than their soundtrack CDs....

As other posters point out, it isn't clear that making personal-use copies was infringing before the Act was updated. Especially copies of works authored outside of Canada.

I never downloaded music until I realized I had been paying a levy for CDR's for years, totaling hundreds of dollars paid--for backing up data and recording original tracks. I felt like a chump.

Now I download anything I want that's on a major label and available, since I'm paying for it anyway. I always buy CD's direct from the artist if I can, in solidarity. Support the artists, and screw greedy middlemen with their faulty business model. The levy distribution system is as broken as a typical recording contract.

Disclaimer: I'm in Canada. Many canadians, being poisoned by USian media, are confused about this, and don't know about Section 8 of the Copyright Act.

By the terms of the DVD-CCA, properly-licensed DVD players **CANNOT** play DVDs from outside the region they are assigned. Of course, everyone has region-free DVD players, but it is absolutefuckingly sure that such players **WILL** be outlawed, as well as the DECSS software everyone loves and hates.

However, such a law will bit parliament big-time in the arse: Canada is a country of immigrants, much more so than the US, as there is no "Canadian melting pot" as immigrants are encouraged to retain their cultures*. Now, you are going to tell indians that they are not allowed to watch movies from India? Tell the Chinese that they are not allowed to watch movies from China? Tell the French that they are not allowed to watch movies from France? Tell english that they are not allowed to watch British movies? but they should only watch what Hollywood decides they should watch?

Like, yeah, this is going to go right well down with the plebe...

Better yet, in our Constitution is a Charter of Rights which does not gives a shit about commercial interests trampling the individual freedom of, say, watching a movie of one's choice.

* An old ploy to minorize the french by having immigrants consider them like yet another ethnic group (never mind that the french actually founded Canada as we know it almost half a millenium ago -- my ancestors were well established here when the pilgrims landed at Plymouth!).

You used to be able to say "I withdraw my petition to enter your country" and they'd just basically ship you back.Now, they don't really care.

10. (1) Every traveller has the right, at any stage of the preclearance process, to leave a preclearance area without departing for the United States, unless a preclearance officer informs the traveller that the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the traveller has committed an offence under section 33 or 34. [These sections say you can't lie to or obstruct a preclearance officer in the execution of the officer's duties.]

Actually, what you're doing is illegal. After reading your Copyright Law, it expressly permits private copying of sound recordings only, so downloading TV and movies off BitTorrent could still get you in a whole lot of trouble.

Reference: your own damn law

It all depends on how one phrases things. For example, if you refer to http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cs/O-5///en, you'll see definitions of "special operational information", one of which is "the means that the Government of Canada used, uses or intends to use, or is capable of using, to protect or exploit any information".

So what?

Well, IANAL, but my reading is that the law as phrased allows the GoC to create information classification schemes the existence of which would be considered "special operational information", so revealing the existence of the classification scheme would itself be a contravention of the Security of Information Act, punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment.

Reading between the lines, the other types of information considered "special operational information" are the sorts of thing generally considered to be at least Secret, likely Top Secret, so such a classification scheme could itself be Top Secret.

So one would need a TS clearance to even be permitted to know about such a classification scheme. And learning of such a scheme would make one a person "permanently bound to secrecy".

As for stumbling across such information, well, TS stuff isn't usually left lying around. For example, refer to http://www.ciisd.gc.ca/text/ISM/print/printch5ann3-e.asp: TS docs being sent about are double-enveloped, and the outer envelope does not bear a security marking (but is sealed in a tamper-evident manner). The likelihood of stumbling across TS material is low outside of an approved facility.

And if you are inside such a facility, you have a TS and know that there is stuff you don't need to know, and you keep your blinders on, to not risk stumbling. Or you are being escorted by someone with a TS, who keeps you from stumbling.

Or you are a spy, but that's another story.

There should be a law against people who do this

There should be a law against people who do this

our laws don't permit the prosecution of someone for a crime committed outside of the country

With the notable exception for war crimes of course. And a quick look brought up other interesting examples such as PART II.1 Section 83.18(3)(c)(ii) of your Criminal Code relating to committing an offense "... an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be a terrorism offence;". Now, I'm not a Canadian lawyer but I would hazard a guess that there are more examples.

The Canadian Nazi won't be "held accountable" in Canada

And according to PART XIV on Jurisdiction, Section 481.2 says: "... where an act or omission is committed outside Canada and the act or omission, when committed in those circumstances, is an offence ... proceedings in respect thereof may, whether or not the accused is in Canada, be commenced, and an accused may be charged, tried and punished within any territorial division in Canada in the same manner as if the offence had been committed in that territorial division.".

And its unconstitutional to extradite for something that isn't an offense in Canada.

Actually that's not the whole truth after the Extradition Act of 1999 the crime no longer has to pass the same "duality test". I quote: "The new process instead requires a analysis of the alleged offense for which extradition is sought and if a similar offense prevails in Canada, ... the test will have been met".

Also extradition is probably subject to the long line of treaties with individual countries that Canada has with most the Western world at least. I found this article on the subject very interesting.

In conclusion the answer has be that it certainly appears as though Canada can prosecute crimes committed abroad however as always certain conditions have to be met. I won't press my point further as I am not familiar with Canadian law and I might also be plain wrong :)

our laws don't permit the prosecution of someone for a crime committed outside of the country

With the notable exception for war crimes of course. And a quick look brought up other interesting examples such as PART II.1 Section 83.18(3)(c)(ii) of your Criminal Code relating to committing an offense "... an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be a terrorism offence;". Now, I'm not a Canadian lawyer but I would hazard a guess that there are more examples.

The Canadian Nazi won't be "held accountable" in Canada

And according to PART XIV on Jurisdiction, Section 481.2 says: "... where an act or omission is committed outside Canada and the act or omission, when committed in those circumstances, is an offence ... proceedings in respect thereof may, whether or not the accused is in Canada, be commenced, and an accused may be charged, tried and punished within any territorial division in Canada in the same manner as if the offence had been committed in that territorial division.".

And its unconstitutional to extradite for something that isn't an offense in Canada.

Actually that's not the whole truth after the Extradition Act of 1999 the crime no longer has to pass the same "duality test". I quote: "The new process instead requires a analysis of the alleged offense for which extradition is sought and if a similar offense prevails in Canada, ... the test will have been met".

Also extradition is probably subject to the long line of treaties with individual countries that Canada has with most the Western world at least. I found this article on the subject very interesting.

In conclusion the answer has be that it certainly appears as though Canada can prosecute crimes committed abroad however as always certain conditions have to be met. I won't press my point further as I am not familiar with Canadian law and I might also be plain wrong :)

Addenum: I suppose that if I had information that you were going to commit a criminal offence while in Canada, that may be grounds for inadmissibility. I've never had it come up before, and I don't have time to look it up now.

Look it up in IRPA if you're interested http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/I-2.5//20071030/en?command=home&caller=SI&fragment=immigration&search_type=all&day=30&month=10&year=2007&search_domain=cs&showall=L&statuteyear=all&lengthannual=50&length=50

Disclaimer: I'm an Immigration Officer with the CBSA, but this post only contains my personal opinion and I don't represent the Government of Canada.

I'm not sure why you were modded information, since you're spreading false information.

In Canada, Public speakers at seminars or conferences that do not go longer than 5 days do not require a work permit, nor do they require a visa if they come from a visa exempt country. Please see the IRPA regulation 186(j) and the Temporary Foreign Workers policy manual section 5.11. Unfortunately, the policy manual is only available in pdf.

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

Is a national database going to be created that contains everyone's web activity?

While a proposal was put forward for a national database of customer information that could be accessed under lawful authority, the lawful access proposals do not call for a national database containing the Internet activities of Canadians, nor do they call for a requirement for Internet companies to store all of their customers' communications.

Will Internet service providers be required to keep records of all their customers' web activity?

It is important to clarify that data retention is not being considered in the lawful access proposals. ISPs would only be required to preserve specific data when requested to do so through a preservation order and only for a specific period of time. The proposed amendments would not require ISPs to retain data relating to their customers' web activity.

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

Is a national database going to be created that contains everyone's web activity?

While a proposal was put forward for a national database of customer information that could be accessed under lawful authority, the lawful access proposals do not call for a national database containing the Internet activities of Canadians, nor do they call for a requirement for Internet companies to store all of their customers' communications.

Will Internet service providers be required to keep records of all their customers' web activity?

It is important to clarify that data retention is not being considered in the lawful access proposals. ISPs would only be required to preserve specific data when requested to do so through a preservation order and only for a specific period of time. The proposed amendments would not require ISPs to retain data relating to their customers' web activity.

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

Is a national database going to be created that contains everyone's web activity?

While a proposal was put forward for a national database of customer information that could be accessed under lawful authority, the lawful access proposals do not call for a national database containing the Internet activities of Canadians, nor do they call for a requirement for Internet companies to store all of their customers' communications.

Will Internet service providers be required to keep records of all their customers' web activity?

It is important to clarify that data retention is not being considered in the lawful access proposals. ISPs would only be required to preserve specific data when requested to do so through a preservation order and only for a specific period of time. The proposed amendments would not require ISPs to retain data relating to their customers' web activity.

In Canada, the police need a warrant (CanLII link) to get a dialled-number recorder placed on someone's phone (though apparently such a warrant is easier to get than a wire-tapping warrant), so extending this to the Internet wouldn't really be all that scary.

I think Quebec's general unwillingness to trust the federal government probably helps a lot here.

"Canada's claim to fame is that it is "perceived" to be universal. And it is sort of if you overlook the regional approvals that go on. Often based on age and are you paying taxes."

um, what?
That is simply not correct. You are either mistaken or simply lying.

There is no connection between an individual's tax status and their health care in Canada. (see Canada Health Act section 10 'Universality' http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-6/bo-ga: s_7//en#anchorbo-ga:s_7 )
For your mother to be given different care because she isn't paying taxes would be in violation of several laws.

If you really think your mother was given inferior care because she is on cpp and not paying taxes then call the police and the media right now. I'm serious.

Not only is it illegal to deny or delay care to an individual based on their income or taxes it is also illegal for the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) to divulge an individual's tax status to anyone in the health care system. Even the police need a subpoena to see your tax information.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/newsroom/factsheets/2005/ nov/fs051110-e.html

I'll not bother to debunk the rest of the ridiculous assertions you made in that post as this one item clearly shows that you are trolling.
Besides, trying to interpret your writing is giving me a headache. I really hope english is not your first language or that you were drunk/high when you wrote that text.

Never mind, found it: the F-29, the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act.

For what it is worth, most of the provisions of the Act require a specific order from the Attorney General. I found it interesting that the Helms-Burton Act is specifically mentioned, though:

What act says that? I looked but couldn't find any.

Unfortunately, this is merely one instance of WikiPedia being incorrect. The Currency Act you speak of applies only to Canada. Scroll down a bit to "Legal Tender".

Sale above advertised price - The Competition Act prohibits the sale or rent of a product at a price higher than its advertised price. The provision does not apply if the advertised price was a mistake and the error was immediately corrected.

Double ticketing - The Competition Act prohibits the supply of a product at a price that exceeds the lowest of two or more prices. In other words, where two or more prices are clearly shown on a product, it must be supplied at the lower price.

And clearly you're one of the people who even think that I would need a gun at home, which I don't. I have never owned one and also don't see the appeal in owning one, let alone the necessity.

Also, from the 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.

It's there in black and white in just the second point. The full text can be found here. I don't want the constitutional right to own a gone because I don't need or want a gun. Although there are plenty of Canadians, more per capita than the U.S. last time I checked, who have guns at homes. They just aren't handguns, but rifles.

That's the problem with us laymen reading laws: we miss things. Sections 309 and 311 seem to give complete exemption when the statements are true (or reasonably believed to be true) and in the public interest. But you forgot something: that's criminal law; there's also civil law, and that's governed by a completely different set of circumstances.

According to the Canadian Press Stylebook, truth is a complete defence to libel, although it's the defendant's responsibility to prove the truth of the statement, which may be impossible. One can also gain privilege (protection from legal action) if the statements are fair, accurate and without malice, and there is a defence of fair comment if it's opinion that's honest, based upon provable fact and in the public interest.

And then there's one more can of worms: every province has its own definition for libel (the civil law part), so something that's not libel in one province may be libel in another (for instance, it may be in the public interest in one province, but not another). And if a statement is published across the country, the person libeled can choose the venue to sue the libeler (for a US example, see Keeton v. Hustler). Further Quebec's law is based on the French Civil Code, so even if a statement is true it must be proved that it was made in the public interest and without malice.

So yes, a veritable minefield that's nowhere near as simple as one thinks.

That's the problem with us laymen reading laws: we miss things. Sections 309 and 311 seem to give complete exemption when the statements are true (or reasonably believed to be true) and in the public interest. But you forgot something: that's criminal law; there's also civil law, and that's governed by a completely different set of circumstances.

According to the Canadian Press Stylebook, truth is a complete defence to libel, although it's the defendant's responsibility to prove the truth of the statement, which may be impossible. One can also gain privilege (protection from legal action) if the statements are fair, accurate and without malice, and there is a defence of fair comment if it's opinion that's honest, based upon provable fact and in the public interest.

And then there's one more can of worms: every province has its own definition for libel (the civil law part), so something that's not libel in one province may be libel in another (for instance, it may be in the public interest in one province, but not another). And if a statement is published across the country, the person libeled can choose the venue to sue the libeler (for a US example, see Keeton v. Hustler). Further Quebec's law is based on the French Civil Code, so even if a statement is true it must be proved that it was made in the public interest and without malice.

So yes, a veritable minefield that's nowhere near as simple as one thinks.

Consider reading the code section 298 states

298. (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.

Note the "without lawful justification or excuse." Section 300 states if it's false the punishment is 5 years, and section 301 blankets it with a 2 year sentence regardless. (that is, upto). So you can get more time for a false statement, but true or not, you can still be found guilty of libel.

It's in the publics interest if he messed with party money [or whatever]. If the allegations are false, then whoever published them can be found guilty of defamatory libel.

However, suppose he had an embarrassing hobby (that was otherwise legal), and it was paraded in public to mock and ridicule him. If the publication causes him harm [loss of job, contempt of peers, etc] it can be found to be libel, regardless of whether it's true or not.

Tom

I can't respond to you about whether it is just or not, but just for general knowledge, I want to point out the significance of your "we'd rather not spend the money investigating" statement. Giving everyone accused of a crime a full trial would indeed be extremely expensive in both time and money. Our current system operates at the speed and cost that it does with only a 5%-to-trial rate. ("95% of felony convictions in State courts were achieved through guilty plea.." U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, State Court Sentencing of Convicted Felons, 2000, 43 (2003))

In Canada, they resolve 92% of their cases via plea bargaining -- but their justice system still costs 12 billion a year. Our courts would be severely stressed under 100% case-load, and the result - quick, unthorough trials or trials taking years to even begin - might be even more undesirable than guilty people getting away with a smaller sentence.

I find it more disgusting that Dunn got off for being ill with cancer, then had the nerve to say "I have always had faith that the truth would win out and justice would be served - and it has been." Justice is.. that people with cancer can commit crimes? Funnily enough, if you're in pain from.. say.. cancer and take marijuana, you can go to prison as of today's ruling.

Marijuana.Evil > Spying.Evil? Ridiculous.

This was pretty quick find in terms of the status in Canada:

- we signed
- it isn't ratified by Parliament yet
- the bureaucrats are working on it

It is noted that a number of laws have to be changed in advance of ratification, so

There are a couple of beauties in here; the options being examined for the cost of building a required "interception capability" for ISP's include the ISP's paying for it, the ISP's paying for it when "significant upgrades" to their networks occur but not required to pay for changes to existing networks. This all adds up to the customer paying for the mechanisms that Johnny Law gets to use to bust those same customers. What a schmozzle in the making.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/cons/la_al/a.html

I don't have much of an alternative to contribute here, though. Crime on the Internet is apparently on the rise (I don't know if I believe stories of DOS-extortion, they always seem to be a rumour, not a news story, but maybe I'm naive). Internationally there needs to be a mechanism for a guy in France to charge a guy in Canada (yo MafiaBoy!) for DOS'ing his business, but this is Big Brother shit running wild.

Why aren't existing extradition treaties sufficient, and used in concert with whatever updates occur in the laws of respective countries? If you think someone's guilty, make your case in extradition court. Is the requirement of evidence so much higher for cyber-crime than other crimes?

... Puzzled ...

If I were Stephen Harper, I'd be writing back to explain to the good senators for the States of California and Texas (!) the egregious nature of capital punishment in their states ('Feinstein is a supporter of capital punishment.': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein) and the benefits of Canada's abolitionist position: http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/fs/2003/doc_30 896.html.

There are several laws against that already:
Homicide
Murder
Treason

The last one might be questionable. I'd say that storming Parliament and beheading the Prime Minister qualifies as "uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province".

Now, you Americans might be wondering why killing the Prime Minister isn't treason in itself. The Prime Minister isn't special, he's just a guy. The only one who is special in Canada is the Queen. Causing her harm is High Treason.

There are several laws against that already:
Homicide
Murder
Treason

The last one might be questionable. I'd say that storming Parliament and beheading the Prime Minister qualifies as "uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province".

Now, you Americans might be wondering why killing the Prime Minister isn't treason in itself. The Prime Minister isn't special, he's just a guy. The only one who is special in Canada is the Queen. Causing her harm is High Treason.

There are several laws against that already:
Homicide
Murder
Treason

The last one might be questionable. I'd say that storming Parliament and beheading the Prime Minister qualifies as "uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province".

Now, you Americans might be wondering why killing the Prime Minister isn't treason in itself. The Prime Minister isn't special, he's just a guy. The only one who is special in Canada is the Queen. Causing her harm is High Treason.

There are several laws against that already:
Homicide
Murder
Treason

The last one might be questionable. I'd say that storming Parliament and beheading the Prime Minister qualifies as "uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province".

Now, you Americans might be wondering why killing the Prime Minister isn't treason in itself. The Prime Minister isn't special, he's just a guy. The only one who is special in Canada is the Queen. Causing her harm is High Treason.

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. (2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely, (a) killing members of the group; or (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

"hate propaganda" means any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319;

Emergencies Act (1985, c. 22 (4th Supp.)):
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/E-4.5/bo-g a:l_IV/en#anchorbo-ga:l_IV

Which replaced the War Measures Act
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/publaw/217566_26573.h tml
( http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~sprague/wma.htm )

I miss King Pierre:
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDCC-1-71-101-618/conflict_ war/october_crisis/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis

P.S. Stephen Harper is a dickwad!

Emergencies Act (1985, c. 22 (4th Supp.)):
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/E-4.5/bo-g a:l_IV/en#anchorbo-ga:l_IV

Which replaced the War Measures Act
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/publaw/217566_26573.h tml
( http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~sprague/wma.htm )

I miss King Pierre:
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDCC-1-71-101-618/conflict_ war/october_crisis/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis

P.S. Stephen Harper is a dickwad!

I assume you're referring to "Members of Inadmissible Classes include those who have been convicted of MINOR OFFENCES (including shoplifting...)..."

Technically, what I said in my original post was correct, but I apologize for not making it clearer.

What I said in the original post was that a SINGLE minor offence will not make you inadmissible. If you have been convicted of MULTIPLE minor offences, then you are inadmissible. For example, if you have two shoplifting offences, then you are inadmissible.

In summary, you're criminally inadmissible if...
1) You were convicted of multiple minor (summary) offences, not arising out of the same occurance.
2) You were convicted of any indictable offences. If the offence was serious, you have less chance of obtaining temporary entry.

See section 36(2)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for more info.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/I-2.5/bo-g a:s_7::bo-ga:l_1//en?page=3&isPrinting=false#codes e:36

Does that clear things up?

Actually, border control is that nuanced an art. The regular "border officers" (ie customs officers) don't go through your entire record at the booth. They send you to the immigration office where we look at each case individually, and personally look up what the offence would equate to. Its not that hard actually, since there are really only around 20 common offences and we have them memorized. We've been evaluating these offences for years, so unless anything really obscure comes up somebody has probably dealt with it before.

You can be criminally inadmissible 3 ways. I'll summarize, but heres the link http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/I-2.5/bo-g a:l_1-gb:l_4//en#anchorbo-ga:l_1-gb:l_4

1) A36(2) Being convicted of an indictable offence. This includes things such as simple assault, theft under $5000, DUIs, etc.
2) A36(2) Being convicted of multiple offences, not arising from a single occurance.
3) A36(1) Being convicted of an indictable offence, punishable with 10 or more years in prison. This includes aggravated assault, murder, theft over $5000, and other serious stuff.

These do NOT include things like parking violations, or minor criminal code offences. Those minor offences are "summary offences", and are not "indictable." These offences won't make someone inadmissible. Seattle website is too vague, which makes it look like there is room for interpretation. Its actually laid out very clearly. If you have any doubt about an offence, contact the nearest Canadian Consulate by fax or in person.

All the 36(1) and (2) stuff is pretty black and white. There are a few offences that can be interpretted in slightly different ways, but if you have these offences on your record you probably already know you'll have a problem.

Do NOT take any action on this advice. An officer obviously can't make a judgement on a persons inadmissibility except when they're seeking entry. Different officers might equate offences differently because there is a little grey area. This might give you a general idea however. If you're planning on coming to Canada, contact the nearest Canadian Consulate. Fax, write, or go in person since they rarely answer the phone.

It depends on wether you were convicted, had deferred adjudication, etc. You'll have to look this up on the court records, since most people don't know offhand.

Assuming you were convicted, the DWAI on its own is an indictable offence. It has been more than ten years, and normally you'd be fine. However, that mischief offence could screw you over. If you were convicted of it, you've been convicted of "two or more offences not arising out of a single occurance". So, you're inadmissible under the A36(2)(b), which is the lesser section.

See "A36(2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for (b) having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, or of two offences not arising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute offences under an Act of Parliament;"
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/I-2.5/bo-g a:s_7::bo-ga:l_1//en?page=3&isPrinting=false#codes e:36

To come to Canada, you'd need a waiver of rehabilitation. Its a piece of paper that says the offence is no longer an issue and you're not dangerous, and you can come to Canada as often as you want. A Canadian consulate, and some ports of entry can give you one of these. Alternatively, you could get a temporary resident permit, which is the same thing but is only good for one trip. They cost the same, so the first one is usually smarter to get.