Slashdot Mirror

I don't know about Europe, but Canada's Copyright Act has a concept of "moral rights".

That's debatable depending upon the relationship between the 80-year old and 14-year old, assuming it is consensual sex. For example, if the 80-year old is in a position of trust or authority or if the 14-year old is in a position of dependency, then the age of consent is *18* years in that circumstance. Likewise for exploitive activities, such as prostitution or pornography. The situation you describe could be somewhat questionable.

I believe you're referring to the Private Copying provision of the Copyright Act. That section does apply only to audio recordings. (It is worth noting that the law does not join the blank media levy with the private copying provision. That may have been the deal to get it passed, but it is not written in to the statute.)

However, Canadian Federal court has a tendency to view similar things as being permitted if a law permits one of them and does not explicitly prohibit the others.

To that end, compare the difference in how video recordings were sold when the law was passed (1985, amended in several subsequent years). Video tapes were sold at retail for $120 to $150; after a half year or more, they might be available for "sell-through" at more consumer-friendly prices like $30/tape. You found them in specialty video stores, mostly as rentals--owning a pre-recorded movie wasn't common. Very different from how LPs, cassettes, and CDs were sold, all which came out on ready-for-retail price schedules.

Today, DVDs hit the new-release shelf between $20 and $30; they're the same shape as audio CDs, as well as the same ballpark price. They're sold at the drug store and grocery by the checkout stands. I can't think of a single music store when doesn't have at least some DVD movies around, too.

So, I'd be willing to argue--in court--that the industry deciding to sell video recordings the way audio recordings implies that the same private-use copying privileges apply. I'm not sure that would win, but I think it would be a worthy attempt.

Though I don't think it is reasonable to read that as including permission to camcord a movie presentation; of course, without "intent to distribute", you wind up with a trivial amount of 'harm' and no compensation to make the case worth going to court.

Which is why they want to criminalize it, so they can get high-value statutory damages.

Hope they fail; that's the sort of thing that would get abused much too easily, like that DMCA the Americans have.

The SCC ruled that, but they were basing their decision on the laws of the time (ie fair use and other relevant sections of the Copyright Act).

• distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade
• communicating to the public by telecommunication

Right here: Canadian Criminal Code, section 163.1. The age of consent for actual sex is lower, but pictures of a person who looks under 18 == child porn, even if they only look a day younger, even if no actual person under 18 was involved in the creation of the picture, and in some cases, even if the acts depicted would be legal.

Actually, I believe that they recent raised (or tried to raise) the age of consent for females to 16. In addition, it appears that gay indivuals under 18 might be in trouble. I wonder how many of these are recent changes but our friendly Federal party...

http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/280586.html#Sect ion-163.1

That's not exactly true. The criminal code prohibits anal sex when either partner is below 18, even among heterosexual partners, but does not explicitly prohibit homosexuality.

From the wording of the law, it would appear that they simply amended the previous wording which (more or less) said, "No anal sex", and added, "Except between consenting partners over the age of 18 in a private place, where a private place is defined as 'Not a public place', and where no other persons are present." While it would appear that the "private place" clause was intended to keep "bath houses" outlawed, it also, I think, has the the interesting effect of banning anal sex as part of a threesome in Canada.

Anal sex in the Canadian criminal code

That's why I don't buy DRM'ed music. But instead copy music legally for my personal use, using my right to private copying (see the Canadian Copyright Act).

Uhhhh, you might wish to check the statute before saying you could avoid it by manufacturing media in Canada.

82. (1) Every person who, for the purpose of trade, manufactures a blank audio recording medium in Canada or imports a blank audio recording medium into Canada

Anyway, it's called a levy because it isn't paid to the government for public purposes (wandering by wiktionary for that); it's paid to the Copyright Board for distribution to recording artists.

The actual difference, which the judge in this case failed to notice, is that the contents of one's music directory aren't actually the originals. Such files are, literally, _copies_ of the originals, and therefore legitimately subject to the restrictions imposed by Copyright. If I make copies of my CD's and put them on my CD rack, that's perfectly legal, and I can even let you browse my CD rack, but unless I have permission from the copyright holder to make non-personal use copies, I cannot allow you to borrow any of those copied CD's without infringing on copyright, because once I lend them to you, they would literally no longer be just for "personal use".

Please post a quote from the relevant statute that supports your view.

If you make a copy for your personal use, then I come along and make a copy of your copy for my personal use, it is still legal.

The important part is who makes the copy. You cannot make a copy for me (not personal use) but you can lend me your original or copy for listening (no copying involved) and then, I can copy it for my personal use. know that this is playing with semantics but this is how the law works.

Let me quote from the Copyright act: PART VIII - PRIVATE COPYING (emphasis mine):

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 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.

(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.

In other words, as long as somebody else makes the copy and you are not getting paid for it, it is legal.

The judge in that case ruled that, in that particular case, sharing the files was not "distribution".
Basically it was a distinction between "push" and "pull" models.

Quoting from the docket:

[26] No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings. They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer user via a P2P service.

[27] As far as authorization is concerned, the case of CCH Canada Ltd v. Law Society of Canada, 2004 SCC 13, established that setting up the facilities that allow copying does not amount to authorizing infringement. I cannot see a real difference between a library that places a photocopy machine in a room full of copyrighted material and a computer user that places a personal copy on a shared directory linked to a P2P service. In either case the preconditions to copying and infringement are set up but the element of authorization is missing.

[28] The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution. Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying. No such evidence was presented by the plaint

Free speech isn't absolute...

Defamatory Libel is a crime in Canada and most likely the USA as well.

So before we all jump the gun and say BUT ITS FREE SPEECHES!!!! keep in mind you CANNOT say anything you want without consequence...

Tom

It might be in Canada. The trick is proving beyond a reasonable doubt that they did so "fraudulently and without colour of right".

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

"Child porn I can understand, that's illegal. But hate propaganda is protected speech."
Now he looked up. "What country do you think you're in?"
"Oh, it's illegal in Canada?"
"I honestly don't know. But that doesn't matter. I get to decide what goes in this country. Do you have a problem with that?"
I paused for a long time while I thought about what I should say to this. "Yes."
"Yes, you do have a problem?"
"Yes, I do. If it's illegal in Canada I'll understand, but saying 'I don't want it in my country' isn't good enough when you're a government official."

Two points about this.

First, just FYI, hate propaganda is not "protected speech" in Canada. Indeed, the concept of "protected speech" is not part of Canadian constitutional or rights laws; "protected speech" is a concept that comes from American court cases related to free speech laws and the First Amendment. In Canada, there is a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protects one's "freedom of expression", but that same document also protects people from discrimination based on race, gender, religion, etc. Generally, freedom of expression is protected in Canada only within such reasonable limits as can be justified in a free and democratic society. Within this framework, the Canadian Criminal Code has laws against "hate" crimes -- primarily in cases where one's activities can be described as an "incitement to violence". In Canadian law, therefore, the individual right to free expression does not trump the group right of protection from hate speech. Both are present and both may apply to the same speech at the same time, so the question of whether "hate speech" is illegal or not depends upon the specific circumstances of the communication and on a localized intrepretation of events connected to the use of those words.

Second, if I'm not mistaken, border guards from both Canada and the U.S. are indeed empowered to make decisions on the spot about what or who can come into either country. There is little difference between Canada and the U.S. about this. In both cases, customs officials are given sweeping powers that allow them to make choices without having to justify those choices to a court. There is a long history of abuse of this power on both sides of the border that has led to the improper seizure of literature associated with radical, leftist, or communist causes (as well as fascist hate propaganda) and of pornographic material associated with gay, lesbian, or BSMD lifestyles (as well as child porn or other clearly objectionable materials). Lots of brown-skinned muslims travelling these days will be quick to confirm from experience that when you are at the border, you really don't have any rights at all, and you have very little recourse if you are mistreated. It's only people who have never run into problems at the border who live under the illusion that their "rights" are robust and in full force at the border. This does not mean one should not object to mistreatment, but border guards really are empowered to make decisions about what comes into your country, and if you are going to dispute their choices, you had better be ready for a long, miserable experience...and you had better be sure that you know the law of the particular country you intend to object to!

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

Summary of Hate Crime Legislation
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hatecrimes/

Unlike in the US, in Canada it actually is illegal to incite hatred against any identifiable group.
See, for example: http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/41491.html
So the only surprising thing is that the customs official didn't know this.

This is completely legal in Canada, read the actual legal text here. Odd how it only applies to musical performances, but I digress. It's generally accepted that its not legal according to the copyright laws of the United States. You poor folks south of the 49th parallel want more freedom? Invite the Canadian goverment to implement a "regime change" for you. Or better yet, get off your butts and overthrow your own government.

(a) every one who counsels another person to commit an indictable offence is, if the offence is not committed, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same punishment to which a person who attempts to commit that offence is liable; and

(b) every one who counsels another person to commit an offence punishable on summary conviction is, if the offence is not committed, guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

So yes, thinking about committing a crime, is indeed a thought crime.

Wal-Mart filed an application with state regulators in April to buy Franklin Bank of California, an industrial bank with $2.5 million in assets and three employees in Orange County. The new law prohibits non-financial firms from buying state-chartered banks.

If they come to Canada, they can start their own bank as long as they can show $5,000,000.00 in capital. http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/B-1.01/index.html

They could even turn it into a political football by locating in either one of the Atlantic provinces (needed investment) or Nunavut (native investment). Setting up in one of the Atlantic provinces would have about 40 MPs and 8 senators behind it right away.

Calm dwn - a warrant is still required:
http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/P-8.6/258031.html#rid -258042

blockquote> (c) required to comply with a subpoena or warrant issued or an order made by a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information, or to comply with rules of court relating to the production of records;

(c.1) made to a government institution or part of a government institution that has made a request for the information, identified its lawful authority to obtain the information and indicated that

Lawful authority means "show me the frigging warrant".

Of course, the "authorities" will try to say otherwise, but the courts will still hold them to "you don't have the authority w/o a warrant, as per (c)", and that will be that.

I would be most comfortable in a country that combined the two approaches, with a statement of basic rights in the Constitution and laws stating how the articles will be enforced on the books as well.

Welcome to Canuckistanbul, comrade.
http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/P-21/255104.html

There's a loophole to the requirement to inform the person (5)(3)(b), and to use the information (8) (2) (b thru f, j, l, m) ...

... on second though ... YOU'RE NOT SAFE ANYWHEE !!!! :-(

In many cases the organization doesn't need the information, so don't give it.
Make it illegal for them to ask.
FYI it isn't clearly illegal to ask for a SIN in Canada. But organizations can't collect information unless they have a legitimate reason to use it.

http://www.privcom.gc.ca/cf-dc/2001/cf-dc_011105_0 2_e.asp
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/p-8.6/258076.html see 4.4.1

That same law has a series on data protection, and your right to see the information they hold. A little vague, but I think the intent is clear. It would be interesting to see how many cases have proceeded.

I would like to see them add a notification requirement.

I don't know. When I look at the law, it makes sense to me. Certainly it's not as bad as Chinese censorship or anything ridiculous like that.

http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/41491.html

I just fail to see a case where this law prohibits something such that I would get upset about its prohibition. If there is something, I would rather the law be fixed than thrown out altogether. Perhaps section 319(2) is a little broad, if anything.

See also: Canada's DNA Identification Act.

I don't know about the U.S., but in Canada, "dwelling-houses" (i.e. people's private homes) are treated differently than most other things. If you walk into someone's business property or farm land, and there was not a sign or other explicit indication from the owner that you are unwelcome there, then it legally is not 'trespassing'.

I did a bit of searching, and "trespass" isn't even a criminal offense in Canada, it's governed by provincial law (e.g. see the Trespass Act of the Province of British Columbia). "Breaking and entering" (s.348), however, *is* a criminal offence, as is being in a person's dwelling-house without lawful excuse (s.349).

Anyway, my point is that using the analogy of a person's dwelling-house is inappropriate, because computers are not dwelling-houses, and dwelling-houses are treated specially under the law -- at least in some jurisdictions.

Further this means that as of 1982 no new UK law applies here. Likewise since your old country declared itself indpendent this must mean that no new UK law applies directly to the USA since that date. But all the old laws apply unless invalidated in Canada this means any new Canadian law that is in conflict with ye old or new UK law, is valid and the old or new UK law no longer applies.

editorial note.
I am fully against the EFF exporting its beliefs and laws to Canada. Not that they are not without values but as you see from where this item went in comments laws about people and social relationships don't cross borders like the laws of electons can.

signed Not a coward because war and fighting stuff is not legal in Canada. Further this is not a legal document and not something in the style of my leagl studies this comment is worth 2 cents and no other contract will apply. The law governing this comment is Canadian Common law criticism.

The Powers That Be in Canada, both Federal and Provincial, can already pass a law without running it by Parliament. It's called an Order in Council. Theoretically an OIC is used for little things like political appointments, but it can be used for big things too.

If anybody objects, there is always the Notwithstanding Clause (it's Section 33). It was used for Bills 101 and 178 in Quebec, and Alberta keeps threatening to use it against same-sex marriage. It's been used a number of other times too.

...laura

So, if you accuse someone of bullying, nothing can be done because bullying's not against the school's laws.

So, if you accuse someone of bullying, nothing can be done because bullying's not against the school's laws.

I don't know about the states, but around here when we say "home invasion", we mean "Kick in the door and beat the crap out of the residents so we can take their stuff."

It's a term they use in the criminal code too; it's not slang.

Freedom of opinion and expression is one thing. You can hold the opinion that ${IDENTIFIABLE_GROUP} smells bad, looks ugly, and is the bane of all of society if you want to. You can even express this feeling. what you can't do is incite others to genocide or hatred against an identifiable group (ref: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/181181.html#rid- 181219 [justice.gc.ca]). And there are a number of specifically assigned defences right in the Criminal Code which exempt you from any form of punishment for said speech. We're not talking about reasoned debate here. Reasoned debate is fine. Spreading hate speech in private is also fine. But you can't stand up in a public forum and advocate that the townsfolks take up pitchforks and kill every member of ${IDENTIFIABLE_GROUP} they can find. weasel words: "reasoned debate", "identifiable group" How about advocating capital punishment for "child love" practitioners?

Rather, it's hate speech, which is a crime as defined in the Canadian Criminal Code.

Well, I don't have a relevant Canadian case, but the law seems pretty explicit on the definition of "hate speech": 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. Definition of "genocide" (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. Consent (3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General. Definition of "identifiable group" (4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 318; 2004, c. 14, s. 1. Public incitement of hatred 319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of ---- Canadian Criminal Code, sections 318 and 319. Unfortunately I don't have any information on the case, but it seems pretty cut-and-dry to me, similar to what would happen if a newspaper carried hate content (they would most liekly be considered an accessory to the crime).

From the Canadian Criminal Code:

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.

Definition of "genocide"

(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.

Consent

(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definition of "identifiable group"

(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 318; 2004, c. 14, s. 1.

Public incitement of hatred

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

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

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

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

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

... now, I'm not a judge, but the Criminal code seems pretty clear on this fact. "Black people commit crimes", whether true or untrue (in this case true. Black people commit crimes. So do white people.) does not incite genocide, does not willfully promote hatred, and is covered under 3a. However, "Kill all the niggers" would fall under the definition of hate speech as it expressly promotes genocide.

The AC's question is, I think, directed to the US audience, but uttering threats is against the Criminal Code of Canada.

I am utterly unsympathetic. You would think that out of the hundreds of members of parliament/congress (pick your system), at least one of these idiots would bother to actually analyze the law, or at the very least have an aid do so. Politicians have been given and a charter on the limits of their powers. It is up to THEM to see that they follow their rules. One time is a mistake. Two times is incompetence.

Three times is an utter failure to uphold your oath to the constitution and the people that it protects.

Whenever a politician votes for a law that will simply be forbidden to come into affect because it is unconstitutional, they are wasting MY money. They are pissing away time that they should be spending trying to solve real problem.

I am very surprised that Canada doesn't have similar free speech guarantees

Sigh...

Canada does have protections in the realm of freedom of speech -- it's called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it explicitly states:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:...

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

(Ref: http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/).

Freedom of opinion and expression is one thing. You can hold the opinion that ${IDENTIFIABLE_GROUP} smells bad, looks ugly, and is the bane of all of society if you want to. You can even express this feeling.

what you can't do is incite others to genocide or hatred against an identifiable group (ref: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/181181.html#rid- 181219). And there are a number of specifically assigned defences right in the Criminal Code which exempt you from any form of punishment for said speech.

We're not talking about reasoned debate here. Reasoned debate is fine. Spreading hate speech in private is also fine. But you can't stand up in a public forum and advocate that the townsfolks take up pitchforks and kill every member of ${IDENTIFIABLE_GROUP} they can find.

You really think the US is that much different? Tell you what -- you start a website advocating your fellow Americans to go and kill George W. Bush. Set up an online forum where you start discussing exactly how you are going to go about it. Excercise your free speech to the limit. And then time how long it is before Homeland Security and the FBI are bashing down your door and taking your computer equipment away.

Perhaps the protection of minorities makes you think that Canada is lacking in freedom of speech. Whatever. Want to know what else Canada lacks? Race riots. Crosses being burned on people lawns. Lynchings. People being denied their democratic right to vote based on the colour of their skin.

In closing, you can say whatever damned stupid thing you want here in Canada -- but that doesn't mean there aren't consequences when you decide to start preaching hatered, and try to incite hatred between communities. Absolutely nothing good has ever come of allowing hatred to spread and flourish.

Yaz.

I am very surprised that Canada doesn't have similar free speech guarantees

Sigh...

Canada does have protections in the realm of freedom of speech -- it's called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it explicitly states:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:...

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

(Ref: http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/).

Freedom of opinion and expression is one thing. You can hold the opinion that ${IDENTIFIABLE_GROUP} smells bad, looks ugly, and is the bane of all of society if you want to. You can even express this feeling.

what you can't do is incite others to genocide or hatred against an identifiable group (ref: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/181181.html#rid- 181219). And there are a number of specifically assigned defences right in the Criminal Code which exempt you from any form of punishment for said speech.

We're not talking about reasoned debate here. Reasoned debate is fine. Spreading hate speech in private is also fine. But you can't stand up in a public forum and advocate that the townsfolks take up pitchforks and kill every member of ${IDENTIFIABLE_GROUP} they can find.

You really think the US is that much different? Tell you what -- you start a website advocating your fellow Americans to go and kill George W. Bush. Set up an online forum where you start discussing exactly how you are going to go about it. Excercise your free speech to the limit. And then time how long it is before Homeland Security and the FBI are bashing down your door and taking your computer equipment away.

Perhaps the protection of minorities makes you think that Canada is lacking in freedom of speech. Whatever. Want to know what else Canada lacks? Race riots. Crosses being burned on people lawns. Lynchings. People being denied their democratic right to vote based on the colour of their skin.

In closing, you can say whatever damned stupid thing you want here in Canada -- but that doesn't mean there aren't consequences when you decide to start preaching hatered, and try to incite hatred between communities. Absolutely nothing good has ever come of allowing hatred to spread and flourish.

Yaz.

Then what can you do to avoid hate speech laws? Popular speech doesn't need protection. Any serious attempt at freedom of speech MUST protect unpopular speech, or it doesn't protect anything.

You have the wrong idea about Canada's hate speech laws. Here's wher eyou can read up on them yourself:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/181181.html#rid- 181219

In brief:

• It's illegal in Canada to incite genocide,
• It's illegal in Canada to incite hatred towards a group in public (private communications in this regard is permitted),
• You can't be convicted of an offense under this section if (and I'll quote the criminal code directly here):
  • (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
  • (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
  • (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
  • (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

So there you have it. You can stand up and saw "I hate ${IDENTIFIABLE_GROUP}" all you want in Canada. But you can't incite others to actively hate another group, or to perpetrate violence towards another group. It's simple, and staright forward, and doesn't prevent you from hating whomever you want to hate, or from telling other people you hate said group. You simply can't use it to incite others to hate and violence against said group.

Yaz.

318. Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

319. Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(a) if the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Well, here is our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it specifies freedom of speech.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/#libertes

But I think the Canadians are just not as hung up on defending freedom of speech to the death, like some Americans.

There has been cases where the messy questions with freedom of speech get raised. (see: Ernst Zundel, what happened recently in Canada with "those" cartoons.) But even then there isn't that much drama in them.

This is one of the big differences between Americans and Canadians; The US fought for their independence, we Canadians sat down with the Queen for tea and crumpets.

I suggest you all read this. (hint: bookmarking the CCC makes having legal discussions a bit more sensible :-) )

Hate speech in Canada is only when it incites people to commit violence against the said group being hated.

It's legal in canada to say "I hate all $GROUP" as long as you don't say "kill $GROUP".

Tom

Let us refer to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

Let us refer to Part 1, Section 2, "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.

One would think it would be quite robust with unambiguous wording such as that. However, apparently that is not the case.

Or a place where killing an armed intruder trying to rob your store gets you a murder charge that sticks.

No -- here you can protect your property with force. That is if you simply see someone trying to steal your stuff you and your buddies can chase him down and stop him. If you see an armed robber attempting to take your property you can legally shoot him. Read the criminal code and know your rights, specifically the following section: (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/text.html)

27. Every one is justified in using as much force as is reasonably necessary

(a) to prevent the commission of an offence

(i) for which, if it were committed, the person who committed it might be arrested without warrant, and

(ii) that would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the person or property of anyone; or

(b) to prevent anything being done that, on reasonable grounds, he believes would, if it were done, be an offence mentioned in paragraph (a).

Given how little Canadians get for their money (the private copying right doesn't cover copying CDs to Apple iPods)

I've seen Michael Geist say this before but I can't seem to find any reason in the law that this isn't allowed. An iPod is an "audio recording medium", isn't it? Of course, I'm not a lawyer and he is so there's probably something subtle I'm missing.

--

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.

(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.

--

(emphasis mine)

Not in the US... some other countries, such as Canada, prohibit destruction of the national currency, but the closest thing the US has to a law like that is USC 18 331, but that only applies to fraudulently altering, defacing, etc... a coin. As the US Mint's FAQ mentions, "As a matter of policy, the Mint does not promote coloring, plating or altering U.S. coinage: however, there are no sanctions against such activity absent fraudulent intent."

Lots of tourist places have these "penny presses", where you put a penny and a quarter into the press, turn the crank, and it flattens out the penny and presses a design into it (generally related to the tourist site you're at), and of course, keeps the quarter.

> For goodness sake, they don't even have a Constitution!

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/

Looks like the young offenders act was repealed in 2002

take a look at 184 section 2, paragraph a. If this law passes, those guys are gonna be exempt, not good, not good at all. Also, for future referance, perhaps linking to the Department of Justice canadian page would be a good idea, here is the link fyi, http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/42458.html . I know it's not offical, however, it provides slightly more credibility than the CALII