Slashdot Mirror

Yeah, in freakin' Canada, we freakin' paid the extortion, er, levy for the flippin' iPod, eh, and that means we have a legal right to move our paid-for copyrighted material wherever the heck we want, eh.

You're a troll, but I'm going to tear you to pieces, because it's easy and fun.

Canadians have the "...right to peace, order, and good government". Wow, lucky us. Those are exactly the kind of conditions dictators have been providing since dictators have existed.

I suggest you read that charter again. It's not that long, really. I'll save you the trouble: what you quoted isn't in there. The closest quote states that "everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

If you do not conform to the prescribed standards, you are ostracized and marginalized. I see it all the time every day up here.

I rather like the way you provided so much evidence to support that claim. But hey, if you see it all the time, it must be the case!

You go on to take a quote from your supposed college professor. Apparently he's very important, and he's a conservative. Then you mention that someone once gave you a dirty look, and that some lady said something incredibly stupid.

The obvious conclusion is that Canada is a fascist dictatorship in which dissenting thought is ruthlessly suppressed by the violence of the ignorant masses, crooked conservative politicians, and a government that has a repressive agenda in everything it does from its constitution on down.

Except, what you say in your point one is not true.

Try reading the criminal code if you are concerned about it. The hate crimes laws are fairly specific. You can hate people all you want. It becomes a crime when you are inciting violence (in several forms, including illegal public disturbances) against an identifiable group of people. The wording is sometimes claimed to have some looseness, but the intent is fairly clear in actual case histories.

To put it into context, this section of the criminal code starts out addressing specifically the promotion of genocide. This is extreme. But all of the related sections follow this similar theme.

You conclude: "the full truth deserves to be out there so people can make informed decisions". I won't address your other points, because they are as misinformed as your first... over blown, out of context, based on uninformed opinions, etc.

No offence.

Actually, the French version provided was precisely correct. See, for example, the National Anthem Act. (Schedule 2 has the lyrics and score.)

However, the French and English versions of the Anthem don't actually say the same thing. Here is a translation of the French Anthem into English. Also available, a translation of the English Anthem into French.

From the parent's linked homepage and political commentary, I assume he's Canadian (Albertan, perhaps--correct me if I'm wrong.) I'm a little surprised that he didn't get exposed to our seperate but equal anthems at some point in school. I suppose bilingualism receives more attention in central and eastern Canada.

That was a lengthy troll.

I would have been interested to hear what opinions you're being persecuted for; you don't even really say what the "established order" is, except that the middle class is apparently pretty conservative. Which is baffling, since Canada is much more left-leaning as a country than the US is.

Perhaps I'm living a different experience than you, as I live downtown in a major Canadian city, but I have never experienced any of the above. You have nothing to document your oppression, just an anecdote about a woman in a park. (And honestly, who says that? "Stop being so different"? "Stop having an opinion"? Bullshit.)

The most oppressed I've seen people be in five years in Toronto was a few weeks ago when I saw someone say, "You sicken me," to a man with a sign reading, "Abortion kills children," standing on the corner of an intersection in the arts district. But no one made him leave.

In summary, the post above goes against everything I've experienced in 22 years of living in Canada, and there is nothing to back up any of it. Also, if you want to know what rights and freedoms we really have, there's always the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms, which allows a bit more than "...peace, order and good government..."

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a very good thing, but it has one serious defect, section 33, the infamous "Notwithstanding Clause", which allows both Canada and the provinces to over-ride the protections in section 2 and sections 7-15 by passing legislation to that effect. Fortunately, Canada is a sensible country and the Notwithstanding Clause hasn't been invoked in order to allow serious abuse. (It has been invoked three times. Québec has invoked it twice, once symbolically to provide a general exemption for Québec legislation and once to protect its language laws, which arguably violate the rights of non-francophones. The province of Saskatchewan has invoked it once in a labour dispute with government employees.) Still, it is a blot on an otherwise fine document. Fundamental human rights shouldn't be subject to such exceptions.

Yeah, the War Measures Act basically placed Canada under a state of martial law. You could be detained indefinitly and without reason at any time. Basic rights and freedoms could be temporarilly ignored. The government pretty much had unlimited power.
The WMA was only ever invoked three times in Canadian history. World War 1, World War 2, and the FLQ Crisis (mentioned by parent). When it was used during the FLQ crisis it stirred up a lot of shit, because it was abused. People all across the country were arrested just because they were french or black or whatever. So in 85 the WMA was replaced with the Emergencies Act. Its a much tamer piece of legislation, and doesn't allow the government to superceed the entire Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It does give them additional powers, like the ability to kick you out of your house and lay claim to your property, but you can't be arrested for no good reason (though you CAN be arrested for not complying with the government's new powers). Fortunatly the Emergencies act doesn't apply to the whole country (like the WMA did), only to the area(s) actually experiencing the emergency.
So yes, the potential for abuse is still there, but compared to the draconian mindfuck that was the War Measures Act, the Emergencies act is a fluffy white bunny. Which brings up the odd realization: Other countries are moving AWAY from being able to strip people of their rights... the US is moving towards it. Scary? I think yes.

You might be surprised about a lot of Canadian laws, then. People's television habits aren't (or... weren't, now, i guess) the only things the Canadian government restricts. They also tell you what you can and can't say, what kind of insurance you're entitled to purchase with your own money, and what commercials about prescription drugs are entitled to say, for example.

Not to say that Canada isn't a great country, because i think it is. But it isn't the model of libertarianism a lot of critics of the PATRIOT Act make it out to be.

From the summary: All levels of government in Canada must ensure that their laws are consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that their policies and actions do not off end Charter protections. Several submissions suggested that putting British Columbians' personal information at risk of seizure under the USA Patriot Act might confl ict with privacy protection under the Charter. While we do not analyze this question, we acknowledge that Canadian courts require Charter values and rights to be considered in interpreting legislation such as BC's FOIPPA.

So I decided to look up this charter, and I found it. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which goes to unusual lengths to tell the world that French and English are it's official languages.

Then I decided to look for the US Bill of Rights, which is located not on a website with the words "law" and "justice" in the URL, but rather on "archives.gov" and what I'm reading is a Transcript of the Bill of Rights, as if it's chronicling an event and not informing me of my rights.

And I noticed the transcript of the Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger , and I contrasted it with Canada's charter: 9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. 10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor; b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful. Period, end of sentance, no "except."

Is America more interested in the history of it's laws than in the current reality? Are we, under the Patriot Act, in a constant state of "public danger" and therefore subject to being held, as I've heard people have been, without being told the crime they're being held for, with no court date, and no trial. What a strange, and convoluted time we live in that we are in a constant state of being the exception and not the rule.

Boy, I tell ya, I feel safe now, since Ontario considered allowing Sharia Law for settling some civil disputes between muslims. I have not followed the story closely, so I don't know if it turned out to be anything more than a proposal, but I am sure there will be a conflict between Sharia and the Charter of Rights & Freedoms

canada's for example is very SPECIFIC and has definite wording for their "freedom of speeach"

Actually, as a Canadian, it was the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that was foremost in my mind when I posted that.

Right at the top:

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

That defines a limit on freedom that does not really exist in the U.S. constitution, and leaves the limit very much open to debate. People who know anything about the Charter (including judges and lawyers) are well aware of this, and eager to push back against government attempts to curtail freedom. We know the government would get away with it if we let them. No false sense of security there.

In contrast, Americans (with the exception of a few, who are usually marginalized as "$foo-wing nutcases"), seem more willing to sit back and expect the Constitution to protect them. At least, that's my perception, as a non-American.

Actually, exchanging money for sex is perfectly legal in Canada. The law forbids owning or operating a brothel, consequently a prostitute can't work in her own home. Pimping is right out. The law also forbids solicitation in any public place.

Here's the relevant law (from the Canadian Criminal Code) if you want all the details:

Section 210: Keeping a common bawdy house;
Section 211: Transporting to a bawdy house;
Section 212: Procuring;
Section 213: Offence in relation to prostitution (soliciting).

Actually, exchanging money for sex is perfectly legal in Canada. The law forbids owning or operating a brothel, consequently a prostitute can't work in her own home. Pimping is right out. The law also forbids solicitation in any public place.

Here's the relevant law (from the Canadian Criminal Code) if you want all the details:

Section 210: Keeping a common bawdy house;
Section 211: Transporting to a bawdy house;
Section 212: Procuring;
Section 213: Offence in relation to prostitution (soliciting).

Actually, exchanging money for sex is perfectly legal in Canada. The law forbids owning or operating a brothel, consequently a prostitute can't work in her own home. Pimping is right out. The law also forbids solicitation in any public place.

Here's the relevant law (from the Canadian Criminal Code) if you want all the details:

Section 210: Keeping a common bawdy house;
Section 211: Transporting to a bawdy house;
Section 212: Procuring;
Section 213: Offence in relation to prostitution (soliciting).

Actually, exchanging money for sex is perfectly legal in Canada. The law forbids owning or operating a brothel, consequently a prostitute can't work in her own home. Pimping is right out. The law also forbids solicitation in any public place.

Here's the relevant law (from the Canadian Criminal Code) if you want all the details:

Section 210: Keeping a common bawdy house;
Section 211: Transporting to a bawdy house;
Section 212: Procuring;
Section 213: Offence in relation to prostitution (soliciting).

A modchip is not acting as a replacement part. It does not 'unlock' or permit operation of the console. The purpose of a modchip is to bypass the signing mechanism used to prevent you from playing pirated games.

Okay, time for a list of modchip uses:

- Playing unofficial/unlicensed software (ex: Game Enhancer, which was almost definately first developed with the help of a modchip, since absolutely ZERO Sony code or patents were used to complete the software)
- Using unofficial devices (ex: New max memory devices made by Datel)
- Cheating devices (ex: Game genie by Galoob)
- Playing backups
- Bypassing region protection

These are all locks placed on the device by the manufacturer in an attempt to stop the usage of third party items, such as:

1 - Third party discs not authorized by the console manufacturer
2 - Third party software not authorized by the console manufacturer
3 - Third party hardware not authorized by the console manufacturer
4 - Authorized software from the manufacturer that was not intended to be used in your country

As far as I know, in all three situations, doing those things is legal. It is legal for me to put Maxell media in an HP burner (item 1), it's legal for me to install Windows XP to a Mac (item 2), it's legal for me to use a non sony DV tape in my Sony DV camcorder (item 3), and it's legal for me to watch a PAL videotape in the USA (item 4).

Now, for some reason, the person who built the device decided for me they didn't like items 1 - 4. So they built the device not to allow this. Now this law says such locks are illegal. And since the actions were legal to start with, where's your beef?

That someone might do items 1 - 4 with an illegal intent? Yeah, they could. In fact, you could install a pirated Windows XP on a Mac using an emulator. Does that make the emulator illegal? You could copy a copyrighted gameboy game into a blank flash memory cartridge and play it on your gameboy. Does that make computer memory illegal?

This is no different than banning box cutters on airlines because you think a terrorist is going to slash your throat with one. You're using an (extremely poor) band-aid to cover up what is a societal problem that already has PLENTY of legal recourse against the act, and you are inconveniencing and embarassing people as you do it. It's nasty and wrong, and, quite honestly, it makes me, as an outsider, afraid to enter your country. It's no different than trying to ban chewing gum just because someone might stick it under a desk.

"Good luck with that. Especially since it's illegal under the DMCA."

That's funny, I thought it was explicitly allowed. Granted that's just Canada... but the US is not the only country out there.

"And since future versions of Intel hardware and Microsoft software will put a hard block on your ability to do this."

pffft

That assumes that every stage of the setup secure, and that details are never leaked. Given that the whole thing is designed by committee on a deadline, and that they're going to be dealing with people that can sniff the bus, I find that unlikely. Indeed, Microsoft claiming they will be able to provide unbreakable DRM is equivilant to Microsoft claiming they can provide perfect security. For example, one of the vulnerabilities that allowed an XBox to play pirated games was in the firmware itself.

And then, at the end of the day, the best case they can hope for is forcing everyone to use the analog hole.

Canada's government does tend to get a lot over-involved in what people watch. The CRTC (Canadian Radio and Television Commission... some say the Canadian Roadblock to Communications) even bans Canadians from using and watching signals from the American satellite company 'Direct TV'. As if they should tell us what to watch.

Sometimes the 'Peace, Order, and Good Government' aspect of Canada goes overboard.

Canadians have no civil rights as citizens. Canadians are chattel owned by an old crazy woman in England. When you are nothing but human chattel, you can be herded around however your owners see fit.

That's great rhetoric, but how does this fit into your world view?

Canada is creating a serious freedom of speech situation.

The operative words here are "preparing to introduce". So far it is a declaration of intent by the minister, no such legislation has been introduced yet (as you can find out on the Canadian Parliament site.) Don't panic just yet.

Meanwhile, you can check the existing legislation on "Hate propaganda".
There is a good article explaining the issues, an overview of the applicable law, the relevant statutes and regulations of the criminal code and a recent amendment.

Also see the Internet Content-Related Liability Study on the applicability of the existing legislation to the internet.

The operative words here are "preparing to introduce". So far it is a declaration of intent by the minister, no such legislation has been introduced yet (as you can find out on the Canadian Parliament site.) Don't panic just yet.

Meanwhile, you can check the existing legislation on "Hate propaganda".
There is a good article explaining the issues, an overview of the applicable law, the relevant statutes and regulations of the criminal code and a recent amendment.

Also see the Internet Content-Related Liability Study on the applicability of the existing legislation to the internet.

>I'm oh-so-glad there's no DMCA in Canada.

Don't worry. Instead we're going to ban you from purchasing satellite equipment from any company except Bell Canada or Starchoice. Yep, that means we'll basically make it illegal for you to watch anything that's even unencrypted for free. Sorry 'bout that. Glad you voted for 'em, though, because I expect a boondoggle of cash to flow in here if I manage to bootleg up some receivers after the law passes.

It's not enough that we just ban US television, we have to ban TV from any country except Canada! YAY MULTICULTURALISM! Multiculturalism is about making sure nobody actually participates in their culture, I assume, after all.

Did I mention we already ban Superman comics, technically? [ ccc 163.(1)(b) ]

Yeah. GO CANADA! We rule!

Oh wait. Hmmm. Can someone remind me what the point is of laws that let you copy anything you like, as long as it's made by Bryan Adams or Celine Dion?

To clarify things in Canada's case, here's section 80 from the Copyright Act:

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.

Emphasis mine. What qualifies as an audio recording medium is specified in the Private Copying Certified Tariff:

"blank audio recording medium" means
(a) a recording medium, regardless of its material form, onto which a sound recording may be reproduced, that is of a kind ordinarily used by individual consumers for that purpose and on which no sounds have ever been fixed, including

(i) audio cassettes (1/8 inch tape) of 40 minutes or more in length;
(ii) recordable compact discs (CD-R, CD-RW, CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio);
(iii) MiniDiscs;
(iv) non-removable memory, including solid state and hard disk, that is permanently embedded in a digital audio recorder; and
(b) any medium prescribed by regulations pursuant to sections 79 and 87 of the Act;

Standard PC hard drives do not qualify, so just ripping your friends' CDs to your own hard drive is not legal. Burning CD copies of them is.

Me, I paid the levy on my iPod, and put all of the music on it myself. Therefore it's all legal.

One more note: The revisions to the levy made last December were accompanied by an opinion handed down by the Copyright Board regarding the legality of P2P downloading. The decision was that the Copyright Act does not address the legality of the source:

There is no requirement in Part VIII that the source copy be a non-infringing copy. Hence, it is not relevant whether the source of the track is a pre-owned recording, a borrowed CD, or a track downloaded from the Internet.

Of course, the conditions of Section 80 must still be met.

Ok, there is a contract that says you will not do something. This doesn't make doing it Illegal (as in congress passes a law, and an executive signs it) subject to criminal penalties - it is a negotiated term in a contract, that if/when you violate it you are subject to civil penalties specified in the contract.

Canada doesn't have any amendments. We havd a Charter of rights and freedoms.

I'll probably flamed for this, but I don't need the right to make backup copies of my DVDs.

Just because you don't need a right doesn't mean other people don't need that same right.

I, for example, have no need for maternity or parental leave. But I think we should keep it anyway.

I make backups of my DVDs for travelling. I've had enough commercially-pressed DVDs fail that I want to leave them at home, safe in their cases, as much as possible. (One disc failed utterly, I've got dozens that don't work well in some players--but the copy works fine.)

I also make backups to remove User Prohibited Operation flags and region protection flags of discs I use frequently. I consider this Fair Use. It's still illegal for me to sell copies, so why do I have to sit through the FBI warning? But that's nothing: why should the DVD player's subtitle or audio track selector be locked out, forcing you to navigate the menus? Especially when there's 40 seconds of video before you can get to the menu?

but then we tax the media to death to protect the people who might be hurt if you were to copy

Keep in mind, the right to copy is separate from the levy.

So, if you were somehow able to import media without paying the levy, it would still be legal to copy onto that media.

I was going to make some comment about the "protection" only being for Canadian artists, but I actually don't know enough on that part, so I won't say it... this time.

I'll probably flamed for this, but I don't need the right to make backup copies of my DVDs.

Just because you don't need a right doesn't mean other people don't need that same right.

I, for example, have no need for maternity or parental leave. But I think we should keep it anyway.

I make backups of my DVDs for travelling. I've had enough commercially-pressed DVDs fail that I want to leave them at home, safe in their cases, as much as possible. (One disc failed utterly, I've got dozens that don't work well in some players--but the copy works fine.)

I also make backups to remove User Prohibited Operation flags and region protection flags of discs I use frequently. I consider this Fair Use. It's still illegal for me to sell copies, so why do I have to sit through the FBI warning? But that's nothing: why should the DVD player's subtitle or audio track selector be locked out, forcing you to navigate the menus? Especially when there's 40 seconds of video before you can get to the menu?

but then we tax the media to death to protect the people who might be hurt if you were to copy

Keep in mind, the right to copy is separate from the levy.

So, if you were somehow able to import media without paying the levy, it would still be legal to copy onto that media.

I was going to make some comment about the "protection" only being for Canadian artists, but I actually don't know enough on that part, so I won't say it... this time.

Canada's Department of Justice is pushing for the same thing: see the Lawful Access Consultation document about the Canadian government's plans to insure that it can tap your phone, regardless your telephony technology.

For those of you who don't RTFA, note that the VoIP tapping in question refers to "managed" VoIP, which means VoIP that "touches" the PSTN. Computer-to-computer VoIP calls are not covered by the FCC's decision.

Eh? Perhaps you forget the case of racist journalist Doug Collins, who was fined for "hate speech". Or if that is too far back in the past for you, check out how the CRTC is requiring cable carriers to censor al-Jazeera over potential "hate speech". I'm sorry, we don't have the same freedom of speech that Americans do -- a hateful opinion there is protected free speech and here it is a crime. If that isn't enough, here is the law itself.

And I'm glad we have gun control laws -- I'm all for it. But you must realize this is a freedom that we do not have. Maybe you don't have a problem with this loss of freedom -- nor do I -- but that doesn't change the fact that Americans are more free in this regard. Freedom isn't always a good thing, if we were all completely free there would be anarchy and chaos, and very few people advocate that.

ummmm.... no, they can't! Did you just make that up?
Check out the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms.

....and I quote

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association

I am free to bitch about my government as much as I want.

This means that (for better or for worse depending on your bias) the Canadian gov't can and does curtail free speech

Er?

Constitution Act, 1982 (79)

Enacted as Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 1982, c. 11, which came into force on April 17, 1982

PART I

Canadian charter of rights and freedoms

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

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

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

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.

The strangest looking bit, to me, is the "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God", which is a little less seperation between church and state than I would like, but I would say that, in general, this is DEFINATELY not a problem here.

The horse's mouth.

The rights to not have your work butchered and presented as your own or misrepresented as someone else's are protected even if you assign the copyright... at least that's the case in Canada.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/38965.html#rid-3 9073

I'm not sure about the U.S... A quick Google turns up stuff which makes me wonder if the U.S. is screwed up in this regard:

http://www.rbs2.com/moral.htm

But its already illegal to trade in copyrighted material without the copyright holders consent

In your country.

(as it should be).

I don't think so. There are many legitimate uses of copyright material that don't need the copyright holder's consent: I can borrow a book from the library. I can photocopy parts of it. I can quote parts of it in my own work.

In Canada, I can make a complete copy of a music recording for my own use. This is as it should be, because I pay a levy on recording media which goes to the recording industry.

This is a *much* better system than the "no copying without consent" system you have. Yes, it's unfair to the people who use recording media for other purposes: but it doesn't criminalize the reasonable practice of making a copy of a recording.

If it weren't for the fact that attitudes like yours have consequences your post would be rather funny. Before we begin, I should point out that I'm Canadian and we have rather than our American friends to the south. In our case it is simply a matter of the popularity of the law because we have no right to bear arms in our consitution. Therefore our duly elected government may enact any law on the subject.

Like it or not the US is a different case. Your constitution states very clearly that Americans have the right to bear arms. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". There are two statements in that sentence. The first seems descriptive to me, but the second is clearly prescriptive. More importantly, US rights are given to individuals, not to groups.

The fact is that the US constitution guarantees no infringement of the right to bear arms. If you don't like that, there is a clear solution: replace or eliminate the second amendment. I really see no problem with this. The US constitution is not a secular bible. It can be changed. It even has a mechanism for that. So use that mechanism!

Unfortunately, several anti-gun groups aren't willing to undertake this admittedly daunting task and are instead trying to pretend that the second amendment doesn't in fact say what it clearly does. If you go down that route you go down the unfortunate path of making up the law as you go along. If you get the Supreme Court to go along with you, you end up in the undemocratic world of judicial activism and making up law as you go along.

I believe in democracy and free speech. Judicial activism is to say the least very unhealthy in a democracy. The best example I can think of comes from Canada. Most of our controversial judicial cases these days spring from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A few years back, (sorry I couldn't find the date), our court decided to add "sexual orientation" as a prohibited grounds of discrimination. (Section 15). If you read section 15 in the charter, the document clearly does not prohibit descrimination on those grounds. Perhaps it should. Perhaps it should not. That's not the point. The point is that the supreme court is not the procedure laid out to revise the charter. The supreme court's job is to interpret the charter. That does not mean that the court can "read-in" things that simply aren't there at all, even if they "should" be there. (Our court is appointed by the Prime Minister, but even if it were elected, that wouldn't make it the proper channel to revise the charter). If the supreme court can't even follow the laws of democracy in place in our country, we don't have a truly democratic country any more. That's bad news for everyone, but I find that increasingly large numbers of people don't care about democratic solutions as long as their interests get promoted.

If it weren't for the fact that attitudes like yours have consequences your post would be rather funny. Before we begin, I should point out that I'm Canadian and we have rather than our American friends to the south. In our case it is simply a matter of the popularity of the law because we have no right to bear arms in our consitution. Therefore our duly elected government may enact any law on the subject.

Like it or not the US is a different case. Your constitution states very clearly that Americans have the right to bear arms. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". There are two statements in that sentence. The first seems descriptive to me, but the second is clearly prescriptive. More importantly, US rights are given to individuals, not to groups.

The fact is that the US constitution guarantees no infringement of the right to bear arms. If you don't like that, there is a clear solution: replace or eliminate the second amendment. I really see no problem with this. The US constitution is not a secular bible. It can be changed. It even has a mechanism for that. So use that mechanism!

Unfortunately, several anti-gun groups aren't willing to undertake this admittedly daunting task and are instead trying to pretend that the second amendment doesn't in fact say what it clearly does. If you go down that route you go down the unfortunate path of making up the law as you go along. If you get the Supreme Court to go along with you, you end up in the undemocratic world of judicial activism and making up law as you go along.

I believe in democracy and free speech. Judicial activism is to say the least very unhealthy in a democracy. The best example I can think of comes from Canada. Most of our controversial judicial cases these days spring from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A few years back, (sorry I couldn't find the date), our court decided to add "sexual orientation" as a prohibited grounds of discrimination. (Section 15). If you read section 15 in the charter, the document clearly does not prohibit descrimination on those grounds. Perhaps it should. Perhaps it should not. That's not the point. The point is that the supreme court is not the procedure laid out to revise the charter. The supreme court's job is to interpret the charter. That does not mean that the court can "read-in" things that simply aren't there at all, even if they "should" be there. (Our court is appointed by the Prime Minister, but even if it were elected, that wouldn't make it the proper channel to revise the charter). If the supreme court can't even follow the laws of democracy in place in our country, we don't have a truly democratic country any more. That's bad news for everyone, but I find that increasingly large numbers of people don't care about democratic solutions as long as their interests get promoted.

If it weren't for the fact that attitudes like yours have consequences your post would be rather funny. Before we begin, I should point out that I'm Canadian and we have rather than our American friends to the south. In our case it is simply a matter of the popularity of the law because we have no right to bear arms in our consitution. Therefore our duly elected government may enact any law on the subject.

Like it or not the US is a different case. Your constitution states very clearly that Americans have the right to bear arms. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". There are two statements in that sentence. The first seems descriptive to me, but the second is clearly prescriptive. More importantly, US rights are given to individuals, not to groups.

The fact is that the US constitution guarantees no infringement of the right to bear arms. If you don't like that, there is a clear solution: replace or eliminate the second amendment. I really see no problem with this. The US constitution is not a secular bible. It can be changed. It even has a mechanism for that. So use that mechanism!

Unfortunately, several anti-gun groups aren't willing to undertake this admittedly daunting task and are instead trying to pretend that the second amendment doesn't in fact say what it clearly does. If you go down that route you go down the unfortunate path of making up the law as you go along. If you get the Supreme Court to go along with you, you end up in the undemocratic world of judicial activism and making up law as you go along.

I believe in democracy and free speech. Judicial activism is to say the least very unhealthy in a democracy. The best example I can think of comes from Canada. Most of our controversial judicial cases these days spring from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A few years back, (sorry I couldn't find the date), our court decided to add "sexual orientation" as a prohibited grounds of discrimination. (Section 15). If you read section 15 in the charter, the document clearly does not prohibit descrimination on those grounds. Perhaps it should. Perhaps it should not. That's not the point. The point is that the supreme court is not the procedure laid out to revise the charter. The supreme court's job is to interpret the charter. That does not mean that the court can "read-in" things that simply aren't there at all, even if they "should" be there. (Our court is appointed by the Prime Minister, but even if it were elected, that wouldn't make it the proper channel to revise the charter). If the supreme court can't even follow the laws of democracy in place in our country, we don't have a truly democratic country any more. That's bad news for everyone, but I find that increasingly large numbers of people don't care about democratic solutions as long as their interests get promoted.

If it weren't for the fact that attitudes like yours have consequences your post would be rather funny. Before we begin, I should point out that I'm Canadian and we have rather than our American friends to the south. In our case it is simply a matter of the popularity of the law because we have no right to bear arms in our consitution. Therefore our duly elected government may enact any law on the subject.

Like it or not the US is a different case. Your constitution states very clearly that Americans have the right to bear arms. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". There are two statements in that sentence. The first seems descriptive to me, but the second is clearly prescriptive. More importantly, US rights are given to individuals, not to groups.

The fact is that the US constitution guarantees no infringement of the right to bear arms. If you don't like that, there is a clear solution: replace or eliminate the second amendment. I really see no problem with this. The US constitution is not a secular bible. It can be changed. It even has a mechanism for that. So use that mechanism!

Unfortunately, several anti-gun groups aren't willing to undertake this admittedly daunting task and are instead trying to pretend that the second amendment doesn't in fact say what it clearly does. If you go down that route you go down the unfortunate path of making up the law as you go along. If you get the Supreme Court to go along with you, you end up in the undemocratic world of judicial activism and making up law as you go along.

I believe in democracy and free speech. Judicial activism is to say the least very unhealthy in a democracy. The best example I can think of comes from Canada. Most of our controversial judicial cases these days spring from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A few years back, (sorry I couldn't find the date), our court decided to add "sexual orientation" as a prohibited grounds of discrimination. (Section 15). If you read section 15 in the charter, the document clearly does not prohibit descrimination on those grounds. Perhaps it should. Perhaps it should not. That's not the point. The point is that the supreme court is not the procedure laid out to revise the charter. The supreme court's job is to interpret the charter. That does not mean that the court can "read-in" things that simply aren't there at all, even if they "should" be there. (Our court is appointed by the Prime Minister, but even if it were elected, that wouldn't make it the proper channel to revise the charter). If the supreme court can't even follow the laws of democracy in place in our country, we don't have a truly democratic country any more. That's bad news for everyone, but I find that increasingly large numbers of people don't care about democratic solutions as long as their interests get promoted.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was indeed once the court of ultimate appeal for Canada, but ceased to be for criminal cases in 1933 and for civil cases in 1949. Since 1949 the Supreme Court of Canada has been the highest court for all cases. Indeed, most Commonwealth countries have now eliminated appeals to the JCPC. The provincial courts are now subject to decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada - they are not legal equals. Here is a chart of the current system. By way of example, in the important aboriginal rights case, Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

Only certain constitutionally-based court decisions can be over-ridden by legislation in Canada. The "Notwithstanding Clause", the relevant portion of which I quote, applies only to sections 2 and 7-15 of the Charter. These are the sections that protect civil liberties, roughly equivalent to the American Bill of Rights. Legislation cannot, for example, over-ride the right to vote since this is guaranteed in section 3, which is not subject to the Notwithstanding Clause. In my opinion the Notwithstanding Clause is an embarassment and should be removed, but it isn't as broad as parent suggests.

33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

IIRC I believe it had something to do with the Privacy Act that came into effect at the beginning of 2004.
Basically companies are not allowed to distribute any information they obtain on customers, so outside forces could not compel them to do so.
Again, my memory is a little fuzzy on this.

Yet like any other totalitarian society, Canada lacksthe Right to Keep and Bear Arms (see also Lott). The Right of Free Speech is also incredibly limited by the requirement of not offending anyone, and let's not forget Freedom of the Press is only a secondary consideration.

Canadians are simply more comfortable with less freedom. Then again, so are people in California and Massachusetts...

I have the right to (up to the noise laws limit) stand at the border of your property and scream at your home, install video cameras pointing at you and take your picture.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada explicitly grants citizens the Right to freely move about within the country. Under Section 6 "Mobility Rights" http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/#circulation

(1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

Perhaps it has to do with Canada's recent laws restricting freedom of speech?

Or maybe it has to do with your healthcare system.

If I recon correctly, gasoline fumes contains beneze. Have we stopped using gas ?

No, but most western countries have put limits on the amount of benzene permissible in gasoline, eg: USA, Canada, etc.

In the immortal words of Bobby McFerrin, "don't worry, be happy."

I used to live in Mexico and travelled through southern Mexico, Belize, Guatemala and Honduras with a laptop, a digital camera, and a few thousand pesos in my daypack the entire time. As an obvious foreigner, I never once had a problem. I don't know about London, but the stats I've seen for Canada indicated that only 3% of Canadians had been robbed in the 5 years previous to the study. 0.45% of of Canadians had been robbed in an incident involving a firearm. The study also found that the chances of being robbed were higher for criminals than for non-criminals. Obligatory reference.

I realise this doesn't answer your question directly, but my point is that there are probably much better things to worry about than being robbed. Your chances of losing your gear in a car accident are higher.

I've heard that rumor floating around but I'd like to see the proof that you can infact copy the CD legally. I know they charge a blanket tax but I'd be very suprised if infact the CRIA has given away the right to prosecut you.

Do you have any links to prove this (and no slashdot opinions don't count)?

How about Part 8 of the Canadian Copyright Act? Plenty of legal speak in it, but the part that matters here is this section:

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. (emphasis mine)

The section after that sets up the levy on CDRs, tapes, etc. If you want it explained in something other than lawyer-speak, try this FAQ.

you will find that gun owenership per capita is higher in Canada

Ummm... not according to the Department of Justice. The linked paper states that 22% of Canadian households had at least one gun, vs. 48.6% of American households. And yes, most were long guns (95% of gun-owning households). I suppose it's possible that gun owning households in Canada own more than twice as many guns as American gun-owning households, driving per-capita ownership over the American value. Either way chances are only one of those is in use at a given time, unless Candians go out armed to the teeth with all their guns at once... so the value of a per-capita ownership statistic in terms of crime is debatable.

To be fair, I think you missed Moore's point. It was not that guns are evil and cause crime. It was that America is currently living in a climate of fear stirred by the media and ultimately caused by American politics and values. He held up gun violence as of one of the worst symptoms of this culture.

Moore used Canada not as an example of perfection embodied in a nation, but as a foil to illustrate differences with the US. What you should be asking is *why* most guns in Canada are rifles and not handguns. Perhaps because Canadians feel less of a need for handguns, and perhaps because our stricter gun control laws are a reflection of the difference between the Canadian and American attitudes toward guns.

If Moore were Canadian, he'd be making movies about Canadian social problems and contrasting them with how other nations deal with them. Every nation has its faults, and every nation can learn from others.

Finally, I have to admit that I never lock my doors when I'm home. I do lock them if I'm going to be out though. His point was that we don't tend to lock them when we're at home. I find it shocking that anyone would actually find that odd.

Aside from the fact that your link is about US law, and the article is about a patent infringement case in Canada(ie, assuming that the laws are substantially similar)

Apparently the patent laws of Canada and the United States are sufficiently harmonised at least with respect to infringement solely by use of the invention. Canadian patent law uses the construction "make, construct, use or sell" (emphasis added).