Slashdot Mirror

Google could say they deleted the listings. As long as there is no way to access those listings from Canada, they would be compliant.

Not true. Read the article. It specifically says that for Google to comply, they need to de-index the listing globally. The court was very specific in how Google was to implement the injunction against it.

you should consider the intent of the court.

For the sake of argument let's consider it. Straight from the horse's mouth, the stated purpose of the case was to decide...

Whether Google can be ordered [...] to globally de-index websites of distributor [...] — Whether Supreme Court of British Columbia had jurisdiction to grant injunction with extraterritorial effect

In other words, they explicitly set out to rule on whether the injunction against Google could apply "extraterritorially" (i.e. beyond the court's authority), and they decided that it could. There was nothing accidental or incidental about the ruling applying internationally. It was neither the side effect you've claimed it was, nor, as you just suggested, was it left to Google to choose how to implement the injunction against them.

Does the fact that they made it clear they knew they were imposing their laws outside their borders have any effect on your thinking?

• The lower court judgement against Schmeiser was reduced to just $1. Why? Because (and the Monsanto apologists never tell you this) Schmeiser never used Round-Up on his crops. He only used Round-Up to kill weeds in the gulleys between his crops and the road. Never on his crops. As such, there was no way for him to benefit from using Monsanto's patented gene (and in fact no incentive for him to steal it).
• He "acquired" the seed when he noticed that some stray canola which was growing in the gulleys survived his anti-weed spraying of Round-Up. Since his canola crop was not Round-Up-Ready, the only way the Round-Up-resistant canola could've gotten there is by falling off a passing truck (the explanation the Court decided was correct), or via natural cross-pollination of his crop with a neighbor's Round-Up-Ready crop (the explanation Schmeiser gave for his behavior).
• The Court decided for Monsanto (5 to 4) because Monsanto claimed it was impossible for the gene to spread by natural cross-pollination as Schmeiser claimed. The Court took Monsanto at their word and decided in their favor because Schmeiser "ought to have known" that any canola which survived spraying with Round-Up was Monsanto's patented seed, not the result of natural cross-pollination.
• Monsanto's argument was disproven a decade later when researchers found the Round-Up-Ready gene could spread to weeds via cross-pollination. Basically, Schmeiser was right and Monsanto was wrong. The gene could spread through cross-pollination, meaning the Round-Up resistant canola he found next to his fields may very well have been the result of natural cross-pollination, and not Monsanto's patented seed. And the only reason the Canadian Supreme Court decided in Monsanto's favor was erroneous.

[citation needed]

Can you cite a statute?

Section 2091 of the Civil Code of Quebec. That's in book five (obligations), title two (nominate contracts), chapter vii (contract of employment):

http://ccq.lexum.com/ccq/en#!f...

Either party to a contract for an indeterminate term may terminate it by giving notice of termination to the other party.

The notice of termination shall be given in reasonable time, taking into account, in particular, the nature of the employment, the specific circumstances in which it is carried on and the duration of the period of work.

There is also a more specific law specifically dealing with an employer terminating an employee, so essentially 2091 only applies to employee resignations.

We all benefit from others being vaccinated, and being that it is more or less mandatory we should (but currently do not) have a compensation program in place for those who suffer from vaccine injury. In fact we gave a precedent set by the Supreme Court of Canada that the state cannot be held responsible. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-...

The one case involved a farmer who went out of his way to gather the seeds from his neighbor's crops and use them in preference to other seeds.

That's the way Monsanto portrayed it. Fact is, the judgment against the farmer was reduced by the Canadian Supreme Court to $1 because he didn't do anything to take advantage of the Monsanto seed. He didn't use Round-Up on his crops - he couldn't afford to use it on his fields. He only used it in ditches surrounding his farm to prevent weeds from encroaching into his fields. So there was zero benefit to him going "out of his way to gather the seeds from his neighbor's crops and use them in preference to other seeds." He had no motive for behaving as Monsanto claimed he did. (Incidentally, the resistant seed came from canola in one of these ditches - what he thought was his canola. It was theorized that it was instead blown there from a neighboring farm, or seed which had fallen off a truck driving down the intervening road. He did not gather the seeds from his neighbor as you portray.)

The Canadian Supreme Court let the ruling against the farmer stand however because they believed Monsanto's argument that its Round-Up Ready resistance could not be spread by pollination, and so the farmer "ought to have known" that any canola which survived being sprayed with Round-Up was their patented seed. This was later shown to be false as they've found the GMO portions of Round-Up Ready resistance in wild plants.

But the damage was done, and the reason there haven't been recent cases of Monsanto going after farmers is because they've mostly thrown in the towel and just pay Monsanto if they suspect they've got Round-Up Ready crops in their field even if they never knowingly planted it. Which is Monsanto's real goal here - charging rent for the privilege of farming.

In terms of IP law, this combined with the dismissal of organic farms' opposition is a terrible precedent because it decouples risk from reward. If Monsanto's seed finds its way onto your farm and you benefit from it, Monsanto profits from it. If Monsanto's seed finds it way onto your farm and you are harmed by it, Monsanto is not liable for it. It cannot work that way. Either you are allowed to release a product and profit from it but are liable for the harm it causes, or you are not allowed to release it.

I knew that for at least a week now. Old news.

No you didn't because today is Sunday, Feb 8 2015 and the decision was announced Friday Feb 6 2015. That's 2 days ago, and I submitted the story the same morning.

Or you can read the date on the actual judgment, again just 2 days ago.

when someone is incapable to decide

Just to point out - that was NOT the decision the court made. instead of paraphrasing I'll quote:

physicianâ'assisted death for a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.

Full judgement text available here

So the decision was not to allow doctors to make an arbitrary judgement on people who could not consent. The judgement was to prevent the government from finding doctors guilty of murder for respecting their patient's clearly expressed and competent wishes to end their lives only in circumstances of nonredeemable suffering.
Min

Maybe you should actually read the judgment It is the individual who makes the determination, not the doctor, though as a safeguard the doctors have to make sure that the person is competent to make that decision.

So there's no "official answer", no "checklist" - it's up to the individual, in consultation with friends, family, and doctors.

Not in my understanding.

The recent supreme court decision related to this announcement and several others recently indicate that according to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we're guaranteed the right to privacy, and our actions online have a reasonable expectation of privacy and annonymity. Constitutionally speaking, we're safe online from unreasonable (unwarranted) search, it's not an issue of *a* law, it's an issue of the supreme law of the land. The government could try to amend our Charter to remove, or reduce this right, but that's a complicated process.

Any laws passed here have to be constitutionally sound, and lately the supreme court here has been coming down on what many are seeing as government overreach.

In general, having sex with a sleeping person is illegal**, almost everywhere in the world. The fact that you weren't charged because she happened to be into it doesn't make it not rape, any more than it wouldn't be rape if you happened to jump out of the bushes with a knife and rape a girl who happened to have a rape fantasy. If one night your girlfriend had gone to bed angry with you and woken up to you F*ing her without her consent, she would have had, and should have, every damned right in the world to charge you for it. You can never assume an unending right to F*** someone, even your girlfriend or spouse, and that's a damned good thing.

** In some jurisdictions, there are exceptions made for if consent was given shortly before the person went to sleep (considering that to be consent immediately before the sexual activity), while in others, there's a flat ban. In one noteworthy case in Canada for the extreme end of the spectrum, in R. v. J.A., the Canadian Supreme Court took on a case where a woman consented to be strangled during sex, she passed out, and while she was out her partier tied her up and shoved a dildo up her anus, she came to, he stopped, she recovered, and then they did other consensual sexual activities. The Supreme Court ruled that the activities that occurred during the three minutes that she was unconscious were rape. It doesn't matter that she was consenting to sexual activities before and after - you cannot assume consent from an unconscious person.

You claim there's blurry lines. There are no blurry lines. You want there to be blurry lines, holes carved out in the definition of rape so that you have the right to f*** girls without having to get their permission. It's a damned good reason that they're not. Because rape is enough of a problem as it is with people like you who think you have a right to F*** girls without getting their consent.

Thanks to feminist lobbying gone wild, we now have some jurisdictions where she can consent 100% to sex, and as soon as she says "no" during intercourse, the whole thing is rape, even if you stop immediately.

[[Citation needed]]. Point me to a single jurisdiction where it's considered rape if you stop immediately. However, if you don't stop immediately, YES, it's rape, and you better damned well believe it's rape..

Or where she can change her mind the next day and turn a fully consentual sex act into rape

If consent was given, it's not rape. If consent was not given, it's rape. If you're having a problem with women accusing you of rape, stop F*ing them without their consent.

And oh, that evil feminist lobby, wanting women to have a right to say no before sex - clearly they're just a bunch of Nazis!

they make it harder to fight the real problem.

You don't get it, do you? The real problem is you, and everyone like you who thinks they have a right to F* girls without getting their consent. That's RAPE.