Slashdot Mirror

I'm sure that "vague language" has never been interpreted by the courts. Oh wait:

1. There must be a pressing and substantial objective
2. The means must be proportional
   1. The means must be rationally connected to the objective
   2. There must be minimal impairment of rights
   3. There must be proportionality between the infringement and objective

You're right, though, that's pretty permissive in what it allows the government to do. Fortunately for Americans, their rights are not subject to such "vague language". For example, when courts are trying to decide if it right has been violated, the most stringent judicial review they are allowed to use is strict scrutiny. What are the three prongs a law must pass to survive strict scrutiny?

1. It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest
2. It must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest
3. It must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest

Totally different situations, obviously, especially since it's been speculated that the Canadian test comes from the SCOTUS test for commercial speech. Still, between 1990 and 2003, 30 percent of federal cases involving strict scrutiny have approved of the rights restrictions.

Look, I'm not saying there aren't Canadian laws or court decisions I disagree with, while the US is completely messed up. But don't pretend that the country that gave the world "free speech zones", "contemporary community standards" for obscenity, the PATRIOT Act and other national security laws, Morse v. Frederick and Gonzales v. Raich and other ridiculous drug laws, among many, many other laws and court decisions can look down on other jurisdictions' rights while implying theirs are absolute. It's not just what you write in your constitution, it's how five of the nine people in black robes interprets it. And given some of the wacky decisions I've seen out of your country lately, I'll take my nine red-robed over your nine black-robed.

Neither should you underestimate the technological sophistication of the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC"). This is the same court that recently, in R. v. Morelli, overturned a warrant for child pornography on the basis that the contents of an internet browser cache does not constitute possession.

This court also, 4 months ago, decided in Grant v. Torstar Corp. to create a new defence against defamation of "responsible communication on matters of public interest". This new defence allows citizens (including bloggers as well as traditional journalists) to publish critical statements that may not necessarily be true, but are made in good faith towards the public interest. If this defence existed in the UK, then the British Chiropractic Association would not have been able to sue Dr. Simon Singh for scientifically doubting chiropractic claims of success.

A few years ago, the SCC issued a decision in CCH v. Upper Law Society of Canada, that clarified the "fair dealing" defence in Canadian copyright law. That case dismissed an allegation that merely placing a photocopier in a library was an inducement to copyright infringement.

Finally, the SCC itself has incorporated technology into its proceedings. The work flow is paperless; documents must be filed digitally. The court is outfitted with terminals at every station, and the documents are viewed on screens. Selected hearings are broadcast over the internet.

Yes, IAAL, and a GNU/Linux user to boot. It bugs me when people automatically assume that lawyers are technologically inept.

Neither should you underestimate the technological sophistication of the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC"). This is the same court that recently, in R. v. Morelli, overturned a warrant for child pornography on the basis that the contents of an internet browser cache does not constitute possession.

This court also, 4 months ago, decided in Grant v. Torstar Corp. to create a new defence against defamation of "responsible communication on matters of public interest". This new defence allows citizens (including bloggers as well as traditional journalists) to publish critical statements that may not necessarily be true, but are made in good faith towards the public interest. If this defence existed in the UK, then the British Chiropractic Association would not have been able to sue Dr. Simon Singh for scientifically doubting chiropractic claims of success.

A few years ago, the SCC issued a decision in CCH v. Upper Law Society of Canada, that clarified the "fair dealing" defence in Canadian copyright law. That case dismissed an allegation that merely placing a photocopier in a library was an inducement to copyright infringement.

Finally, the SCC itself has incorporated technology into its proceedings. The work flow is paperless; documents must be filed digitally. The court is outfitted with terminals at every station, and the documents are viewed on screens. Selected hearings are broadcast over the internet.

Yes, IAAL, and a GNU/Linux user to boot. It bugs me when people automatically assume that lawyers are technologically inept.

If you ever get a chance to visit the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa, Ontario, you will see just how tech-savvy it really is. All documents must be filed electronically. Every station in the court (judges, clerks, lawyers and reporting media) has an embedded computer to manage the digital case materials. There are large-screen monitors for the public gallery to follow along.

The SCC broadcasts select hearings over the web. The court's decisions are all published and searchable on the internet.

Slashdot readers would also be interested in the 2004 case CCH v Law Society of Upper Canada, which considered the concept of "fair dealing" under Canada's Copyright Act.

If you ever get a chance to visit the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa, Ontario, you will see just how tech-savvy it really is. All documents must be filed electronically. Every station in the court (judges, clerks, lawyers and reporting media) has an embedded computer to manage the digital case materials. There are large-screen monitors for the public gallery to follow along.

The SCC broadcasts select hearings over the web. The court's decisions are all published and searchable on the internet.

Slashdot readers would also be interested in the 2004 case CCH v Law Society of Upper Canada, which considered the concept of "fair dealing" under Canada's Copyright Act.

• The Supreme Court of Canada is Canada's final court of appeal, the last judicial resort for all litigants, whether individuals or governments. You haven't been able to appeal to the law lords in canada for decades.
• Canada doesn't have any "states", only provinces and territories.
• using the expression "some states" is using weasel words, which states are you talking about, do you have a source for your unsubstantiated blather?

Indeed, straight from the Chief Justice Herself, Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/aboutcourt/judges/speeche s/ComparativeView_e.asp That said, the debate isn't new in fact, http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/libel3.html decribes how lawsuit can be used to shout down criticism through intimidation. Jeffrey Shallit http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/ is vice-president of Electronic Frontier Canada http://www.efc.ca/. One of us!

In Canada it has to pass through the House:

"All members of the judiciary in Canada, regardless of the court, are drawn from the legal profession. In the case of those judges appointed by the federal government, which includes the judges of all of the courts apart from those at the bottom of the hierarchy and described generally as provincial courts, are required by federal statute to have been a member of a provincial or territorial bar for at least ten years. Lawyers wishing to become judges must apply to do so and their applications are vetted initially by committees established within the various jurisdictions for that purpose, with the ultimate power of decision residing with the federal cabinet."

See http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/aboutcourt/system/index_e .asp

Write to SOCAN and tell them (nicely) what you think about this.

Then write to the Supreme Court and do the same.

Remember, these have to be sent through the post - they think that each snail mail letter represents ten people!

Finally, here's a good guide on how to write a professional-looking letter.

Even if SOCAN just got 20 negative letters, they'd flip out!

In Canada, they've lost all the way to the Supreme Court - One case is Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, 1995. It was a libel case, and the details will look pretty familiar. Holysmokehas an extract and this is the full thing. Umontreal's archive is linked from the official Supreme Court of Canada page.

Great quote: "Every aspect of this case demonstrates the very real and persistent malice of Scientology." - from the Court itself.

I know that there have been many other rulings in Canada against Scientology, but only this one is easily available on-line.

Henry Troup - hwt@igs.net