Slashdot Mirror
Canada Considering A Three Strikes And You're Off The Internet Policy?
Techdirt is reporting that Canada may be considering a "three strikes" policy which could see users internet access privileges revoked for file sharing violations. "Given how secretive the industry and the government have been about new copyright laws, perhaps this isn't too surprising. We do know that the industry was pushing for greater ISP liability as part of copyright law changes a few months back, so it wouldn't be surprising if ISPs were negotiating a "three strikes" type rule to avoid the liability issues. Of course, they probably want to keep it secret, as publicity (and resulting anger) about these types of laws in Europe has at least some politicians moving away from them. However, as the entertainment industry does keep succeeding in getting these types of laws to move forward, how long will it be before similar laws are proposed in the US, with "everyone else is doing it" as part of the reasoning?"
That's not what the notwithstanding clause means. It means that the government can ignore (i.e. pass a law that runs counter to) certain parts of the Canadian Charter. It doesn't allow provinces to ignore federal acts of parliament.
That stupid law to which you refer is the reason Canadians are allowed to download music legally. It may not be "working as intended", but at least our judges let that double edged sword bite the music industry when it swung back at them. Uploading is illegal here, but that's easy enough to turn off on most BitTorrent/file sharing clients.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
If I may quote from the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms:
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
That said, internet is not a fundamental right in Canada.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
"freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication"
You mean unless you say or write something that offends Muslims, right?
That's not a troll either, it's the truth.
The hell it isn't!
We've got a Bill of Rights here, and I quote from it:
PART I
BILL OF RIGHTS
Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms
1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
(c) freedom of religion;
(d) freedom of speech; (emphasis mine)
(e) freedom of assembly and association; and
(f) freedom of the press.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
What nonsense. The Charter of Rights also does not delineate a right to poop, or read books, or sleep or throw a frisbee either but those rights exist none the less. The Charter is not exhaustive as it was never the intent to list every single right and freedom that could possibly exist and is instead a barrier to government action.
I think this makes it fairly clear that the Charter is not intended to restrict our rights and freedoms to those listed in the Charter:
OTHER RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS NOT AFFECTED BY CHARTER.
26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.
Besides, the Supreme Court of Canada has made significant rulings on our right to freedom of expression as it pertains to the Internet on numerous occasions (to wit, "other media of communication"). Apparently they think we have a right to express ourselves on the Internet, but you do not.
1. That is exactly the way a Charter challenge to such a law would work. Even persons convicted of a serious indictable offence and sentenced to (and serving time in) prison are entitled to 3(b) protections with minimal, proportionate restrictions. Even these restrictions are subject to challenge, since section 24(1) applies to anyone.
2. The point is to make the committees in the House of Commons and the Senate see that a Charter challenge is both inevitable and unwinnable, and to simply not proceed with the legislation on that basis. There are still Senators and MPs who feel that Parliament should not be in the business of producing legislation which is known a priori to conflict with the Charter, unless it is tagged by the non obstante clause or an extremely persuasive section 1 limit, both of which are rare and politically awkward.
Also importantly, there is the question of whether society has a compelling interest in the prevention of not-for-profit individual-scale copyright infringement that would justify criminal sanctions that will be expensive to investigate and prosecute.
As a deterrent, are tiny numbers of heavy sentences (i.e., make it an indictable offence) realistic? Or large numbers of small sentences (summary conviction)?
The courts have been in no mood to accept large increases in the number of criminal cases put before them without sufficient resources to cope with them, and this sort of move is liable to provoke another "11(b) work-to-rule" akin to the fallout after Askov v. R., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199 in matters involving minor offences, despite R v. Morin [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771. One of the obvious administrative issues will be the sheer number of people who participate in file sharing now.
On the other hand, the possibility large numbers of people (a percent or more of all Canadians!) waiting for 2 years or more between charge and trial is a risky proposition for a minority government! File sharing makes marijuana use look rare.
Two key differences...
1 - they are a minority goverment
2- in a legal system with a non confidence vote.
In other words, no matter what the Conservatives want to push down our throats, if atleast one of the other parties doesnt support it, it isnt going to happen. Not only that, but it could get the party bounced from power.
Imagine how much different the states would be right now if Bush had to work under similar rules? Then again, in Canada the Prime Minister really isnt near as powerful as the Presidents position (has become ).