Slashdot Mirror
In Canada, Criminal Libel Charges Laid For Criticizing Police
BitterOak writes "A Calgary man is facing criminal charges of libel for criticizing police. According to the story, the RCMP have filed five charges against John Kelly for claiming on his website that Calgary police officers engaged in perjury, corruption, and obstruction of justice. What makes the story unusual is that the charges are criminal and not civil. Even in Canada, which has much less free speech protection than the United States, it is extremely rare for people to be charged criminally with libel. It is almost always matter for civil courts."
That's right.
Thirst for power and oppression of dissent is engrained in the very core of humanity's political genes.
There is no escape.
Even in Canada, which has much less free speech protection than the United States ...
Really? Because in canada there is a tonne of laws protecting free speech - so long as you're not engaging in hate speech. In fact, the laws are almost exactly the same as in the USA in regards to freedom of speech (with hate speech being a key difference).
... like awarding a family damages over the autism-caused-by-vaccines debacle which has been debunked by real scientists over and over...)".
I think what the article means to say is that "In canada, they're not litigation happy, and the courts have made it very difficult to get a multimillion dollar settlement for pouring hot coffee on your lap and claiming that it was the fault of the coffee shop for not telling you that coffee is hot... (and other such nonsense cases
Yes, in Canada you can't walk around holding a pistol and suing everyone who looks at you funny. You also can't start a chapter of the KKK, start publishing material that has no value and offends a large audience. Oh, and queer-bashing? Also illegal. Why? Because you couldn't say or do the same things to someone that wasn't queer, and not get arrested/charged. That doesn't mean canada has lax free speech laws. That means Canada has a better system of protecting the rights of its citizens.
Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
It meant that they could raid his house and get a copy of everything that he had, possibly then loosing some of it for him. If it was a civil action then they would not have been able to do this. What is dreadful is that the ''other side'' (ie the police in this case) get an immediate advantage. This is abuse of power.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees a Canadian's right to free speech, is inherently weaker than the US constitution because it contains a notwithstanding clause that allows a province to suspend many rights for 5 year periods. Quebec's language laws wouldn't stand up to a first amendment challenge in the US but it is allowed to violate the charter of rights and Freedoms in Canada because they used the notwithstanding clause.
This guy has an amazing sense of entitlement, and I say this as someone who lives in the Calgary area, and has heard of him through friends who live in the Bowness/Montgomery area.
Just reading the index to the main site that you listed it is obvious that he just has an axe to grind against the entire community association, probably because he was expelled. Why was he expelled? I have no idea, as all we are able to see is his side of the story, and as we all know there are always at least 3 sides to every story. Yours, Mine, The truth, which is inevitably somewhere in between.
My side, is that he's an troll who just wants attention, and should not be fed.
I wish I was a neutron bomb, for once I could go off...
Wow!
What grade are you in?
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
Which has fuck all to do with free speech.
You can let the hate groups fester where nobody can see or you can leave them out in the open to be ridiculed by all.
The problem is that whenever you stop protecting the unpopular speech, and let the government decide what is and is not of "value" or "useful" or whatever, you open the gates to restricting speech for all sorts of bad reasons. It is the unpopular speech that must be protected.
As an example, look at the sham that is the Canadian Human Rights Commission. You have a lead investigator that said, on the record "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value. It's not my job to give value to an American concept." Where you don't have the right to question your accuser, hearsay is admissible with few exceptions, and truth is not always a defense. Basically, if a plaintiff can demonstrate you hurt their feelings (with rather dubious standards of evidence to do so), even if your statements were true you can get in trouble.
Really you want free speech very protected, where there are clear lines as to what can't be done and those lines are only there as needed to protect people (like you can't order someone to kill someone else and claim free speech). As it stands in Canada, the laws are used to shut down unpopular speech.
>>>Without these laws we would lose our language
So? There have been millions of human languages... only about 1% of them have survived to the modern day. In fact the world would be better served if everyone spoke just a few. Look at the benefits gained when Roman Latin replaced the native european languages (circa 100 to 900 AD) - you could travel anywhere from Africa to Rome to Portugal to Britannia, and communicate to everyone with ease.
A single language promoted the sharing of ideas and unity. It's not like that today, due to devolution of Latin into a polyglut of languages. A Roman can no longer communicate with a Portuguese citizen or British citizen or German citizen as easily as he could 1500 years ago.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Not just our 'political' genes, but our actual genes.
Every simian species* has a hirarchical social structure whereby those at the top dominate and control those at the bottom, often extremely viciously. Humans are little different in that respect.
*Except Bonobos, who settling disputes by fucking, and spend most of their spare time doing the same. Man, I wish we were more like Bonobos.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Fine if less language is better learn French and stop using English.
Language is a big part of culture, mono-culture is very bad, not only in computers (windows zombies)m also in agriculture and society.
Languages dies, like culture and civilizations and people.
"A single language promoted the sharing of ideas and unity."
Multiple languages promote innovation and diversity, I like that better.
Speaking more than one language give you a broader mind, as our thinking is dictated by words, language structures, we think mostly in words.
Ask anybody who speaks multiple languages, there is words and concepts in each of them that can only be approximated in other languages.
The Quebec Languages law do not aim to eradicate English, they are there to preserve French.
There is mandatory English classes in French schools.
settling disputes by fucking
We do that too sometimes, but we call it rape, and when it's organized and sanctioned by a political group, as in Bosnia or Congo, we call it a crime against humanity.
No, we don't. We call it makeup sex. And it's consensual, not invasive. Rape and pillaging aren't about solving disputes... they are purely carnal and direct abuses of power. In your attempt to classify monkeys as being beneath us humans, you only succeeded to show further similarity.