Chief CETA Negotiator Says Treaty "Virtually Complete" (freezenet.ca)

Dangerous_Minds writes: Steve Verheul, chief negotiator of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), is saying that the agreement is "virtually complete." He also says that translated versions are to be completed by May and that the agreement is likely to be implemented in 2017. CETA contains provisions that would compel countries to implement Internet censorship through site blocking, anti-circumvention laws as seen in the US, and compel border security to seize digital storage devices (i.e. cell phones) at the border for the purpose of looking for copyright infringement.

Comments

And how exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we supposed to prevent this from going through? "calling our representatives" certainly does not seem to help.

This is no rethorical complaint: *HOW* do we fight this? What can be done, specifically, to make those happily pushing this through *STOP*?

Legal methods and comments about their ethics and morality (or complete perversions thereof) certainly don't work... So what about stooping to their level? What can we do to make this disappear decisively?

Re:And how exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we supposed to prevent this from going through? "calling our representatives" certainly does not seem to help.

This is no rethorical complaint: *HOW* do we fight this? What can be done, specifically, to make those happily pushing this through *STOP*?

Legal methods and comments about their ethics and morality (or complete perversions thereof) certainly don't work... So what about stooping to their level? What can we do to make this disappear decisively?

Vote Sanders. He's not perfect, but he's the closest option in the US to a candidate who favors the people over the special interests.

Re:And how exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize that CETA is a treaty between Canada and the EU, right? Bernie Sanders has absolutely nothing to do with this because it doesn't involve the United States. Sanders certainly could do something about the TPP, but CETA is something he has no control over.

Re:And how exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're in the US, vote Sanders, because it applies to other treaties and because the US strongly supports pro-copyright treaties because of its entertainment industry.

The principle is the same if you're elsewhere, including in a country directly affected. Find the candidates (or better yet, advocacy groups) who most actively support the cause you're interested in. There's a reason people give to the EFF.

Re: And how exactly

[easyTree]

The problem isn't who is in office; the problem is a system where (a few) individuals are able to exert their will over the rest of the planet.

I believe we've dispensed with the myths that they:
  * know what's best
  * have our best interests at heart / are working for the betterment of humanity
  * govern on behalf of the people
  * govern with the consent of the people

What remains? That they have forced their way into power?

Re:And how exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

Sanders is a US candidate, and there was just recently an election in Canada. Your advice... isn't.

Get them strip-searched and swatted a few times a month at least; after all, they "have nothing to hide" as they're so adamant in informing us, and if we don't know the contents of their urethra and smartphone's intestines on a regular basis, then the terrorists have won.

Force-feed them their own medicine until they choke.

Re:And how exactly

[Khyber]

"What can we do to make this disappear decisively?"

Cripple the internet to the point that global economy can no longer happen, and force a global economic collapse.

In other words, all you network engineers and people running the backbones need to step up and protest.

Re:And how exactly

[fustakrakich]

Are we supposed to prevent this from going through? "calling our representatives" certainly does not seem to help.

That's right. You have to vote them out. If it doesn't happen, I guess you're just going to have to live with it and adapt. C'est la vie...

Re:And how exactly

[mukinrestak]

Hey, that's not fair! There's a whole other party full of fascists and authoritarians to choose from too!

Re:And how exactly

[Mashiki]

Cripple the internet to the point that global economy can no longer happen, and force a global economic collapse.

In other words, all you network engineers and people running the backbones need to step up and protest.

Tracer Tong: Hello JC, could you overload the experimental anti-matter reactors?

Re:And how exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

Legal methods and comments about their ethics and morality (or complete perversions thereof) certainly don't work...

There you almost answered it yourself - illegal methods.

Bad laws can be broken, "site blocking" is usually possible to get around.

As for searching phones/laptops:
1. Whenever politicians (or any supporters of this - like Hollywood people) travel, call in anonymous tips that they're bringing illegal stuff on their phones. In other words, let them get stopped and feel the pressure of their own stupid laws. You may occationally overdo it and claim they have a bomb in their laptop - they always act on that sort of threat.
2. If you expect to be searched (or can make it happen by acting suspicious or black or something), work at overloading their system. Bring a suitcase full of throwaway phones/laptops - some repair shop may be willing to give you a large amount of scrapped devices they failed to repair. Give some suspicios labels like "mp3 collection" or "best of pirate bay". On devices that still can be turned on, create files with suspicious names but no actual copyrighted content. Don't care if they confiscate the lot. Later, you keep filing complaints that you want your stuff back - puts some pressure on them to actually search the stupid devices. If they ever say you may come and pick them up - don't. Just repeat the stunt over and over.

Don't recycle old phones, arrange to have border security suffer them (and the lack of obsolete chargers) instead. Bore them with paperwork too.

Re:And how exactly

[hairyfeet]

LOL gotta love "history lessons" written by political whack-a-doodles. But just FYI Hitler was about as much a "socialist" as Stalin was a "communist", both were totalitarians. In fact Hitler went so far as to outright execute the socialists in his party the second he had enough power to get away with it.

So next time instead of getting your history from National Retard and Faux News how about actually reading a real book? If you want a good place to start on what actually became of anyone with socialist leanings in the NSDAP I'd suggest you start with any of the books written about Ernst RÃhm, one of the first ones grabbed during the Night Of The Long Knives. Protip: He was demanding they actually uphold the bullshit they fed the people about a "socialist revolution" and got himself a bullet in the chest for it, same as how Trotsky and anybody else who dared tell "dear leader" Stalin that actually following the writings of Lenin and Marx was kinda required if you were gonna be a communist. You see that is the thing about totalitarian regimes, they'll spew any bullshit they think will get them in power, but once they are there? All that bullshit goes right out the window and it all becomes about keeping that power with an iron fist.

Or are you gonna sit here and argue that the DPK is "democratic"? After all it has democratic in the name so according to the National Review logic it MUST be true...right?

Re:And how exactly

[Truekaiser]

Realize the ending of 1984 was prophetic. That the future will not be better than the past and that technology has given despots and ideologies the perfect tools to keep their people in control. That the future is a boot stomping on a human face forever. That you, as a peon, have three choices. Agree, be silent, or have your face stomped on.

Re:And how exactly

[meta-monkey]

The idea of calling Trump, who is an uber-capitalist, a "fascist" is retarded.

Re: And how exactly

[meta-monkey]

Your children - if you have any - will not live to see it end.

Given western birthrates, the whole 'future for my grandchildren' thing kind of goes out the window. The corporate system also relies on having an uneducated populace grateful for scraps, unfamiliar with western philosophies and traditions of liberty. The system is rigged such that current, productive middle class populations of western nations cannot afford to have children or are demoralized into not doing so. They are then replaced by third world immigrants from cultures where they are used to authoritarian rule. It is their children who will occupy these lands, not yours. There is no future for Western Civilization.

Re:And how exactly

[meta-monkey]

Orwell wrote Animal Farm, about how a totalitarian state gets established. Then 1984, about what one looks like when it is. He intended to write a third book about how one gets demolished but died before he was able to.

Re: And how exactly

[tsqr]

While we're at it, can we dispel with the notion that Barrack Obama doesn't know what he's doing?

I don't know anyone who thinks Obama doesn't know what he's doing. There does, however, seem to be sharp disagreement over whether his intent is good or evil with respect to the welfare of the nation.

Re:And how exactly

[jrumney]

And how exactly are we supposed to prevent this from going through?

I'm sure you will have all the same opportunities to stop this before it goes through that your Pacific neighbours had with the TPP.

"calling our representatives" certainly does not seem to help.

Sure it does... If you can afford to buy yourself some representatives.

Re:And how exactly

[L. J. Beauregard]

Have you actually listened to the crap that Trump says?

As for "criminal," I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton, but the Plutocrat Party has made it abundantly clear, through more than 20 years of flinging crap at her in hopes that something will stick, that they have nothing.

As for "communist," cue Iñigo Montoya.

Re:And how exactly

[meta-monkey]

Yes, I've listened to 5-6 of Trump's rally speeches. There's nothing fascist in there.

Apparently, "enforcing the laws of the country" is now "fascist." He's not the one begging for new government authority like Sanders who wants to control healthcare and education. But say you'll enforce the immigration laws we already have on the books and that's "fascist."

Re: And how exactly

[Aighearach]

Worse, a lot of people don't even understand that the President is insulated from interference in law enforcement, and can only hire and fire the top guy... and isn't legally allowed to use that power to control law enforcement. There were legislative reforms after Watergate that sought to prevent it happening again, but the average Joe on the street doesn't even know about them. But political opponents do; half the stuff related to copyright enforcement that people blame on Obama, he'd land in court if he tried to interfere! All he can do about that stuff is advocate to Congress, and sign or veto legislation.

And then when it comes to who he appoints to head the department, it turns out that person is also mostly not allowed to interfere with the lawyers working for the department. And that is a good thing, mostly.

Re:And how exactly

[Aighearach]

...communist or fascist, which to choose, which to choose .....

If you don't know what either word means, I can see how the false-choice would fail to look like a real choice. But you might not be very close to understanding your feelings on the issue.

Re:And how exactly

[Aighearach]

Oh, it is easy to understand: Sanders is nearly a hippie, so they just assume he's a Pinko.

I'm assuming "criminal" refers to... I'm drawing a blank on that. I guess he just hates the Constitution and presumes an accusation is equivalent to a conviction, and being investigated and not charged or even accused is also the same as being convicted? Some people just hate Freedom.

Neo-fascist is easy, Trump proposes policies that would violate the Constitution left and right.

Re:And how exactly

[Aighearach]

The main tenet of fascism was the merger of the functions of business and state, combined with totalitarianism. Duh. You seem exceptionally ignorant of the Italian position leading up to WWII.

And "uber-capitalist" is exactly another word for "fascist."

Especially if you read Adam Smith, and know what Capitalism is! (hint: Capitalism is the system where the government uses regulation to ensure a "level playing field" which is what allows "capital" to be the important factor is starting a new business. Prior to capitalism was a laissez-faire system where the established businesses could manipulate the markets to keep out new entrants)

Re:And how exactly

[wyHunter]

"Right" and "Left" as it is used is a tool to divide us. THink of it it this way: One side of the spectrum (call it 'right') believes in individual freedom and being free from government control. The other side (call it 'left') believes in state control of everything. By this definition Hitler and Stalin and Obama and Bush and Clinton are all leftists.

Re:And how exactly

[wyHunter]

This. But that's okay "Privacy experts are concerned about this."

Re:And how exactly

[wyHunter]

Yeah him and Scalia.

Re:And how exactly

[Areyoukiddingme]

In other words, all you network engineers and people running the backbones need to step up and protest.

I thought you said backhoes...

Re:And how exactly

[KGIII]

It's well known where I stand. I type a lot. I've said this before. I'll say it again.

Vote Sanders, folks. He's the only chance you've got for meaningful change. If he doesn't run as a Democrat, you help him run as an Independent. I'll do what I can but nobody listens to me. I'm used to it. Hell, I should try reverse psychology.

Seriously, I'm a Libertarian. If I'm telling you to vote Sanders then, well... That says something about every single other candidate. I'm not even going to write a *big* novella. If you can't see why Sanders is a good choice for you, I ask you to be honest with yourself. Keep in mind that everything's a system. The better it flows, the better it is for you. Sanders isn't the guy who's gonna roll in and take your guns - he's from Vermont. He's not gonna take your money. If he does, you'll pay less. Seriously - give him a full four years and you'll pay less if Congress works with him. They can both work against him and piss off a generation or they can work with him - they can even do it begrudgingly and keep their current supporters. He's not going to do any harm, he's actually a patriot and a good man. Look where he really stands on the issues and notice that he's been in the right place where it counted. It didn't do him a damned bit of good, but he did what he had to.

He's really all you've got. Nobody else has a chance. I could even stomach a Sandreds/Trump ticket. I shit you not. So long as Bernie doesn't die, Trump will have the time of his life and he'll be harmless. We can send him to North Korea to open up a trade negotiation. Just trust me, it'll be funny as hell. Nobody's gonna shoot Bernie to put Trump in office. I'd really rather not see Trump but I'll take him with Sanders as president (not the other way around). Actually, no... I'll vote for 'em the other way around if they're a third party - just 'cause they won't win and they will get some good numbers and maybe we can get more third party candidates.

Alright, I said I'd not write a long novella. Seriously guys, vote for Bernie. He's all you've got.

Re:And how exactly

[KGIII]

Wikipedia has an interesting article on "Fascism." One of the big points of the first four (I think) paragraphs is that it's hard to pin down what, exactly, it is that makes up a fascist - and many definitions have been used. It goes on to give some things that it should look like if it is 'fascism.' But I'm gonna play Devil's Advocate. I'm quite comfortable changing my views.

If you two want to actually have a meaningful dialogue, you might want to agree on a definition. It is like any other political term, it's complicated. For instance, the US isn't a pure capitalist society nor is it a pure democracy. Nothing ever is - it's complicated. We aren't socialist but we have some socialist parts like police and fire departments. We don't have unregulated capitalism, that would be retarded. Going to extremes, in either any one political spectrum or economic theory is probably not a good idea. Where those lines are is what we should figure out.

That said, I'm a Sanders supporter. I think Trump's an idiot but not a fascist. I suspect that I use a different definition than you. I don't see Trump as an über-capitalist. He's not really adverse to government encroachment, protections, and regulation. He's not *necessarily* a racist. He is a bigot. He's also an idiot but I repeat myself. He's also misquoted, he'll say one thing and people seem inclined to snip it out and use just that instead of the entire thing. I don't really know if I'd classify him as a racist. He's a hateful jackass and an idiot - and he hates some people that are actually kind of diverse. It's not really racist to hate Muslims, it's idiotic and prejudiced but Muslim's not a race. Nor are illegal immigrants but many of them are Mexican. Making "Mexico pay for it." That's pretty dumb but Mexico is the source of most of 'em. He'd probably let Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Panama, or the rest chip in. So, I'm not sure he's racist. Just a fucking idiot... Not a racist.

There... I think that might hold water. You can just throw a rock at me. I understand. But, someone's gotta hold that position. I think it stands up to reason but I'm not sure - I might be missing something. I've not given Trump entirely his due - I mostly listen to NPR and read online.

Re:And how exactly

[KGIII]

I have told you guys how to do it. You don't even need to shed a drop of blood. You just need some solidarity. Can you get 1,000,0000 people? Find a day when Congress is in session and the President will be in town. Everybody, work your GPS backwards. Everybody set it to arrive at 1600 PA Ave, DC at 1500 (EST -5 GMT) on Friday afternoon. Everyone try to get as close to it as you possibly can - and all at the same time - 1,000,000 cars. When you can not get any closer (which might be as far as 20 miles away - in all directions, for a complete and total gridlock. Get out of your car, lock the door, and walk away to camp on the Mall.

Do not stop and talk to the police. Do not bring arms. Do not carry weapons. Do not carry any currency on you - but carry ID and enough money on a credit card to bail your car out - if you guys actually do this, they might let you have your car back out of car-jail for free. Just drive, park as close to the address as you can, do not stop until you're almost touching the car in front of you, when you're stopped completely, get out and walk to the mall on foot.

Deliver your peaceful message. Do not get violent. If they arrest you, do not fight back - do not help them. Just sit and say nothing. Do nothing and wait. Someone will come get you eventually. You only need 1,000,000 people - a tiny percentage. If your cause is really worth disrupting the government, there you go. That will get their attention. After that, you're on your own. I wish you luck.

Re:And how exactly

[Mashiki]

J.C Denton: What good's an honest soldier if he can be ordered to behave like a terrorist?

It was a game a head of it's time.

Re:And how exactly

[hairyfeet]

ROFL, if you believe that shit? I gotta bridge you might be interested in. Which has given more power to the state...Dubya or Clinton? I hate to break the news to ya but the "right" in the USA is the "rich old white people party" and that is all they care about, rich old white dudes. If giving more power to the state benefits rich old white dudes? They are ALL for it. See "too big to fail", see the S&L bailouts, hell i could go on all day.

What you are attempting to argue is NOT right V left, its socialist versus libertarian...again sorry you missed the memo, we don't have either a socialist nor a libertarian party of any note in the USA, we have "corrupt establishment" A or B, with so little to separate the two it might as well be Coke in a can versus Coke in a bottle.

To steal a line from one of the great commentators of our time "I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs." "I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking." "Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!" Bill Hicks.

Re:And how exactly

[wyHunter]

As I said, we have an absolutely leftist government where all power is concentrated in the hands of the state - rather like the old soviet union.

remember Benito

[harvey the nerd]

These fascists need the Benito treatment.

Re:remember Benito

[schnell]

These fascists need the Benito treatment.

Umm, before we advocate the summary execution and public hanging of those involved, I might like to get a wee bit more information about what we're discussing. Stuff that, you know, the summary might have actually included such as:

• Which countries are potentially party to this?
• How do the provisions differ from currently accepted law in those countries?
• Who has enforcement rights over violations?

It's also worth noting that the story has only one link, to a blog which is politically opposed to the treaty. A cursory Google search would point you to a much wider range of viewpoints on the agreement. Some are pro-treaty, some against, but they all provide much better context than the linked article. I don't particularly care one way or another, but any story with only one viewpoint expressed is usually a sign of either a lazy editor or an agenda.

I hate to keep dredging up the "Slashdot flame bait post because it has no actual 'editors'" trope, but damn. I imagine that if I submitted a story that said "Apple CEO advocates eating puppies" and linked to a blog somewhere that suggested it, the story would be published immediately and without actual review or "editing." Which is, you know, what an "editor" is supposed to do.

Re:remember Benito

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't particularly care one way or another, but any story with only one viewpoint expressed is usually a sign of either a lazy editor or an agenda."

Except when it's not, the idea that all viewpoints are valid and the truth is found in between "the extremes" is false.

Copyright keeps extending forevermore thanks to clueless people like the above poster

Re:remember Benito

[Joce640k]

Umm, before we advocate the summary execution and public hanging of those involved, I might like to get a wee bit more information about what we're discussing. Stuff that, you know, the summary might have actually included such as:

• Which countries are potentially party to this?
• How do the provisions differ from currently accepted law in those countries?
• Who has enforcement rights over violations?

You're completely missing the points:
a) This is a slippery slope, they haven't finished yet (they're probably already discussing the next one...)
b) None of what they're doing is based on evidence (or even common sense). It's based on lobbying and bribes from people who professionally rip musicians off and want to keep it that way.
c) None of it will have the slightest effect on copyright infringement. All it does is take away civil liberties and allow people to shut down _any_ web site they don't like with no personal liability.

Nope

[brit74]

> CETA contains provisions that would compel countries to implement Internet censorship through site blocking, anti-circumvention laws as seen in the US, and compel border security to seize digital storage devices (i.e. cell phones) at the border for the purpose of looking for copyright infringement.

I believe that trade agreements would include clauses about site blocking. I do not believe that they include clauses compelling border security guards to check for copyright infringement. There's no way that would be practical. This makes me think that the slashdot summary writer is trying to get everyone angry and afraid, rather than reporting the facts. How would that possibly work? Sir, ma'am, please unlock your phones and allow us to spend ten minutes looking through each and every phone as you disembark from the airplane.

So, I looked it up in the article: "As we noted earlier, CETA would, among other things, force anti-cricumvention laws onto other countries, bring in site blocking, allow for statutory damages for non-commercial infringement, and force border security to destroy your cell phone if they find copyright infringing material on it." Interesting that there's nothing about security guards being compelled to seize digital devices and searching them for copyright infringement. It sounds more like - if security detains someone for some other reason, gets them to unlock their phones, and happen to find copyright violations, then, in theory, they're supposed to destroy the phone. Nevermind the part about the fact that guards are in no position to figure out what material is legal versus pirated. How would they determine that anyway? This makes me think it wouldn't work, regardless of what they found. Yeah, that's not good, but it a far cry from "compelling border security to seize digital storage devices (i.e. cell phones) at the border for the purpose of looking for copyright infringement".

What a sucky summary. I think Slashdot wants the community to get out their torches and pitchforks.

Re:Nope

[StevenMaurer]

I don't trust that this is an accurate representation of what the treaty actually says, any more than I trusted Republicans about the whole Obamacare "death panels" B.S. Hell, the thing is filed under "Censorship" this site, and flat out, combating the piracy of musicians cannot be described as that. Slashdot may not like it, but are legitimate reasons for some forms of copyright laws.

When they have a less one-sided summary, post it. It might be interesting.

Re:Nope

[gstoddart]

I don't trust that this is an accurate representation of what the treaty actually says

I'm sorry, but what?

Have you missed the part where every treaty the US is involved in pushes corporate interests because the US government is in the back pocket of the copyright cartel?

The US lets the copyright lobby write the text of laws and treaties, and does what they're told. The US government is on the fucking payroll ... and I really wish I was exaggerating.

The US wouldn't be negotiating a treaty which didn't push draconian copyright measures. That's kind of what they do these days.

Re: Timing

[easyTree]

WHERE ARE YOUR PAPERS!!?

Seizing Cell Phones?

[mentil]

compel border security to seize digital storage devices (i.e. cell phones) at the border for the purpose of looking for copyright infringement

How exactly is that going to work? Everyone with a laptop holds up the line for 30 minutes while their hard drive gets imaged? What if it's encrypted? What do they do about devices with dead batteries? The poorly-trained Little Hitlers in customs aren't going to know how to operate the variety of digital devices they'll encounter.

Ok let's say they just seize everything and send it off to a central location for processing, and then ship it to wherever the traveler is staying when they're done. How are they going to judge if a file is infringing copyright, and not a fair-use format-shift? Hash video files and compare to known scene releases? Good luck doing anything similar for music; there are legit ways of ripping CDs that produce identical files every time, the same encoding software will give these perfect rips an identical hash for everyone who goes through the process; some music stores use unwatermarked files, everyone gets the same copy. This is ignoring the issue of locked phones.

If by 'seizing digital storage devices' they mean 'seizing spindles of burned discs coming from China with movie titles Sharpied on them' then I could see this making sense.

Re:Seizing Cell Phones?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if it's anything like the electronics they steal at airports...
They take it.
And in a year or two when their kids have worn them out or broken them...
You get it back.
Rarely in one piece.

But don't worry! They've long since replaced it with the newest model. It was recently christmas after all!

Re:Seizing Cell Phones?

[stephanruby]

Everyone with a laptop holds up the line for 30 minutes while their hard drive gets imaged? What if it's encrypted? What do they do about devices with dead batteries?

[...]

Ok let's say they just seize everything and send it off to a central location for processing, and then ship it to wherever the traveler is staying when they're done.

You're being strangely optimistic. I very much doubt that the laptops/phones will be shipped back to their owners. The owners will be required to get their devices back in person several weeks later (so that they can easily be questioned, fined, or arrested, because of the content found on their devices).

This is not to say that a significant portion of those devices won't get disappeared/damaged/withheld indefinitely in the process. And this is not to say that this process will apply to everyone, if you're a law enforcement official, a politician, or a Sony executive, chances are that your devices won't get confiscated/imaged/scanned at the border.

Re:Seizing Cell Phones?

[Feyshtey]

It will be interesting to hear the first case of a journalist or dissident whose stirred up too much trouble, or who is protecting a confidential source who becomes subject to one of these copyright searches. Not surprising in the least, but interesting.

Re: no guns = SOL

[cyber-vandal]

The UK has four million legally held firearms and plenty of illegal ones too. Try again.

A better description

[Anonymous Coward]

... Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement ...

A better description is "Countries enforcing US protectionism, again"

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Fight Big Money Corruption

[TEDonaldsn]

If you believe that such big-corporation friendly, citizen hostile, laws and agreements are the result of monied interests perverting our governments, then support whatever anti-corruption movements are active in your nation. In the USA http://represent.us/ is trying with some success to get big money out of local elections around the USA. Ultimately they hope to get enough elected officials around the country to have an impact at the national level, and to get rid of our system of legalized bribery. We all feel a bit helpless in the face of massive international corporations using their wealth and other power to control our governments. Represent.Us might be one realistic way to at least begin to organize and effectively counter the oligarchs. They have gotten big money out of elections in more places than has my bitching and moaning on my own :-)

The US Constitution supersedes treaty

[DigiShaman]

CETA contains provisions that would compel countries to implement Internet censorship through site blocking

So while that little nugget main be treaty binding to other nations, it's NOT applicable to the US as the 1st Amendment will always trump what's in a treaty when the two are in direct conflict of each other. Treaties do trump local and state laws however. But that is nothing new. Regardless, CETA is a shit of a treaty all around.

Re:The US Constitution supersedes treaty

[wyHunter]

Not according to the leftist members of the US supreme court.

Re: no guns = SOL

[cyber-vandal]

Whereas murdering schoolchildren is heroic?

Trudeau to the rescue?

[CanEHdian]

Think again. Trudeau is as deep in Big Business' pocket as Harper was. CETA is going to pass, and so is TPP. Just need to find the right spin. And don't think the NDP would do any better, after all, they welcomed and supported the copyright term extension on sound recordings.