[Curtman]

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

Just about every developed nation has laws to this effect, our laws are out dated and haven't kept up with new technologies. They need to be updated. We may not be able to control what happens in China but we can prevent people from committing crimes right here in our own country and in other developed nations similar laws.

Again, part of this bill is aimed at people who try to duck under the laws by committing crimes in this country but have their sites in China. But you wouldn't know that because your too busy trying to make something out of nothing instead of reading the whole bill and trying to understand its true intent.

There is no bill to read currently. It's going to be part of the omnibus crime legislation. The biggest problem with it is the making available hate-speech stuff. I don't want to see my buddy Raydan go to jail for posting this. If I remember correctly, he even posted a link to the site. Damn, now I've broken the law by linking to his link.

[herbie]

You can use a fake name as long as it includes _yoursocialinsurancenumber
An that's the truth or my name's not herbie!

[Dayseed]

Folks, just a quick comment on this whole idea. What the Conservatives are proposing to regulate isn't new. The ideas encapsulated in the bill are currently being done in Canada, via a General Warrant which means that the police, Crown and Judge are making up the terms and conditions on which to do it.

In Canada, the police can track you via your cellphone on a mere reasonable suspicion you're committing a crime...any crime, simply because the law governing this area was written back in the early 90's before the explosion of cellphones.

These laws need updating and it should be Parliament that does it, not the judiciary. This is actually a good thing for Canada.

[OnTheIce]

Dayseed wrote:

Folks, just a quick comment on this whole idea. What the Conservatives are proposing to regulate isn't new. The ideas encapsulated in the bill are currently being done in Canada, via a General Warrant which means that the police, Crown and Judge are making up the terms and conditions on which to do it.

In Canada, the police can track you via your cellphone on a mere reasonable suspicion you're committing a crime...any crime, simply because the law governing this area was written back in the early 90's before the explosion of cellphones.

These laws need updating and it should be Parliament that does it, not the judiciary. This is actually a good thing for Canada.

Finally, some sensible commentary not the typical 'chicken little' type post.

[jeff744]

Dayseed wrote:

Folks, just a quick comment on this whole idea. What the Conservatives are proposing to regulate isn't new. The ideas encapsulated in the bill are currently being done in Canada, via a General Warrant which means that the police, Crown and Judge are making up the terms and conditions on which to do it.

In Canada, the police can track you via your cellphone on a mere reasonable suspicion you're committing a crime...any crime, simply because the law governing this area was written back in the early 90's before the explosion of cellphones.

These laws need updating and it should be Parliament that does it, not the judiciary. This is actually a good thing for Canada.

Sometimes old laws are better than news ones with more holes that swiss cheese, at least the old ones are a lot less open to interpretation.

If you plan to make a radical law change it should be airtight.

[Curtman]

Dayseed wrote:

Folks, just a quick comment on this whole idea. What the Conservatives are proposing to regulate isn't new. The ideas encapsulated in the bill are currently being done in Canada, via a General Warrant which means that the police, Crown and Judge are making up the terms and conditions on which to do it.

In Canada, the police can track you via your cellphone on a mere reasonable suspicion you're committing a crime...any crime, simply because the law governing this area was written back in the early 90's before the explosion of cellphones.

These laws need updating and it should be Parliament that does it, not the judiciary. This is actually a good thing for Canada.

I would like to see current law governing The Internet where 'making available hate-speech' is mentioned.

[Dayseed]

Curtman wrote:

I would like to see current law governing The Internet where 'making available hate-speech' is mentioned.

Right now S. 319 of the Criminal Code insufficiently defines it:

Quote:

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of:

The section then goes on to define punishment and defences.

However, the words of note bolded above are defined as:

Quote:

“communicating” includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;

“public place” includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;

“statements” includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.

This is one of the very problems that the Conservatives have proposed to modernize in their omnibus crime bill. S. 319, when written, dealt wit the likes of Ernst Zundel who posted bills on telephone polls, operated telephone lines where one could call in for the racist hate-speech of the week or otherwise continued to ply racism in the public square.

Where news articles are currenlty fretting about the infringement on "free speech" by linking to hate-speech, there are a few defences already in place in S. 319 that will continue to be of effect.

Quote:

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Not only that, prosecutions under S. 319 have to be initiated under consent of the Attorney General. Also, prosecutions under 319 haven't been of the "linking to hate-speech" variety; R v. Keegstra is a leading example of what was envisioned.

My understanding of the currently proposed legislation is that it is designed to allow prosecution of "hate-by-proxy" where hate speech contained on a server in say, Costa Rica, through a website in Thailand which is paid for by a Canadian in Canada can stand for prosecution, rather than allowing difficulties with internet hosting to pose a barrier to prosecution.

Like anything else, it's an option available to the police. I don't foresee it being abused anymore than S. 319 already is...which is to say that it isn't.

[Curtman]

Dayseed wrote:

Like anything else, it's an option available to the police. I don't foresee it being abused anymore than S. 319 already is...which is to say that it isn't.

Thank you for the information. I look forward to seeing what they propose to do.