×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

192 comments

Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way! (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989445)

Lawyers for the House of Commons argue that using videos of elected representatives without permission constitutes copyright infringement and a contempt of Parliament.

You know, you have to hand it to lawyers ... just when I think they are enforcing copyright on everything possible, they go and surprise the hell out of me.

Finally, news where I can actually stand up proudly and say take a page from the United States on this one, Canada [whitehouse.gov]:

Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.

Whether or not that mentality actually will be implemented here in the US remains to be seen--I certainly hope Obama follows through.

Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (5, Informative)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989541)

Whether or not that mentality actually will be implemented here in the US remains to be seen--I certainly hope Obama follows through.

I can assure you that Obama is not following that. Just look at the copyright treaty that is classified do to "national security" http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10195547-38.html [cnet.com]

Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989593)

Whether or not that mentality actually will be implemented here in the US remains to be seen--I certainly hope Obama follows through.

I can assure you that Obama is not following that. Just look at the copyright treaty that is classified do to "national security" http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10195547-38.html [cnet.com]

Yes, there are still a lot of things we're still waiting for. However (and I submitted this story so I may be biased), the congress and senate have their own YouTube channels [slashdot.org]. While this is by no means complete and some of these videos sound more like extended campaigns than real decision making, it's a start. YouTube has been around a long time and it's appalling to me that governments haven't been using it as a tool of transparency ... instead others blatantly censor it. To me, if this is a sign of things to come, I have some faith that we are moving in the correct direction.

Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27989729)

If you're going to ask people to look at something you should tell them where it is. [wikileaks.eu]

Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (4, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989757)

I can assure you that Obama is not following that. Just look at the copyright treaty that is classified do to "national security"

No, he's following it to the letter. Note the phrase "consistent with law and policy" that he used. "consistent with law" is pretty reasonable, in general, but when you add "and policy", you're saying "we'll be open when we think it favours us, and not otherwise".

Which is pretty much how he's been behaving. If it will make him look good to be open on a subject, he's open. If it won't make him look good....

Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (4, Insightful)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989543)

Obama is just a tool of the monied classes, give me a break. I can't believe americans are so self deluded to believe obama is going to change anything. Elections are mostly fake, which one of these stooges of the oligarchy will you elect, since both they own both.

Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27989629)

Before you post again you must apologize to at Obama and repeat 3 times "I hate Buss, I hate Bush, I hate Bush."

Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27990249)

You bring up a good point. People act like Obama is the opposite of Bush. But so far they seem to mainly cater to the wealthy and powerful.

Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (2, Insightful)

LVSlushdat (854194) | more than 4 years ago | (#27990311)

Like the Who once said "New boss.... same as the old boss...." Who ever thought Townshend, Daltrey, and Entwhistle could be so right on the money...

Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (1, Offtopic)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989813)

You can moderate the parent comment troll all you like, but we have to admit he's a bit right.
Obama certainly is better than Bush. But that isn't that hard now, it it? ^^

The most interesting fact here is, that the very banks that got those tons of money, were the ones that nearly entirely payed his whole campaign. And I think we all already agreed some months ago, that Biden is a tool of the content industry. ^^
The thing that really hit me positively with Obama, (And here is the point that you should have read too, if you modded me troll too by now. ^^) was that what he said was almost *exactly* what I would have planned, if I would be the president. Something I thought to be unthinkable.
The thing that really hit me negatively, was how so many people he appointed, were busted for this crime and that crime. And how he chose to appoint the next guy, and that guy *also* got busted for some shit.
I really wonder if this happened, because Obama, in the attempt to keep his promises, ignored the lobbies and appointed who he really thought was the best one, and those lobbies then went to find something to get that guy killed... or if Obama did actually deliberately choose bad people? (Or both? Or none of both?)

I think I will only judge him, *after* his actions. And I will not judge him relative to Bush, but relative to my values.

Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (3, Insightful)

an unsound mind (1419599) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989845)

Two party system. The amount of difference your vote makes?

You decide which excuse they use to expand government power.

Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 4 years ago | (#27990659)

You mean corporate power, the government is the face of the wealthy - the private commercialist.

Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (1)

Zencyde (850968) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989643)

C'mon Canada. You used to be cool.

Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (4, Funny)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989773)

We were?

When the hell was that?

Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (4, Funny)

kybred (795293) | more than 4 years ago | (#27990571)

C'mon Canada. You used to be cool.

We were?

When the hell was that?

February.

Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (5, Informative)

shma (863063) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989771)

Finally, news where I can actually stand up proudly and say take a page from the United States on this one, Canada [whitehouse.gov]:

Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.

That's Obama talking, right?

Obama blocks release of torture photos [radionetherlands.nl]

Obama administration invokes 'state secrets' claim to defend Bush's wiretapping program. [thinkprogress.org]

Obama administration threatens Britain to keep torture evidence concealed [salon.com]

I certainly hope Obama follows through.

You have your answer.

Government Copyright (1)

maz2331 (1104901) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989933)

At least in that copyright-crazy USA, no official government work product can be copyrighted, as it's been produced with public funds.

Re:Government Copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27990233)

You have apparently never seen that several agencies actually have people charged with monitoring and shepherding intellectual property.

And having intellectual property policy.

Including reports, and products.

Re:Government Copyright (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27990639)

At least in that copyright-crazy USA, no official government work product can be copyrighted, as it's been produced with public funds.

Oh yeah? Try laying your hands on a copy of the California Building Codes for free buddy. If govt. wants to spend public funds but keep it locked up they need only contract the job out to a private company.

Fair trade? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27989449)

Free speech for free health care? A great quote comes to mind: "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." -Benjamin Franklin.

Re:Fair trade? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27989551)

Why is it that so many people are using this Benjamin Franklin quote and at the same time so few people understand its meaning?

BTW, health care in Canada is not "free". We pay for it the same way Americans pay for their private insurance. The real difference is to whom we pay and to whom all profits go.

Re:Fair trade? (5, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989673)

Exactly, in Canada, the profits go to a select few who are friends with various politicians.

Whereas in the US, the profits go to a select few who are friends with various politicians.

It's a very subtle difference.

Re:Fair trade? (3, Insightful)

DirtyCanuck (1529753) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989769)

The subtle difference being one model is based on greed and finding the cheapest treatment possible, or better yet denying treatment. Whereas the other is a non profit entity with care as the priority.

Yes we have are problems (mostly to due abuse from foreigners). But babies aren't dying here due to bankruptic costs associated with giving birth under a for profit model.

First (Second) Holocaust (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27989451)

I am all for a reinvented Holocaust that, rather than killing jews, we round up thugs and put them out of our misery. The number one problem in the US and the world right now are thugs that believe acting like animals is the proper way to function in society. All they do is impregnant/get pregnant, wait for the welfare check, and cause meaningless acts of violence. I say if they really love reenacting 50 cent, lets put them on the receiving end of a bullet and see how much they like it. Thugs cause property damage, are harmful to quality of life, and put an undue burden on the state to support them. They are an eye sore of society and there should be a call to arms to take any and all thugs out. Being a thug transcends race, nationality, or color, it is a choice that needs to be crushed. No one should have to live in fear or be on high alert because a burden of the state decide he wants to have some fun and rob/rape/kill someone. Let's turn the tables on these animals and end them all. All those dead thugs will also be less people to contribute to our carbon foot print and more resources to people who actually need them. Imagine how many students would be able to get an education if there were more money freed up from having to feed, clothe, and house a useless thug. These belligerents of society need a new Holocaust to end their world forever, and only then will the world progress.

Re:First (Second) Holocaust (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#27990457)

I am all for a reinvented Holocaust that, rather than killing jews, we round up thugs and put them out of our misery.

Khan Noonien Singh ... is that you?

What? (1)

rcamans (252182) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989485)

These are publicly elected officials> Doesn't that mean that everything they say, write, and do is owned by the public who elected them, who they work for? Where in the canadian law books is any of this?

Re:What? (2, Informative)

Smoke2Joints (915787) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989601)

it is in New Zealand. our parliamentary chambers have designated areas for the press to setup shop and record the goings on. we even have a tv channel called Parliament TV, screens every tuesday when there is a session in progress. not very exciting, i admit, but its a damn good thing it is there. the canadians could learn a thing or two.

Re:What? (5, Insightful)

Holmwood (899130) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989725)

Canada similarly has these things, including a 24/7 channel (both French and English versions) that covers Parliament when in session; indeed they go well beyond that and cover major Parliamentary committees. See cpac.ca [slashdot.org]

That's not the issue; the issue, as the article notes, is that crown copyright pertains to committee meetings. (Unlike in the US where this video is generally public domain). The linked article notes that MPs generally seem to be concerned that people will use their utterances against them for satire, for attack ads, or to promulgate a particular policy viewpoint. They are seeking to be as aggressive as possible in using copyright to takedown material they disagree with.

Too bad for the MPs, in my view. Unfortunately, the way the rules (and law) are at the moment, they've got a lot of tools to back up their perspective.

But again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with a parliamentary channel (Canada's manages to broadcast even outside of just Tuesdays) or giving space for the media to setup to cover parliament.

oh, Canada (0, Troll)

drDugan (219551) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989489)

repeat after us, "We the people"

Re:oh, Canada (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989633)

"We the people like to watch television"

Re:oh, Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27989691)

We the people will raise our children into repulsive Michelin men with underwear crapstains.

Re:oh, Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27989789)

We the people who support idiocy and ignorance in this day and age of a democracy...

Re:oh, Canada (3, Interesting)

debrain (29228) | more than 4 years ago | (#27990123)

repeat after us, "We the people"

Just a random anecdote, Canada's constitution starts with (paraphrasing) "We, the provinces ...".

Disturbing.... (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989491)

while "distorting" a video for parody, satire or political comment purposes may still fall outside the licence and lead to demands for its removal

This is very disturbing, parody, satire, and political statements should be expressly legal under any sane copyright system. Especially for non-commercial use.

What is with "developed" countries and the corruption of copyright? The US, Canada, EU, and most other nations have bought into the corporations, and that just is sad.

Re:Disturbing.... (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989613)

What is with "developed" countries and the corruption of copyright?

Umm.. copyright = corruption.

"Hey, can you make me a law where I'm the only one who can do [commercially interesting activity]?"

Corruption.

Re:Disturbing.... (1)

cheezedawg (413482) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989761)

No, copyright is not corruption. Like anything else, it is susceptible to corruption, but the concept itself is not corrupt. Instead, it is intended to limit truly corrupt practices, like attempting to unfairly profit from somebody else's hard work.

Re:Disturbing.... (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#27990105)

it is intended to limit truly corrupt practices, like attempting to unfairly profit from somebody else's hard work.

So taking something from the public domain and publishing it, thus causing it to not fall into obscurity is corrupt? How do you figure?

Re:Disturbing.... (1)

Capsaicin (412918) | more than 4 years ago | (#27990705)

So taking something from the public domain and publishing it, thus causing it to not fall into obscurity is corrupt? How do you figure?

Huh? Copyright doesn't stop you publishing "something from the public domain."

What would be corrupt is me reading the manuscript of a book you've written, making a copy, handing it back to you and telling you I'm not interested in paying you for it, and then publishing it and making money out of your work. That's the kind of corrupt behaviour copyright is intended to stop.

Re:Disturbing.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27989791)

Dude- you have been in the /. bubble for waaaaay too long.

Re:Disturbing.... (3, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989653)

This is very disturbing, parody, satire, and political statements should be expressly legal under any sane copyright system. Especially for non-commercial use.

He's probably referring to droits d'auteur [wikipedia.org] which is a continental thing (vs common law) - we don't really have it in the US, Canada does have it to some degree due to their legal system's french influence. One part of such "author's rights" is the right to not have the creation used in a way contradictory to the creator's wishes such as to misrepresent what the creator intended to present. It's pretty ambiguous and the concept of fair use may not even apply, depending on the circumstances.

That's not to say that I disagree with your point, just to explain where the rationalization is coming from since we don't really have the same concept in US copyright law.

Re:Disturbing.... (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989719)

The problem I have is that I don't think a person that's supposed to be working on the behalf of their constituents should be able to claim copyrights on what they did while working in that capacity.

As far as I'm concerned, if they want to own the copyright on something, such as a book or video work, they should do that something on their own time and their own resources.

Re:Disturbing.... (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989677)

If parody is protected then make videos available with a laughter track, including comments like "what are these bozos wasting our money on now". It's crap, but a lot of crap counts a parody these days. Of course, make it easy to switch the laughter track off.

Re:Disturbing.... (2, Interesting)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989821)

Those exceptions are specifically legal in Canada.

These lawyers don't have a legal leg to stand on and will end up being heavily drubbed by a judge.

Re:Disturbing.... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27990363)

What is with "developed" countries and the corruption of copyright? The US, Canada, EU, and most other nations have bought into the corporations, and that just is sad.

It's globalization: A "developed" country means a shrinking lower class, better access to education, a more educated workforce. That means there's a shrinking cheap, non-skilled labour pool. More and more of the manufacturing base slips away to countries that are willing to do menial jobs for next to nothing (China). So "developed" countries are scared that the only export they'll have left is intellectual property.

It's not a bad thing. We're headed this way, and the politicians are scared. They were emotionally bullied into handing out laws that are way out of line.

Re:Disturbing.... (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 4 years ago | (#27990625)

It's also very much an about face. Rick Mercer uses photos and clips of Parliament for parody and general mockery just about every episode of the Mercer Report...but I guess the government can't sue itself?

every politician's dream (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27989497)

Say anything you want, without anyone legally repeating what you said.

Actually, what they really objected to was... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27989519)

Having this [youtube.com] at the end of all of the videos.

isn't this owned by the people? (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989549)

i was under the impression in most countries with sane leadership and laws, government work was owned by the people. so unless they are calling on some inane interpretation of the law claiming because it's hosted outside of canadian servers it's copyright infringement since canada owns it, i can't see how removing access to parilment debates will lead to anything but protests in the streets.

you have to view this as the government trying to remove people's access to views opposing it's own, since parilemtn time is primarily where the opposing parties get to make their rebuttals to the government.

Re:isn't this owned by the people? (2, Interesting)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989737)

In many countries, works of government are indeed owned "by the people." Of course, by "the people," we really mean "the government," since obviously the government represents the people. Net result: like everything else, the government wields the copyright to its own benefit while claiming it is doing so in the best interests of "the people." The best thing to do is what the U.S. thankfully does: works of government are not copyrighted by anyone. They are automatically placed in the public domain.

"...and a contempt of Parliament." (1)

bfwebster (90513) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989555)

Heh. That's almost too easy a slow pitch; I couldn't have phrased it better myself. And I'm not even Canadian (though I have tons of Canadian relatives -- pretty much everyone on my mother's side of the family.) ..bruce..

Uh.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27989569)

Canada.. look. I know we go back. There was that thing we helped you with, then there was all those things you helped us with.. You're the cooky guy who lives in the apartment above US, but look: Stop trying to be like US. Its not cool, 'eh'?

Love always,

You're younger yet somehow cooler brother.

America.

Re:Uh.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27989715)

We burned down Canada's parliament buildings, they burned down our White House.

How does 'Canada Government Censors Parliament Hearings On YouTube' in any way imitate the US Government?
Not only do the Executive and Legislative (and presumably Judicial) branches allow proceedings to remain on YouTube, they also publish them themselves via their own YouTube channel.

US Executive Branch
US White House [slashdot.org]

US Legislative Branch
US Senate [slashdot.org]
US House of Representatives [slashdot.org]

You're a terrible troll. :/

Re:Uh.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27989915)

You're a terrible troll. :/

He got you to respond... (hint: that's what trolls do.)

Copyright (5, Interesting)

dmomo (256005) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989571)

If a Government holds a copyright, and claims infringement of that copyright against the People, could it then be said that the Government's assets do not belong to the People? Can it then be said that the Government is not of the People?

I know this case is different, seeing as YouTube may be outside of the Country. But it does highlight the absurdity of Government being able to hold copyright. Absurd absurd absurd.

Re:Copyright (0, Flamebait)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989597)

If a Government holds a copyright, and claims infringement of that copyright against the People, could it then be said that the Government's assets do not belong to the People?

I'm an American. Welcome to the club.

Re:Copyright (2, Informative)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989747)

What do you mean, "welcome to the club?" This is one thing the U.S. does right: works of government are not copyrightable by anyone, not even the government.

Re:Copyright (2, Informative)

Tweenk (1274968) | more than 4 years ago | (#27990037)

Works of the Federal government; State governments can still hold copyrights, and have assered copyright over the text of laws, preventing them from being disseminated on the Internet in PDF form (WTF!!!)

Re:Copyright (2, Informative)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 4 years ago | (#27990427)

And the courts have struck it down and the laws are all freely available now.

Re:Copyright (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989741)

Actually, they seem to think the Crown owns the copyright. Does this mean it's the British Queen who owns all of it? If it is, then may be it could be a new source of income for her.

Re:Copyright (3, Informative)

Raemond (710835) | more than 4 years ago | (#27990057)

Nope. It means the Canadian Crown owns it. Which is the corporation sole (look it up) that represents the Executive of Canada. If anything it means the Canadian government 'owns' it, but only on behalf of the nation.

Re:Copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27989869)

You can use them, but only if you're Canadian. Youtube is Imperialist American Cultural Vultures, ready to co-opt the Canadian National Identity (tm). They are Evil.

democracy eh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27989579)

Publicly elected representatives doing public work and dissemination of public proceedings is illegal eh!. Canada - you can do better than China.

It's the Law... apparently (4, Interesting)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989587)

Relying on crown copyright, the policy states that any other use - including any commercial use - requires the express prior written approval of the Speaker of the House of Commons. This stands in sharp contrast to the United States, where the default presumption is that such videos are in the public domain and can be freely used without permission. House of Commons lawyers portrayed that approach as representing an extreme position.

Well there you go. It seems that by default the Canadian people don't own any videos of their elected officials performing their official duties.

To their credit, most of the MPs on the Committee recognized that changes to the policies in the YouTube era are needed. However, MPs from the three opposition parties expressed some reluctance to mirror the U.S. approach, fearing that some videos taken out of context could be "terrifically damaging."

Wow. Your kidding. No Shit.

Most of what governments are passing these days would piss people off.

Re:It's the Law... apparently (2, Interesting)

DirtyCanuck (1529753) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989609)

I think the problem is not with the videos themselves but who is gaining traffic from the viewing of such videos. Considering C Span is one of the few channels available to all Canadians I would suspect that this should fall under such commons. However it would be the same as say CBC programs that are freely available at CBC.ca being redistributed on Youtube.

However until the Canadian government decides to offer such videos through a service or their own I would disagree with these motions.

We must also consider somehow crazy Harper and his crew of monkey's are technically at the wheel. Hopefully we will have a vote called soontimes before the Conservatives screw us more then they have. God I hate the Conservatives, not disagree with, but truly hate. Got any..... chaaange?

Re:It's the Law... apparently (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27989683)

I think you mean CPAC [www.cpac.ca] not C Span.

Re:It's the Law... apparently (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27989883)

From the Farticle "To their credit, most of the MPs on the Committee recognized that changes to the policies in the YouTube era are needed. However, MPs from the three opposition parties expressed some reluctance to mirror the U.S. approach, fearing that some videos taken out of context could be "terrifically damaging.""

Who are the three opposition parties that oppose relaxing the restrictions? Oh yah.. Liberals, Bloc Quebecois and NDP. Seems that the ones willing to remove the restrictions are those Damn Conservatives. How dare they do what we want.

A bit of UFI for you. The commons lawyers are bureaucrat controlled, not politician controlled.

Re:It's the Law... apparently (1)

DirtyCanuck (1529753) | more than 4 years ago | (#27990559)

"Bill C-15 (previously introduced as Bill C-26, then "killed" when Canada had an election) includes unjust and unfair mandatory minimum prison sentences for "drug crimes". For example, growing one marijuana plant would mean an automatic six months in jail! Making hash is a mandatory one year in prison! All the details are very, very bad.
Canada's government, the Conservative Party, has introduced legislation that would create mandatory minimum prison sentences for marijuana. Bill C-15 won't work! Even he USA has begun repealing mandatory minimums for drugs"

Ya they can take their ideological religious based policy based on nothing but propagandic assumptions and lies and stick it where the bible does not shine.

"A controversial Alberta bill will enshrine into law the rights of parents to pull their children out of classes discussing the topics of evolution and homosexuality.

The new rules, which would require schools to notify parents in advance of "subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation," is buried in a bill that extends human rights to homosexuals. Parents can ask for their child to be excluded from the discussion.

"This government supports a very, very fundamental right and that is parental rights with respect to education," said Premier Ed Stelmach."

Ya you know what, fu@k the Conservatives.

Re:It's the Law... apparently (1)

DirtyCanuck (1529753) | more than 4 years ago | (#27990573)

Highest rated comment with regards to this subject on CBC.ca

"Help! Help! Stumbling Stelmach and his gang are trying to trap me in the 40s.
On the other hand, we shouldn't be surprised. Stockwell Day thinks the world is only 6,000 years old and humans and dinosaurs shared the same space. It is no wonder the pin heads in the legislature bought into this nonsense."

Re:It's the Law... apparently (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989775)

"Most of what governments are passing these days would piss people off."

That should read: "What most private sector corporations are doing these days would piss people off" after all they are the ones funding these bullshit laws through their lobbying efforts and buying off politicians.

Politicians ARE actors! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27989605)

It certainly looks right to me! Our democracies are only a show so why shouldn't we pay to see it?

Some Quotes to Reflect Upon (1, Interesting)

Bodhammer (559311) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989667)

There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
- Ed Howdershelt

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
- Thomas Jefferson

The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.
- Ayn Rand

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to saintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
- George Washington

If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual.
- Frank Herbert

In Germany, they came first for the Communists,
And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists,
And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews,
And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . .
And by that time there was no one left to speak up.
- Pastor Martin Niemöller

Re:Some Quotes to Reflect Upon (1, Flamebait)

zx-15 (926808) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989797)

As much as I dislike conservatives I still think it's a bit too extreme to overthrow the government. So please keep your libertarian gun slinging nuisance for other occasions.

Re:Some Quotes to Reflect Upon (2, Insightful)

Virak (897071) | more than 4 years ago | (#27989807)

So our government isn't perfect because we don't have nearly enough guns? Thanks for the helpful advice, we'll get on fixing that right away.

How's that working for keeping yours in check down there, by the way?

Re:Some Quotes to Reflect Upon (0, Flamebait)

Bodhammer (559311) | more than 4 years ago | (#27990035)

Doing better than your health care system, at least for another year or too.

Seriously, why do you defend this tyrannical crap? I love your country. I went to school in Bellingham and spent a lot of time in Vancouver. You should be fucking pissed of about this crap, instead you roll over, offer it up, and slurp it up. Grow a pair, your country had them once.

Re:Some Quotes to Reflect Upon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27990075)

Doing better than your health care system

Wait, and you're from the U.S., right?

Oh lord.

Re:Some Quotes to Reflect Upon (2, Insightful)

Virak (897071) | more than 4 years ago | (#27990143)

I'm not defending this and made not even the slightest indication that I am. On the contrary, I think it's pretty goddamn horrible. However, the OP quite clearly thinks the problem (or at least part of it) is that we need guns! More guns! Guns for everyone! And that's just blatantly retarded, especially coming from an American ("do things like us and you can have a nice government free of corruption like us!").

He also seems to think we're going to be going after the Jews shortly, but I've chosen to overlook that.

Doing better than your health care system, at least for another year or too.

HAH

(No, that does not warrant any more of a response)

Re:Some Quotes to Reflect Upon (1)

Virak (897071) | more than 4 years ago | (#27990179)

I apologize for failing to notice, in my haste, that the OP was in fact you. I suppose my post should be a bit more dripping in half-amused contempt, but sadly Slashdot does not allow any sort of editing of existing posts.

Re:Some Quotes to Reflect Upon (0, Troll)

Bodhammer (559311) | more than 4 years ago | (#27990593)

All issues are political[; and politics] is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia.
- George Orwell

Both the oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms.
- Aristotle

The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
- Thomas Jefferson

A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject.
- John R. Lott

Your arguments make no sense to me. If you do not understand what the Second Amendment to the American Constitution means then I pity you. In spite of what the leftist media would like you to believe, not everyone is a redneck, watches Dukes of Hazzard, likes NASCAR. Some of us just believe in the dream of freedom, not the yoke of socialism or communism. America was founded because the British Oligarchy learned the hard way when "CITIZENS" pick up arms and fight tyranny, the *archy loses. Even the Canadians understood before the clowns like Trudeau and his wife (nice cooter!!!) starting giving it all away just like the british and labor party.

Re:Some Quotes to Reflect Upon (1)

Bodhammer (559311) | more than 4 years ago | (#27990005)

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
- Benjamin Franklin

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, -- if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.
- Benjamin Franklin

Re:Some Quotes to Reflect Upon (1)

Celeste R (1002377) | more than 4 years ago | (#27990525)

There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. - Ed Howdershelt

Face it, even our own Supreme Court has been neglecting the people, almost always to the favor of the White House, and where does it stop? I'm not a fan of violence, nor am I saying it's something we should resort to easily, but it is heard.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. - Thomas Jefferson

This is a touchy subject for some, but it's still worth thinking about: did the lack of one tool keep a determined person from doing anything? Where we don't have guns, we have knives. (look at the UK), and where we don't have a mind for violence, culture comes in to play first.

The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic

Re:Some Quotes to Reflect Upon (1)

Bodhammer (559311) | more than 4 years ago | (#27990665)

"At a fundraiser in Philadelphia where he was flanked by PA governor Ed Rendell, Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter, and Sen. Bob Casey, Barack Obama said, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I've seen Eagles fans."
.
.
.
I think that it is quite a stretch to claim that this Obama comment is evidence that Obama is nothing new."
http://www.politicususa.com/en/Obama-Philly [politicususa.com]

http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/bring+a+knife+to+a+gunfight.html [usingenglish.com]

Re:Some Quotes to Reflect Upon (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27990721)

I completely agree with you, but felt I had to correct a misperception.

Knife crime is not a huge problem in the UK. Nor was gun crime when the bastards banned guns. The hysteria over <tool> crime is, and always has been, manufactured by the media/government.

But yes - if they DO ban knives (not likely, unless someone stabs up a school), we'll beat each other with sticks. Or use the knives everyone still has. Or manufacture our own. Boys will be boys.

Re:Some Quotes to Reflect Upon (1)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 4 years ago | (#27990531)

The Canadian Government surely only objects to the fact that YouTube stands to profit from videos of parliament sessions without asking permission. Had they asked it probably wouldn't have been a problem, considering the enhanced access it provides. But YouTube broke Canadian law and they reacted appropriately. Please put the gun down.

I also advise against using quotes that pre-date Canada's confederation to point out that a relatively insignificant Canadian law is out of date.

Canadian Conservatives are just corrupt traitors, (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27989727)

who are busy selling out whatever they can in order to further their own careers and enrich themselves!

Personally, as a Canadian, I'm ashamed that our politicians are allowed to so openly cheat, lie and steal. :~(

Yes, it is copyright infringement... so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27989937)

It's Crown Copyright -- i.e. copyright is held by the government.

But what kind of politicians would support stopping the public from viewing public hearings being held on behalf of the public and at public expense?

"Commercial uses still require prior approval, while "distorting" a video for parody, satire or political comment purposes may still fall outside the licence and lead to demands for its removal."

Excerpts used for purposes of parody, satire, or political comment are "fair dealing". These should be *less* restricted by copyright.

And if the public might get misled by people using choice snippets out of context, well, guess what the best cure is? HAVING THE WHOLE CONTEXT PUBLICLY AND FREELY AVAILABLE!!

Idiots.

Re:Yes, it is copyright infringement... so what? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#27990475)

But what kind of politicians would support stopping the public from viewing public hearings being held on behalf of the public and at public expense?

What kind? Why, those who have something to hide ... and thus something to fear.

RE: Enemy of the State (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27990009)

Canadian Goverbment Offical:
"Citizens of Canada and Foreign personages within Canada, who, by whatever means, read, in whatever capacity, and retain a memory of written Government Edicts, are in violation of copyright and deemed 'Eneny of the State', and be rendered unto the State for execution for commitance of High Crimes against the State."

secret laws (1)

drwho (4190) | more than 4 years ago | (#27990281)

There's something seriously wrong with Canada if their Parliament considers their proceedings to be proprietary. The Canadian voters have paid for them, and if Parliament is trying to hide their proceedings then there's some secret they're trying to hide.

Sometimes, when the US has completely disgusted me, I merely have to look north for some tomfoolery that makes me remember again why I never moved up there.

Re:secret laws (2, Informative)

dexmachina (1341273) | more than 4 years ago | (#27990613)

They're not trying to hide their proceedings. As other people have noted, there's a Canadian cable channel called CPAC devoted to airing parliamentary proceedings. The point isn't that they don't want the videos to be seen, from what I gather it's more about having them taken out of context, etc. Not that I agree with it, I still think it's stupid. But that doesn't mean it's OK to misrepresent the issue.

Re:secret laws (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 4 years ago | (#27990645)

I'm pretty sure I can turn to some channel and see every last second on their childish name calling. And if anybody says anything particularly racist and ignorant, they'll repeat the clips on the news. Not a second of it is secret, it's all on tape, that's where the youtube clips came from. They apparently are worried about clips being taken out of context by people other than journalists, I dunno, seems like a legitimate concern, but an over reaction to it ;) That is, after all, what the "Respond to this" button is for...

Parliamentary supremacy (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27990487)

Most of the comments that have been made so far are obviously by Americans: not that that's a bad thing, but it's obvious that there is a fundamental lack of understanding by the posters. It's okay, we had a constitutional crisis recently and a majority of Canadians showed quite clearly that they don't understand parliamentary democracy, either.

Canada is a bicameral Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, and continues to be one of 15 Commonwealth Realms (and is also a member of the Commonwealth of Nations - the difference between a Realm and a member of the Commonwealth is detailed below). As a Commonwealth Realm, a monarch of the House of Windsor sits as Canada's Sovereign as the Queen of Canada - we are, in effect, personal union with the other 14 realms (The United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, etc), and due to our history, we share roughly the same governmental structure as the other Commonwealth Realms: Westminster parliamentary democracy.

In our system, the state is the Sovereign and the Sovereign is the state, in effect; it is through the exercise of sovereignty that all of the wonderful freedoms we enjoy are guaranteed. The constitutional view is very Hobbesian, in this regard: rights are understood to be conventional, and contingent upon the Monarch to exercise sovereignty effectively to prevent those rights from being infringed upon. In common parlance, the Sovereign is understood as being the "Crown."

It is through the Crown that all matters of law and order are conducted - for example, in Canada, we have "Crown prosecutors" rather than District Attorneys, and when prosecutions take place, it is the Queen-in-right of Canada that is making the charge. The Crown is, to use American terminology, the Executive. However, due to various constitutional conventions and historical developments, we have a merged legislative and executive branch.

Parliament is made up of three parts: the House of Commons, the Senate, and the Sovereign. The Queen is represented in Canada by the Governor-General as viceroy, and exercises all powers (so-called "reserve powers") ascribed to the office by the Constitution Act 1867, that is to say, basically all functions of government. But it is only on the advice of the Prime Minister that those actions are ever undertaken. Once again, due to various constitutional conventions, the Prime Minister is a member of the House of Commons, who is best able to retain the confidence of the House. The Prime Minister is then appointed to the Privy Council (similar to the notion of the President appointing all of the people at the White House), who then recommends to the G-G who else to induct. All of these inductees become Privy Councillors, and go on to form Cabinet, the executive body of the country which does most of the governing and forms what is called in constitutional parlance a "Ministry."

Why is this important? Quite simply, because of two traditions: the first, which has been detailed here, is that of responsible government. The Governor-General has vast powers, but only ever exercises them based upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister, who is himself bound to the will of the House of Commons. The second is the notion of Parliamentary supremacy - this is the constitutional doctrine which was solidified after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 that established that the Sovereign cannot act against the will of Parliament or undertake action with its sanction, and also established Parliament as the chief and supreme body of governance.

The Speaker of the House of Commons is an officer of Parliament and also a Member. He is the one who controls and directs all debate, and it is the Speaker that establishes and rules on the standing orders. Relating to the televising of Parliament, the Speaker reigns supreme: it is only through authorization of the Speaker that cameras were ever allowed into the chamber, and it is on his authority that they continue to do so.

Second, all copyright owned by the Government of Canada is actually owned by the Crown - the Queen-in-right of Canada, and is protected by various statue law. There is worry here, that posting such proceedings may violate a) parliamentary supremacy, b) parliamentary privilege, and, c) may reflect poorly on, or be used to override the monopoly of the Crown's image which the Crown in fact possesses. This last point is more relevant for issues related to images of the Queen, or Arms, etc.

I expect the office of the Speaker to rule on this, and it to become a non-issue.

But to be clear: the American notion of sovereignty deriving from "the People" is not at play here, and it's not some gigantic affront to democracy. It's simply how our ancient system of governance works, and has worked for centuries.

Taxes are abused too (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27990507)

In other news. Canadians should decide to withhold their taxes on the grounds that portions of the money might be used out of context or on less than successful spending. Canadians require that any record of their tax payments or non payments be controlled by American copyright regulations. The taxpayers themselves will decide if such information is to be recorded by anyone.

you in5sens1tive clod! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27990543)

chosen, whatever I see the same Copy a 17 Meg file Happiness Another am protestIng Nearly two years CHOSEN, WHATEVER beyond the scope of steadily fucking
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...