Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Canada: Police Do Not Have Power To Wiretap Without Warrant

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the unless-it's-on-opponents-of-the-maple-leafs dept.

Canada 133

omega6 sends this excerpt from The Star: "The Supreme Court of Canada struck down Friday warrantless wiretap powers that police have in cases of emergency. ... Ruling in a 2006 British Columbia kidnapping case, the country’s top court said a 1993 provision of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional because there is no accountability or oversight for the warrantless searches, either to the person wiretapped or in reports to Parliament. The unanimous ruling was written by rookie judges Michael Moldaver and Andromache Karakatsanis. The case revolves around police intercepting the calls of the family of Peter Li, the kidnap victim."

cancel ×

133 comments

Don't get your hopes up just yet (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39676597)

I'm sure the U.S. Supreme Court will just overrule them.

Re:Don't get your hopes up just yet (1)

dual eyes (1248666) | more than 2 years ago | (#39677701)

It was my understanding that US law already supersedes all international law and laws created by sovereign nations. Why would they need to overrule it if they do not acknowledge the validity of Canadian courts in the first place?

Re:Don't get your hopes up just yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39678755)

It's knee jerk... the US supreme court justice that can read is on vacation

Except niggers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39676627)

Except for niggers. Those subhuman beasts have no rights.

Yay Canada (3, Insightful)

drwho (4190) | more than 2 years ago | (#39676661)

Yes, I am ready to move there, if they'll take me. NS or PEI I'd like. Now, le tme in! I am smart and have a degree from a good college!

Re:Yay Canada (2)

modernzombie (1496981) | more than 2 years ago | (#39676893)

I live in NS, it is very nice. Lots of scenic rural areas and you're never that far from the [only] city.

Re:Yay Canada (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 2 years ago | (#39678147)

I grew up in NS. The only problem is if you work in a sector like most of us do here on Slashdot, you are pretty much regulated to working in the one city Halifax. Those kinds of jobs just do not exist outside of there. Unless of you want to try and open up an independent PC shop or something, or can somehow convince your employer to telecommute.

It is pretty great there and I hope to eventually move back some time (Ontario now).

Re:Yay Canada (2)

needs2bfree (1256494) | more than 2 years ago | (#39677019)

PEI is the same as NS, only more potatoes.

Re:Yay Canada (1)

modernzombie (1496981) | more than 2 years ago | (#39677043)

And nicer beaches

Re:Yay Canada (2)

needs2bfree (1256494) | more than 2 years ago | (#39677221)

Good point. I guess you never appreciate what you have till it's gone. BTW, my company in PEI needs senior web developers and project manager (I know, who doesn't). Mail me at magic_man87 at hot mail dot com. (spam account which i check once a week)

Re:Yay Canada (3, Interesting)

Walking The Walk (1003312) | more than 2 years ago | (#39678135)

[offtopic_shameless_plug]My company in also needs some senior developers for our PEI office, mostly for Java client/server work. Don't email me, just click the Careers link on our website [accreon.com] .[/offtopic_shameless_plug]

On topic, I'm glad to see at least some of our justices are taking their jobs seriously. Appointed by Stephen Harper, yet curtailing government invasion into private lives. A nice breath of fresh air in a recent gale of anti-privacy legislation. (Thanks Michael Geist [michaelgeist.ca] , for keeping us abreast of all the government's IT shenanigans!

Re:Yay Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39677041)

Then stay put and wait for a few years so we can get rid of our neo conservative prime minister. I think next election is in 2015.

If you want to see what kind of insanity he's bringing in, go look up Bill C-10. The abysmal failure of the american justice system is a stones throw away from being implemented here. His justification? To stop judges from doing what they just did here.

Re:Yay Canada (1)

modernzombie (1496981) | more than 2 years ago | (#39677117)

That election can't come soon enough. I just wish I had a Pirate Party candidate in my riding.

Re:Yay Canada (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39677561)

Look, I'd love to run as the PP candidate in the next election. Really, I would. I think I could get elected. The problem is that the people who would be voting for me would otherwise be voting for Randall Garrison, the NDP MP. It's a tight riding; one year only 68 votes let Keith Martin (Liberal) get in over Tory deSouza.(PC) Splitting up the left-wing votes is tantamount to voting for the Conservatives AND giving them a sizable donation.

So what we really have to do is run for the Wild Rose party and make up some shit about hating gays and abortion, split up the right-wing vote, and throw Stewie the Shithead out in the recycling.

Either that or have the Liberals and NDP shake hands, fold in the Greens, and call itself something new. We'll go to their convention wearing anti-gravity-jetpacks powered by cold fusion plants.

Re:Yay Canada (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 2 years ago | (#39677807)

I think you're mixing up federal and provincial elections. There is no federal Wild Rose party, only the provincial one in Alberta who look like they may form the next provincial government there.

Re:Yay Canada (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39679133)

Nope, I'm suggesting that the next federal election in Canada has the Wild Rose party splitting up the right-wing vote. If the right wing won't do it, then the left will have to do it.

Re:Yay Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39679229)

Yet...

Re:Yay Canada (1)

i_ate_god (899684) | more than 2 years ago | (#39678161)

It can come immediately after Harper secures more trade deals with the rest of the world.

I don't like Harper, him and I have no social values in common whatsoever. But he is smart enough to understand that Canada can't realy so heavily on the US for economy. So I say let him do that, then get Thomas Mulcair into the PMO and let him fix shit.

Re:Yay Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39678883)

... then get Thomas Mulcair into the PMO and let him bankrupt the country.

Fixed that for you.

Obviously you haven't lived in a province where then NDP has ran the show before. They have knack for running things into the ground and getting shown the curb rather unceremoniously. The PCs in Alberta going to find out how that feels in a few weeks.

Re:Yay Canada (4, Interesting)

Beerdood (1451859) | more than 2 years ago | (#39678115)

Nah, trust me, move as soon as you can, it's not nearly as bad as it seems here. We certainly don't like Harper & the conservative government - but the level of crazy in the conservatives here doesn't even come close to a Bachman / Santorum level.

There have been numerous conservative scandals in the news in the last year or so, but I've still yet to hear a fellow Canuck say "That's it! I'm sick of this country - I'm moving to America!"

Re:Yay Canada (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#39679377)

...I've still yet to hear a fellow Canuck say "That's it! I'm sick of this country - I'm moving to America!"

Well of course not, that would just be rude!

Re:Yay Canada (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39677099)

We don't want you. We want you to stay home and get involved and sort out your country. That would have a greater beneficial effect, here and there.

Put it this way: it's nice to be good neighbours with good neighbours.

Saying "fuck it, I'm moving" is the same stripe of "I've got mine, jack" that's at the root of much of what's gone wrong down there. By moving, you making it worse, twice.

Re:Yay Canada (2)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#39677137)

You can check your eligibility at Citizenship and Immigration Canada [cic.gc.ca] . They even have a self-assessment test [cic.gc.ca] to see if you qualify as a Skilled Worker.

Re:Yay Canada (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39679423)

And it's not all that hard to qualify if you're in IT - even without a degree, if you have experience to compensate.

(Just got my Canadian permanent residence a month ago; three years in the country from there, and you can apply for citizenship - much easier and faster than in U.S.)

Re:Yay Canada (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39677263)

Actually Canada is less free than the U.S. in many respects. I'm too lazy to dig-up the details, so I'll just pull it out of my memory, from when I read the articles 2 years ago.

There was an author wrote a book that he considered inoffensive but a Muslim priest filed a charge anyway. No big deal; it's protected as free speech right? Nope. He found himself drug into the Canadian court for charges of hate speech. They did eventually let him go, but not until he had wasted half-a-decade and nearly $100,000 fighting the charges. LINK - http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/item_6dD0aACtm0IHKpZ76wqqaM [nypost.com]

Also PEI? You won't find much use for your college degree there. That's a farming state... I mean province. They have about as much electronic industry as Maine.

Re:Yay Canada (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39677439)

America doesn't have real freedom of speech. To claim otherwise is to ignore the obvious current events, with lawsuits (defamation) or PR problems. You can say what you want, as long as you are willing to be black listed, jobless, in jail, or killed. It is freedom of speech, Lenin-style.

Re:Yay Canada (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39677743)

Non sense... Several books have been banned previously by the United States federal government. For instance, the title: "China's Destiny" . It was banned because of the anti-Western sentiment expressed in the book.

Re:Yay Canada (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39678035)

Ya, I am not sure about the specifics of the US but they do have more Freedoms of speech.
In Canada all we have, basically is: You can say whatever you want, unless it offended someone, he charges you, and a judge finds that what you have said is unreasonably offensive.
The law is worded loosely enough that anything can be considered illegal to say, if the judge finds it so.

Re:Yay Canada (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 2 years ago | (#39678127)

There was an author wrote a book that he considered inoffensive but a Muslim priest filed a charge anyway. No big deal; it's protected as free speech right? Nope. He found himself drug into the Canadian court for charges of hate speech.

Arrested for wearing a t-shirt: USA! USA!

Tazered and arrested for asking a question at an open mic question period: USA! USA!

Accused of hate speech: CANADA HAS NO FREEDOMZ! OMG!

Re:Yay Canada (1)

Walking The Walk (1003312) | more than 2 years ago | (#39678319)

There may be a lot of farming in PEI, but our two main population centres have plenty of IT opportunities. My company [accreon.com] is looking for a half dozen more senior Java developers, CGI employs twenty times more staff than we do (at various skill levels), and the local government has been advertising the island [islandedition.ca] as a good near-shore location. It's pretty nice to be able to buy a house near the beach, for a reasonable price, and commute to downtown in only 15-20 minutes. And get paid almost what I would get in Ottawa.

Re:Yay Canada (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 2 years ago | (#39677733)

Better hurry, things are getting uglier by the day...

Re:Yay Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39677815)

Better bring a ton of money. We're broke and the government takes all it can from its citizens, even when it's as gross as anyone born after Sept 1 that wants to drive a car pays extra for the privilege, at least in Ontario.

25% increases over 2 years signify some serious fuckups in the future.

C-30 your next (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39676679)

Thank God we have the supreme court to keep the Conservative jackboots in check. If C-30 (internet snooping) does pass despite our collective howling.. (who am I kidding we're powerless against those assholes anyways... there is no ministerial accountability anymore..) Then I hope the supreme court will knock that one out too.

There ought to be some sort of ministerial accountability for passing brazenly unconstitutional bills... *head explodes*

Re:C-30 your next (0)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#39676801)

There ought to be some sort of ministerial accountability for passing brazenly unconstitutional bills... *head explodes*

Have you considered assassination?

Re:C-30 your next (1)

LeadSongDog (1120683) | more than 2 years ago | (#39676873)

Assassination for failure to properly emply the apostrophe? Now that's what I call a grammar Nazi!

Re:C-30 your next (1)

LeadSongDog (1120683) | more than 2 years ago | (#39676935)

s/emply/employ/

Re:C-30 your next (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39677387)

There ought to be some sort of ministerial accountability for passing brazenly unconstitutional bills... *head explodes*

Have you considered assassination?

We're not there... yet.

Re:C-30 your next (2)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 2 years ago | (#39678335)

Someone tried to assassinate the prime minister in the 90's, but couldn't get past Canada's final boss: The prime minister's wife wielding an Inuit soapstone carving. True story.

Re:C-30 your next (2)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 2 years ago | (#39678213)

The supreme court suggested that the law be chaged so that after the facts the cops need to fill out a form explaining why they did it. C-30 already includes a provision requiring the cops to rubber stamp their own actions afterwards.

Re:C-30 your next (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39679315)

Only if they want to "legally" use the data obtained, C-30 is ripe for abuse

Too long (0)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39676701)

24 hours to get a warrant under dire circumstances? That's just asking for problems.

Re:Too long (1, Interesting)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#39676849)

The sensible thing to do would be to allow retrospective permission from a judge within 24 hours. The officers concerned should have to be able to explain to the judge what their very important reasons were, and if the judge doesn't think they were justified then a hefty sum should be payable to the tapee or other punitive actions should apply.

There's plenty of similar applications with other laws - eg here in the UK I can commit a crime, explain to the judge that it was the only way to prevent a greater crime and then walk free if s/he agrees.

"punitive"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39677177)

In what fantasy land is fining the town or province of the police department "punitive" to the police officer who broke the law and violated someone's rights?

Do you also feel that rape or murder can be discouraged by applying "punitive" fines after the fact?

Re:Too long (2)

Hamsterdan (815291) | more than 2 years ago | (#39678103)

Since when are police officers punished for breaking the law? at worse they're gonna be suspended *with* pay or relegated to other duties.

Re:Too long (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#39676875)

Maybe you're right, and that's something they should address separately. Or perhaps they could've just gotten permission from the family directly...? ianal, and all that.

But either way, it sounds like they had the good sense to avoid doing something stupid under bogus pretenses.

This is madness! (2)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#39676713)

If we strike down unconstitutional laws, and give back to the people their rights under that constitution, the terrorists... lose?! But the (alarmist lawmakers) said that if we didn't suspend all those rights the terrorists would win...

Re:This is madness! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39676813)

The terrorists won already. Now shut up, act like a citizen, and take back you rights you loser.

more and more (5, Informative)

v1 (525388) | more than 2 years ago | (#39676733)

Canada is looking like a good alternative to the USA. At least when "bad laws" do manage to get passed, they bother to get rid of them from time to time. Here anyway, anything that makes the police's job easier is apparently considered an OK exception to the constitution. :(

Re:more and more (3, Insightful)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 2 years ago | (#39676841)

Well, the underground railroad has always run *from* the USA *to* Canada. The US may have a big statue of Libertas in the New York harbour, but the US has never really been the land of the free. That title belongs to Canada.

Re:more and more (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39676847)

Its great, except the only problem with moving to Canada is that you would actually have to live there.

Re:more and more (4, Funny)

w_dragon (1802458) | more than 2 years ago | (#39677211)

That's only a problem in the winter. The other 3 months of the year are great!

Re:more and more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39677057)

The grass is always...

We're fighting against a lot of crap with the current government. It may sound nicer in Canada right now, but with being stuck with the Harper government for a few more years, we could make the US blush in term of stupid laws.

Re:more and more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39677545)

The grass is always...

We're fighting against a lot of crap with the current government. It may sound nicer in Canada right now, but with being stuck with the Harper government for a few more years, we could make the US blush in term of stupid laws.

Nice hyperbole there pal. You obviously have never lived under an NDP provincial regime but I have and I will tell you that it was some of the worst years our province had. They drove our economy into the toilet and it took a while to recover. Our laws are relatively benign compared to some places in the US.

Re:more and more (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39677059)

O Rly? [torontosun.com]

Re:more and more (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39677243)

You cannot own a gun in Canada? Seriously?

Re:more and more (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39677431)

You can own rifles without registration and get permits for handguns.

You can't buy grenades, flamethrowers, or rocket launchers, although you can find them on the side of the road from time to time.

Re:more and more (5, Informative)

Synesthes (1351729) | more than 2 years ago | (#39677525)

You cannot own a gun in Canada? Seriously?

No, you certainly can.

There are three classes of firearms licenses:
- Non-Restricted - things like rifles and shotguns
- Restricted - Handguns, short rifles/shotguns, and some other random restrictions (scary looking guns, for example)
- Prohibited - Short barrel handguns, fully automatic rifles, etc

To get your firearms license, you have to (optionally) take a firearms safety course and then write (or challenge) the exam, where you demonstrate safe handling and use of the firearms, as well as knowledge of the firearms regulations.

To get a permit for a restricted license, there's an additional course and exam. Also, restricted firearms are limited to government approved firing ranges - no taking them out into the bush to shoot cans.

Prohibited licenses are not issued, only given to people 'grandfathered' in to the licensing system. Once they die off, there will be no more prohibited class.

For any of these, you submit ID, proof of exam, personal questionnaire, and $$$ to the government, where they perform a criminal record check and reference check. Fired from your job recently? They'll look into that. On anti-depressants? They'll look into that. And yes, they do check your references - they checked mine.

So yes, you can. But it's a lengthy process.

Re:more and more (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39677657)

So nobody can carry a pistol?

Re:more and more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39677997)

Basically, no. Our gun freedoms are not like those in the 'states.

Re:more and more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39678459)

You can have one in a locked container, in your car trunk, with a trigger guard on, and separated from any ammunition if you are driving between your house and a firing range.

Not just a 'walking around gun' :-).

Re:more and more (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 2 years ago | (#39678477)

So nobody can carry a pistol?

Only cops, soldiers and private security with the right paperwork.

And since recently, and quietly, cops and soldiers of the U.S. of A.

Re:more and more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39678511)

Why would you want to carry a pistol? To protect yourself from everyone else carrying a pistol?

Re:more and more (-1, Troll)

gparent (1242548) | more than 2 years ago | (#39679113)

No, we do not get the right to get shot by random project niggers.

Re:more and more (-1, Offtopic)

gparent (1242548) | more than 2 years ago | (#39679141)

And obviously I'm kidding...

Re:more and more (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39677739)

The thing is, he guy didn't own a gun. He was arrested purely by the drawing.

Re:more and more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39677849)

Why would you need to? I've lived here 36 years and I have not once, ever, seen anyone other than a police officer or soldier with a gun. The nonsense about needing one to defend yourself is a product of a country where any damned fool can buy one. Seriously, get over the 2nd, it's not doing you any good. If you ever were to rise up against your gov, would you even care that the 2nd existed?

Re:more and more (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39677213)

From TFA,

OTTAWAâ"The Supreme Court of Canada struck down Friday warrantless wiretap powers that police have in cases of emergency.

The high court has given Parliament a year to re-write the law.

Ruling in a 2006 British Columbia kidnapping case, the countryâ(TM)s top court said a 1993 provision of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional because there is no accountability or oversight for the warrantless searches, either to the person wiretapped or in reports to Parliament.

So the ruling says the law is unconstitutional. Now, Parliament has 1 YEAR to fix it - it means police can continue to use unconstitutional law as is for 1 YEAR. But the most troubling part is this is a 1993 law! 20 years to "fix it"???? 20 YEARS???

That's like hailing some judicial decisions in 1950s that the Nazi party didn't have legal rights to issue laws they did in the 1930s... I'm sorry, but 20 years is snail pace.

The moral of the story is, if the politicians don't give a fuck about the constitution then they can ignore it. They can pass and enforce any illegal laws. The only caveat is they have to hurry - they only can do for 20 years..

This is not like politicians are layman, that they don't know what they are doing. Most of them are lawyers. Most of them know the law. What is we need a law where politicians are held criminally accountable for passing unconstitutional laws.

PS. I don't know anything about this specific case. I only care that the constitution can be trampled on. Constitution is a legal core of a nation. Trampling on it should be treason.

Re:more and more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39677691)

So the ruling says the law is unconstitutional. Now, Parliament has 1 YEAR to fix it

This bothers me too.

There have been other instances where the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that certain laws are unconstitutional and has given Parliament time to change the law. I cannot, off the top of my head, recall the specific details, but I remember thinking at the time that giving Parliament time to rework the law so as to be constitutional seemed a reasonable compromise (though a year seemed like an unnecessarily long grace period).

In this instance however, I cannot see any justification for allowing Parliament time to change the law. What justification is there for not striking down the law immediately? Any further use of this part of the law would seem to me, by the Court’s ruling, to be automatically unconstitutional.

Re:more and more (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39677255)

Yeah Canada is a great option. The land of the morally out raged and impotent. You know, cause doing something about it might be impolite. The land where everyone looks down their nose at Americans but would never really step out of line, cause they know where their bread is buttered, and are content to live under pax americana. Its like the teenager who lives in the room in North America's attic. Please go. You and the rest of the hippies who were to chicken shit to fight for what they believed in here where they lived.

Re:more and more (2)

Galestar (1473827) | more than 2 years ago | (#39677323)

I'm from Canada and I love the legal system but hate the weather. I've joked several times that Canada needs to buy a large strip of land in California and create a new province.

Re:more and more (1, Funny)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39677467)

The Turks and Caicos have been asking to join Canada for years. We can't let them in because:

They don't speak French. It's Quebec fucking over the rest of the country again.

Re:more and more (1)

steveaustin1971 (1094329) | more than 2 years ago | (#39677659)

If you were raised in Canada, there really is no one but yourself to blame if you don't know french. Why anyone would rail against the opportunity to be bilingual is beyond me. BTW, its not just Quebec that made french one of our national languages, LARGE parts of Ontario and half the maritimes are also mostly bilingual. Its just the right wing in Canada that likes to point fingers at them.

Re:more and more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39677809)

LARGE parts of Ontario and half the maritimes are also mostly bilingual

Small parts of Ontario and about one quarter of the maritimes (less than one half of one out of three maritime provinces) are bilingual.

Also small parts of Manitoba and very small parts of Alberta and BC.

Nunavut is officially trilingual. I don’t know how much of it is actually francophone.

Re:more and more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39677889)

"If you were raised in Canada"?

You know Canada is a big country, right? French is about as relevant to BC as Chinese is to northern Quebec.

Like most Canadians, I graduated high school with a working knowledge of French and continued the study of it in University, then graduated into a world where the only application for it was reading the wordier side of cereal boxes.

I'm fine with French being taught in our schools and respecting it as a part of Canada' heritage, but pretending that it's relevant is on par with pretending that the PQ isn't essentially just a band of bitter racists.

Re:more and more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39678541)

I still think the language police are a ridiculous waste of resources and stifling freedom at the cost of preserving a dying language in a country where the majority do not want, nor need it.

Re:more and more (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39679235)

Malheursement, j'ne sais pas une mot francais.

I learned French in high school in Canada; it's a requirement for graduation. Of course, the rules run by a bureaucrat somewhere (I'm guessing from Ontario) made it so that we learn formal French from France, not Quebecois, which is what they actually speak in Quebec.

Now, over in BC, there are very very few chances to speak any other language but English. Those of my friends that speak ExL {x| 2 or more} don't like to speak to me in their native tongues. One, talking to me is like talking to a semi-literate drunk; second, they would rather get more "English time" in.

I know several languages. Mind you, most of them are only machine readable.

Re:more and more (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39677677)

Blame Quebec, it's easy right? In Quebec, there's a minority of bigots who blame English speakers. Let's just keep at it for a few more centuries until things escalate way out of hands again.

So you know, instead of blaming French Canadian speaker who live in Quebec like me, and who despise the bigotry of a minority who fear the Borg assimilation from English speakers, maybe you should target idiots from both side. People who just like to think their side is better, and who just like to pretend that the real problem isn't with a radical minority of people but with a whole Province.

You know, as a Quebec citizen, I don't go around blaming there rest of Canada for the Harper government. It's not like Quebec didn't massively vote for the NDP instead of these assholes. Oh wait, we did. And you know what? I still don't blame the rest of Canada.

Re:more and more (1)

BForrester (946915) | more than 2 years ago | (#39677869)

Cut the bullshit or back that up with a citation. The issues related to annexing new territories are more complex than your simplistic and baseless statement would claim, particularly for a country that is not in the habit of colonizing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_and_Caicos_Islands#Proposed_union_with_Canada [wikipedia.org]

If you want to talk baseless rumour, the dirt (from a politician-friend) is that the acquisition is still on the table. If T&C can show that they can keep their crime and local political issues in check, this could still be a mutually-beneficial union. At present, it's hard to tell.

Re:more and more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39677773)

Or ignore the green house gas etc and bring warmer weather to Canada.

BUT.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39676771)

Canadian authorities DO have the right to come into your house and take your Kraft Dinner without a warrant if they're hungry! :(

A step in the right direction (5, Insightful)

bobwrit (1232148) | more than 2 years ago | (#39676857)

Hopefully, Canada will begin to take a slightly more critical look to the whole concept of 'Emergency Powers'. I mean, here in the US(as an example), we've entertained the concept that if we're in a war, or the president has been given war powers, that he has the right to suspend the population's rights. Albeit, this isn't new(we suspended a lot of rights during WWII, at least. see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment [wikipedia.org] ), but we just need to get rid of this idea. Just because we're in war, doesn't mean that we're not human.

Re:A step in the right direction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39676967)

Yeah, there's a whole lot of other reasons why American politicians are not human. No need to blame war for it.

Re:A step in the right direction (1)

chadenright (1344231) | more than 2 years ago | (#39676975)

That reduces one of the incentives for us to always be at war. And the military-industrial complex wouldn't like that.

Re:A step in the right direction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39677145)

Hopefully, though I wouldn't count on it. The Conservatives are REINSTATING extra powers that lapsed because they were never actually used or renewed.

For that matter, unlike in the US, the War Measures Act HAS been invoked in peacetime in Canada, during the FLQ terrorist crisis.

Re:A step in the right direction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39677441)

The War Measures Act [wikipedia.org] was repealed, in major part because of the way it was used during the October Crisis [wikipedia.org] .

I have not myself looked at the replacement Emergencies Act [wikipedia.org] , but AIUI, the Emergencies Act eliminates or reduces some of the excesses that were possible under the War Measures Act.

Of course the repeal of the War Measures Act was almost twenty-five years ago. I strongly doubt that the Harper government would repeal such a law today.

Re:A step in the right direction (1)

dual eyes (1248666) | more than 2 years ago | (#39677793)

The War Measures Act was repealed in 1988. What extra powers are you referring to? I am not aware of any pending laws that undermine our constitution.

Re:A step in the right direction (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 2 years ago | (#39677191)

Hopefully, Canada will begin to take a slightly more critical look to the whole concept of 'Emergency Powers'.

We did. It was called October, 1970.

Seems we're due for another review of it.

Re:A step in the right direction (1)

flabbergast (620919) | more than 2 years ago | (#39679353)

Albeit, this isn't new(we suspended a lot of rights during WWII, at least. see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org] ), but we just need to get rid of this idea)
Yeah, the Americans weren't the only ones to intern ethnically Japanese portions of the population. The Canadians did as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Canadian_internment [wikipedia.org] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obasan [wikipedia.org]

So Canada now works like the rest of the world? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39676863)

I assume this is how it works in most advanced countries. But as usual with Slashdot news stories you have to look through the US glasses in order to understand the stories. I suspect from this article that in the US the police does not need a warrant to wiretap?

Re:So Canada now works like the rest of the world? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39677025)

Nope. Optical taps at several large co's have been in place for years.

Why are we even talking about this? (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 2 years ago | (#39677003)

This is common sense.

The fact that this even has to be discussed is reprehensible. A warrant should always be required for any breach of privacy.

We've become far too lax in letting "authority" into our lives.

Canada.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39677035)

.. Officially better than the United States since 2012.

Doing it wrong then (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 2 years ago | (#39677295)

If you have to do shortcuts like that then you are doing the LEO thing wrong.

What you want to do is deliver supplies of Bourbon/Whiskey and or %Critter% to a few of your local judges so that you can show up at His/Her house to get your warrant without having a gavel or something thrown at you.

Maybe it is time to move back ... (5, Informative)

Impish (669369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39677693)

I've been in the U.S.A. for seven years now and it seems to have gone more and more downhill.

- I was sitting in a room with a bunch of Americans during Thanksgiving and mentioned how much I disliked the TSA and the new scanners (back when they were new) and to a man they all said "We need the better security."
- I then tried to steer the conversation towards their rights to travel between states (in regards to if you refuse the pat down/scan they won't let you travel) and they said inter-state travel was a privilege. I was gobsmacked.

The socialist leaning, big government Canadian was more worried about his personal rights then the freedom loving Americans! Now if only the housing prices would recover ....

Written by "rookie" judges? (4, Informative)

Walking The Walk (1003312) | more than 2 years ago | (#39678027)

They may be new to the supreme court, but they're hardly rookie judges! Michael Moldaver [wikipedia.org] was a judge on the Supreme Court of Ontario 20 years ago, and Andromache Karakatsanis [wikipedia.org] was a judge on the same court 10 years ago, after being Deputy Attorney General of Ontario.

Mod parent up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39678915)

That choice of words "rookie judges" was pretty biased and inappropriate.

Conflicted (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 2 years ago | (#39678401)

I heard about this on CBC today at lunch.

I have to say I am a bit conflicted.

Usually I am the one beating the privacy drum and less impingement on individual rights, however in this particular case, it does make me think.

This is an instance where the kidnappers let the captives phone family, the family contacted police, the police did apply for a warrant, but knowing it would take 24 hours or something to get, they went ahead and tapped the line anyway because they were fearful something might happen to the family.

In any case they certainly had probably cause, and the warrant was eventually issued by the judge anyway, it is just that they set it up in advance of that decision.

So yeah, I am all for the protection of rights, although at the same time, I can at least understand in this particular case why the police felt they had to set up the wiretap in advance of the actual warrant.

So yeah I don't know. I guess in this case, the idea is that you set it up early, and you might save some lives, knowing that the content will likely get thrown out in court because there was no warrant, and that once the warrant has been issued that would then from that time on been admissible. Anyway certainly not a cut and dry case. About the only thing I can hang my hat on is that if the judgment wasn't what it was, and they did allow warrantless wire taps it would most certainly be abused, so I can get behind that at least.

Today (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 2 years ago | (#39679057)

I am proud to be a Canadian.

Re:Today (1)

doston (2372830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39679357)

I am proud to be a Canadian.

Except for section 13, right? Got that repealed yet?

Of course warrantless wiretaps should be illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39679177)

On the other hand if there is a need perhaps there should be some new courts or more judges placed in a position to hand out warrants for online crime.
 
  24/7 15 minute warrants should be relatively easy to implement, and judges can review the warrants while the examination takes place.
 
  What's the difference between judges giving out warants with little or no information and then reviewing afterward vs no warrant taps? Well first off the crime will be acknowledged by the system, and abuses can be tracked (especially against subversive individuals and in cases where the police have personal/bribery related antagonism). Second, this will prevent law enforcement from creating huge databases of misdemeanors.
 
  An example might be porn websites, if the police think someone is a pedophile they can get a warrant to track their underage porn use. Without a warrant they can just track all porn someone views and show up in court with fifteen cases of 17 year old porn stars.
 
  Same thing with drug use and subversive conversation. It's one thing to think someone is a specific threat and to track them based on that. It's quite another to casually look into someone for a long time and build a case based on specific instances spaced out by several years. The second basically lends itself to being able to arrest anyone the first is about stopping crimes or punishing criminals.
 
  This really isn't too difficult to figure out.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...