In Canada, Criminal Libel Charges Laid For Criticizing Police 383
BitterOak writes "A Calgary man is facing criminal charges of libel for criticizing police. According to the story, the RCMP have filed five charges against John Kelly for claiming on his website that Calgary police officers engaged in perjury, corruption, and obstruction of justice. What makes the story unusual is that the charges are criminal and not civil. Even in Canada, which has much less free speech protection than the United States, it is extremely rare for people to be charged criminally with libel. It is almost always matter for civil courts."
ohhh (Score:4, Funny)
time to pack my bags and head north. ohh wait....
Re:ohhh (Score:5, Insightful)
That's right.
Thirst for power and oppression of dissent is engrained in the very core of humanity's political genes.
There is no escape.
Re:ohhh (Score:5, Insightful)
Not just our 'political' genes, but our actual genes.
Every simian species* has a hirarchical social structure whereby those at the top dominate and control those at the bottom, often extremely viciously. Humans are little different in that respect.
*Except Bonobos, who settling disputes by fucking, and spend most of their spare time doing the same. Man, I wish we were more like Bonobos.
Re:ohhh (Score:5, Funny)
Wikipedia: Bonobo males occasionally engage in various forms of male-male genital behavior.[32][33] In one form, two males hang from a tree limb face-to-face while "penis fencing".[34][35] [wikipedia.org]
Man, I wish we were more like Bonobos.
I do not.
Have you tried it?
If so, what did you dislike about it??
I can never keep hold of the tree :(
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
settling disputes by fucking
We do that too sometimes, but we call it rape, and when it's organized and sanctioned by a political group, as in Bosnia or Congo, we call it a crime against humanity.
No, we don't. We call it makeup sex. And it's consensual, not invasive. Rape and pillaging aren't about solving disputes... they are purely carnal and direct abuses of power. In your attempt to classify monkeys as being beneath us humans, you only succeeded to show further similarity.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
settling disputes by fucking
We do that too sometimes, but we call it rape
You may call it rape, and maybe in some cases it is, but certainly not in all.
Depending on the relationship, you may actually find situations where sex (consensual, not rape) does settle disputes. It's hard to remain angry with somebody when you're both awash in that "fresh fucking" glow, after all.
This is a GOOD THING! (Score:5, Interesting)
All the guy has to do is raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of ONE juror.
When he's not convicted, this will be seen by many as proof that the RCMP did in fact perjure themselves. Dumb move, cops.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The "defamatory libel" (there's no such thing as libel in Canada, just "defamatory libel") wasn't committed in Canada. The publication took place in the US. Even trying to argue that it was posted from Canada fails - it isn't published (under the meaning of
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about Canada, but in the US, defending yourself eats up so much time and money that even when you win, you lose.
Re: (Score:2)
The Internet has changed the balance of power. People can do their research, find precedents, previous filings that they can cut-and-paste and edit, the rules of procedure, etc. Anyone with a bit of hard work and intelligence can make a good pre
Re: (Score:2)
Odds are that he won't get a jury trial. I haven't read the fine article but in Canada we only have the right to a jury trial for crimes where the maximum sentence is over 5 years.
It's in the Charter.
Re:This is a GOOD THING! (Score:5, Informative)
Also, except in indictments specifically enumerated in section 553, it is up to the accused, not the judge, to decide whether they will have a trial by judge alone or by jury. See section 554. Also sections 558 and following. Don't take my word for it - here's the Canadian Criminal Code directly from the government website: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/FramesView.html [justice.gc.ca]
Hope this makes it a bit clearer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All the guy has to do is raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of ONE juror.
Even in the US, that's hardly sufficient to reliably be acquitted. If one juror's doubt is merely reasonable, the odds of him caving to the other jurors are quite high. It requires considerable certainty to persist when hounded by five or eleven other people.
The juror's decision must be unanimous, and if one juror sticks to his gun and will not vote guilty, and the other jurors stick to their guns and vote guilty -- this eventually results in a mistrial and the accused gets a new trial -- and really, if
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only do most people not know about jury nullification in the US, it is actually legal for the judge to forbid anybody to mention it, and iirc it is legal for the judge to lie about it's existence.
Every single time I hear about somebody I know getting a summons, I tell them to google "jury nullification" before they go, but to not mention a thing about it. It's one of the few ways the average citizen can have a direct impact on government these days, and the establishment hates it.
Re:This is a GOOD THING! (Score:5, Informative)
Defamation (there's no such thing as libel in Canada, just "defamatory libel" - not the same thing) is different from the US. The truth is not an absolute defense. However, they screwed up, because the police, being public figures, are more subject to open criticism than the average citizen. This is intimidation, pure and simple.
The web site is in New York, so it's outside the Canadian courts' jurisdiction, pure and simple. The US 5th Amendment takes precedence on US soil.
So we have the problem of venue. If the defamatory statements were published in the US, and if Canada doesn't have a long-arm statute (we don't, except for child abuse and terrorism), the RCMP are SOL. Sorry boys, you don't get your man this time.
Also, sections 309 - 310 of the criminal code [justice.gc.ca]:
Do the RCMP sometimes lie? That's been proven in court. Instead of trying to suppress publication in another country with a SLAPP criminal proceeding, maybe they should address the issues, and realize that when you're a cop, what you do is public, same as a politician.
Re:This is a GOOD THING! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Aryan Nations used to run a hate web site in Canada. After they were ordered to remove it, they just moved it to an American server. The prosecution asked
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Criminal vs Civil in Canada (Score:4, Informative)
For Canadian standards see http://www.cscja-acjcs.ca/criminal_civil_law-en.asp?l=4 [cscja-acjcs.ca]
"More evidence is needed to find the accused at fault in criminal cases than to find the defendant at fault in civil ones. To convict someone of a crime, the prosecution must show there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime and, in most cases, that they intended to commit it. Judges and juries cannot convict someone they believe probably committed the crime or likely is guilty - they must be almost certain. This gives the accused the benefit of any reasonable doubt and makes it less likely an innocent person will be wrongfully convicted and imprisoned. Civil cases, in contrast, must be proven on a balance of probabilities - if it is more likely than not that the defendant caused harm or loss, a court can uphold a civil claim."
It will be fairly easy to show who did the publishing and that he intended to do the publishing.
Problem for the RCMP, who are not the defamed group, and the Calgary Police will be showing that a crime was actually committed. The key phrase in Canadian law is "on reasonable grounds, he believes is true". Is it reasonable for a person to argue these points given what is known to be true? Looking at the site, at least some of the statements do not seem "reasonable".
But also, he is not publishing in Canada. eg: Court publication bans do not extend to websites hosted in other countries.
If you look at the site, it clearly appeals to the fringe and is long on accusation and short on evidence. It also explicitly names particular people without a lot of supporting documentation. Personnally, I would say this guy is pushing the limits of free speech beyond what is ethical but I am not so sure that there is a law broken. My gut reaction was that he is a wack job and is doing more harm than good for his cause. Police should be held to higher standards and complaints should be investigated independantly but I would not want to be a public servant in a tough, demanding job and be subject to this kind of public complaint. Again, I'm not saying there is criminal defamation; just saying that this is clearly at the limit.
Finally, first thing I did upon reading the article was to go find the site: http://www.rottenapples.info/ [rottenapples.info] ;->
I am sure that this fellows site popularity has soared.
This will be an interesting case to follow.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
To Alaska? You can see Russia from your house there.
Less protection for free speech? (Score:3)
That's a loaded and subjective statement - care to back it up?
Re:Less protection for free speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees a Canadian's right to free speech, is inherently weaker than the US constitution because it contains a notwithstanding clause that allows a province to suspend many rights for 5 year periods. Quebec's language laws wouldn't stand up to a first amendment challenge in the US but it is allowed to violate the charter of rights and Freedoms in Canada because they used the notwithstanding clause.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Less protection for free speech? (Score:5, Informative)
I think the GP is right actually. The problematic part of Quebec law is the requirement that French be predominant on all business signs. I can't see that surviving in the US.
Note that the restriction is not on what you can say, it's on the language of business signage. Practically speaking I'm not sure if that means Canada has less free speech that the States.
Given that this was one of only two uses ever of the notwithstanding clause, I don't consider it to be a weakness in the constitution. Think of it more as a shortcut constitutional amendment. Note that notwithstanding overrides expire after five years in order to give voters a chance to express their opinion via a general election it before they are renewed.
The US constitution has...how many amendments? The Canadian Constitution has none, and two uses of the notwithstanding clause. I wouldn't say one is stronger or weaker than the other.
Finally, as clear as the 1st amendment appears to be, we all know you can't say anything you want whenever you want wherever you want. There are limits. The Canadian constitution is explicit about that so when you read them side by side the Canadian text appears wishy-washy, but in effect they are equivalent.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see that surviving in the US.
IANAL, but there's a lot less protection for business/commercial speech than for political. And regulations on signs in general have been upheld.
Re: (Score:2)
e Supreme Court of the US has even ruled that death threats are protected speech, unless the issuer of the threat is carrying a gun or knife.
Got a source for that?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
As the first reply said, is there a citation for that supposed ruling?
The definition of assault is the threat coupled with the present ability to do bodily harm. That is in no way protected s
Re: (Score:2)
They are a affront to your freedom but not mine.
Like he parent said, the majority in Quebec are in agreement with these laws.
Without these laws we would lose our language, people don't seem to remember,but only a few years ago, all big stores inside and outdoor signs where in English.
The majority of patrons were francophone but the owner were anglophone.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that why changed the stop signs too?
Next time you get a chance to go to France, checkout their stop signs. They say STOP on them.
Re: (Score:2)
They say Stop in the City of Westmount in Quebec too.
They were changed because all the French speaking driver refused to stop at the "Stop" signs arguing they could not understand the meaning of the word. This was causing general mayhem on the streets and a lot of nasty accidents, something had to be done.
Re: (Score:2)
They couldn't tell what a stop sign was regardless of what was printed on it? Sounds to me like they were trying to be pricks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>Without these laws we would lose our language
So? There have been millions of human languages... only about 1% of them have survived to the modern day. In fact the world would be better served if everyone spoke just a few. Look at the benefits gained when Roman Latin replaced the native european languages (circa 100 to 900 AD) - you could travel anywhere from Africa to Rome to Portugal to Britannia, and communicate to everyone with ease.
A single language promoted the sharing of ideas and uni
Re:Less protection for free speech? (Score:4, Insightful)
Fine if less language is better learn French and stop using English.
Language is a big part of culture, mono-culture is very bad, not only in computers (windows zombies)m also in agriculture and society.
Languages dies, like culture and civilizations and people.
"A single language promoted the sharing of ideas and unity."
Multiple languages promote innovation and diversity, I like that better.
Speaking more than one language give you a broader mind, as our thinking is dictated by words, language structures, we think mostly in words.
Ask anybody who speaks multiple languages, there is words and concepts in each of them that can only be approximated in other languages.
The Quebec Languages law do not aim to eradicate English, they are there to preserve French.
There is mandatory English classes in French schools.
Re:Less protection for free speech? (Score:4, Interesting)
Or, looking at it another way, a single language was used to enforce the control of a privileged minority who trampled the rights and freedoms of people across an entire continent.
The same thing happened with Arabic in the Ottoman Empire, with English in the British Empire, and with Mandarin in China. The Japanese also attempted it in China, Taiwan, and Korea in their brief imperial period.
Having a single language is only a good thing if you belong to the culture whose language it was originally. It is never a good sign for people whose cultures used to speak something different.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The restrictions only apply to COMMERCIAL SPEECH and even in the US, there are restrictions to commercial speech.
Only businesses have been affected by law 101 and businesses are not human so they do not have human rights.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Businesses are owned by humans. Any time you put a restriction on a business you are restricting the rights of their owners who last time I checked were pretty likely to be humans.
Re:Less protection for free speech? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Quebec men prefer pussies, you like cocks?
By the way the Cajuns did not leave, they were deported by the English.
Any Canadian knows that only someone who is Québécois would say that... As a Canadian of French decent, I always make it clear I'm Acadian, not Québécois, and for good reason. You also left out how one third of the Acadian population was wiped out by the English.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And only old people still speak French in Louisiana.
Re:Less protection for free speech? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, what about television and radio broadcast standards? In Canada, I can watch uncut movies on public air broadcast channels that contain violence and nudity. In the US, your broadcasts are under a required broadcast delay and censored when deemed inappropriate. Who in this case has more freedom of speech? Do you think ABC would ever get away with broadcasting nudity on a Friday night?
And the US constitution does not protect anyone from libel statements. There are limits to acceptable free speech in both countries.
The article summary just reeks of ignorance and bigotry.
Re: (Score:2)
And the US constitution does not protect anyone from libel statements.
Technically true, but the burden of proof in libel cases in the US is frankly astronomical, especially if the victim is a public figure. I don't know if Canadian law is closer to the US or the UK on this.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Tne First Amendment doesn't have the qualifer, therefore it is slightly stronger.
Note that this is in theory. It is not necessarily true in practice, for either nation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe the individual was referring to such bodies as the Alberta Human Rights Commission. These bodies have the ability to prosecute an individual for speech outside of the normal judiciary and without any of the normal protections you might expect from a judiciary. In that sense free speech takes a hard hit, especially when you have to wonder what solution the AHRC (and others like it) provide that the courts could not.
Re: (Score:2)
Which country as the free speech zones? The text look stronger in the US constitution, but in real everyday life it think Canadian citizens have more freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
"Free speech zones were put in place for people who think their right to free speech trumps everybody else's right to free speech."
1) a free speech zone implies that outside of the zone there is no free speech
2) Hiding the ones you don't agree with outside of view is trumping there right to be heard
"Which country has protesters that think freedom of speech means the freedom to disrupt gatherings and proceedings of people that they disagree with?"
That is to get on the news, if you do not dirupt anything or d
Canada is more protective of rights than USA. (Score:3, Insightful)
Even in Canada, which has much less free speech protection than the United States ...
Really? Because in canada there is a tonne of laws protecting free speech - so long as you're not engaging in hate speech. In fact, the laws are almost exactly the same as in the USA in regards to freedom of speech (with hate speech being a key difference).
... like awarding a family damages over the autism-caused-by-vaccines debacle which has been debunked by real scientists over and over...)".
I think what the article means to say is that "In canada, they're not litigation happy, and the courts have made it very difficult to get a multimillion dollar settlement for pouring hot coffee on your lap and claiming that it was the fault of the coffee shop for not telling you that coffee is hot... (and other such nonsense cases
Yes, in Canada you can't walk around holding a pistol and suing everyone who looks at you funny. You also can't start a chapter of the KKK, start publishing material that has no value and offends a large audience. Oh, and queer-bashing? Also illegal. Why? Because you couldn't say or do the same things to someone that wasn't queer, and not get arrested/charged. That doesn't mean canada has lax free speech laws. That means Canada has a better system of protecting the rights of its citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't mean canada has lax free speech laws. That means Canada has a better system of protecting the rights of its citizens.
Actually, I would say that it means both.
Re: (Score:2)
Are there any exclusions for factualness?
Or in Canada can I not say that all members of the westboro baptist church are evil scumbags since I'd be promoting hate of a religious group?
Re: (Score:2)
The truth is an absolute defense in libel and slander cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when are any governments uniform and consistent?
Given the choice I'll take the individuals since I can sue them and make their life hard right back and they probably don't have a large number of armed men at their beck and call.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
that isn't even a good strawman, are you even trying?
The point you ignore is that I can do the exact same right back.
Your way, as seen in TFA if I accuse government employees of things I'll get charged with criminal libel, not just civil.
In a hypothetical scenario where the police had accused him of even worse things, say raping kids and cannibalism how much chance would there be of any of them being charged with criminal libel?
I'll take the somewhat vaguely, hopefully but of course not always equal playing
Re:Canada is more protective of rights than USA. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even in Canada, which has much less free speech protection than the United States ...
Really?
The first item in the US bill of rights guarantees freedom of speech. What does the first item in our charter of rights do?
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Oh, right, it effectively nullifies the rest of the charter by including vague language about "reasonable limits".
You also can't start a chapter of the KKK, start publishing material that has no value and offends a large audience.
Yeah, that's the problem. See, I don't think we should have government bureaucrats decide whether or not something "has no value". How about we let the audience decide that for themselves? If we want to prove that our ideologies are indeed superior to those of the KKK, that can only be done on a fair and equal forum of debate where the other side has a fair chance to speak. Right now, all we've proved is that the anti-racists have bigger guns.
You got it (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that whenever you stop protecting the unpopular speech, and let the government decide what is and is not of "value" or "useful" or whatever, you open the gates to restricting speech for all sorts of bad reasons. It is the unpopular speech that must be protected.
As an example, look at the sham that is the Canadian Human Rights Commission. You have a lead investigator that said, on the record "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value. It's not my job to give value to an American concept." Where you don't have the right to question your accuser, hearsay is admissible with few exceptions, and truth is not always a defense. Basically, if a plaintiff can demonstrate you hurt their feelings (with rather dubious standards of evidence to do so), even if your statements were true you can get in trouble.
Really you want free speech very protected, where there are clear lines as to what can't be done and those lines are only there as needed to protect people (like you can't order someone to kill someone else and claim free speech). As it stands in Canada, the laws are used to shut down unpopular speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Down here in the US, we have come to believe that Freedom of Speech is a French concept. On which grounds we are planning to eliminated it, along with pommes frites, as soon as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, right, it effectively nullifies the rest of the charter by including vague language about "reasonable limits"
This is NO different that the US. The US constitution on free speech does not give someone the right to break the law. For example it does not allow you to slander someone else, nor can you do something like lie on your tax returns. The right to free speech is bounded by other laws in both countries.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sure that "vague language" has never been interpreted by the courts. Oh wait: [wikipedia.org]
You're right, though, that's pretty permissive in what it allows the government to do. Fortunately for Americans, their rights are not subject to such "vague language". For example,
Re:Really? KKK worthwhile? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which has fuck all to do with free speech.
You can let the hate groups fester where nobody can see or you can leave them out in the open to be ridiculed by all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's literally impossible, for example, for working-class Black lesbians to have a fair and equal debate with bourgeois white straights; there's too much of a power imbalance.
Fortunately, we have people (like me) willing to stand up for Black lesbians as a matter of principle. Besides, these days the internet is giving everyone a much more equal voice than before, so I don't see how you could claim that anyone actually being silenced (except by hate speech laws).
As much as armchair libertarians like to claim it is, speech is not harmless. Someone's probably going to call Godwin's law and ignore the rest of this post, but speech is the means by which the Holocaust got under way.
The Holocaust did not start because of speech, it started because people started trashing Jewish shops and later shoving Jews into gas chambers. That is what should be punished. Just as you don't sue Smith&Wesson if
Re:Canada is more protective of rights than USA. (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone's probably going to call Godwin's law and ignore the rest of this post, but speech is the means by which the Holocaust got under way
That's a shifty and deceptive rationalization. It only makes sense if you take a cartoonish view of what happened in the build up to the Second World War.
The thing to keep in mind is that Hitler didn't rise to power because he said bad things. He rose to power because of three things. Germany had been shafted badly by the Treaty of Versailles and most of Germany had an ax to grind. The Nazis had simplistic solutions to the considerable problems of the everyday German. The Weimar Republic was toothless and weak, not all due to the Treaty of Versailles. For example, it couldn't have enforced a restriction on speech against Hitler. (We know this because they tried even to the point of imprisoning him.) Third, both the Germany military and the elite of Germany had prepared the end of the Weimar Republic. For example, the Junkers funded Hitler and the Nazi Party. Meanwhile, the German military was planning out blitzkrieg warfare (a way of using a highly mobile military with combined arms to defeat a more static force) long before they had a military with which to conduct that sort of warfare. The military ramp up following Hitler's takeover probably was planned years before Hitler took power and would have required considerable support from both military and business elites to carry it off. I can't prove it, but where did Hitler get those ideas and that kind of experience to pull off a six year transition from weak client state to first class military power?
A serious implication of your statement is that somehow regulated speech would have saved the Weimar Republic from the Nazis. I think that absurd. The average German probably despised the Weimar Republic as a puppet government imposed by military defeat and the government was being undermined by its military and elite. My view is that the Weimar Republic would have ended anyway, even if Hitler remained rotting in jail. Some dictator would have taken over. Then the military strategy of rapid build up and selective invasion via blitzkrieg would have led to the Second World War anyway.
But instead, we must assume that a healthy country is going to fall into Nazism or worse just because kooks can say mean things. That hasn't happened in the US, for example, despite our (no doubt criminally) lax laws on restricting bad speech. Or perhaps Canada is composed of potential criminals who are only kept in check by careful regulation of their speech?
When I read naive and ignorant argument like the above, I have to wonder, do you ever think about what you say? No offense, but if you're going to argue for a major restriction on Canada speech based on events leading up to the Second World War, you really should understand those events first. Similarly, if you're going to argue for such a broad restriction on Canadian speech, you really need to understand what is being lost and how these powers can be abused by government.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think what the article means to say is that "In canada, they're not litigation happy, and the courts have made it very difficult to get a multimillion dollar settlement for pouring hot coffee on your lap and claiming that it was the fault of the coffee shop for not telling you that coffee is hot... (and other such nonsense cases ... like awarding a family damages over the autism-caused-by-vaccines debacle which has been debunked by real scientists over and over...)".
I love how everyone uses that case as their poster-child for all things wrong in American courts. I guess everyone is susceptible to media bias as one point or another. Here's the actual facts of the case: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm [lectlaw.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because you couldn't say or do the same things to someone that wasn't queer, and not get arrested/charged.
Wait, what? I'm with you on the assault bit, but you're not allowed to walk around with a sign saying "NERDS ARE EVIL SINNERS" or "NERDS WANT TO MAKE YOUR CHILDREN PASTY, BASEMENT-DWELLING SLOBS"?
You don't have a right not to be offended, IMO. As soon as you set up a group of people that have the ability to tell you to shut up because your speech has "no value", you're just institutionalizing one set of prejudices - a set that might not be stable over time. (Always assume your worst political enemies will
Re:Canada is more protective of rights than USA. (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>You also can't start a chapter of the KKK, start publishing material that has no value and offends a large audience. Oh, and queer-bashing? Also illegal.
It shouldn't be. You're not truly a "free" person if you don't have the right to be an asshole. You've basically made assholes second-class citizens without rights and without freedom - i.e. you demoted them to Serfs. So in my opinion the United States enjoys more freedom because even assholes are free to be themselves.
Yes I'm being serious. Freedom means freedom for ALL people, even the ones you don't like
.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet by forcing society to permit hate groups like the KKK, you deprive everyone else of the democratic right to choose the laws that they are governed by.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No. The US constitution doesn't enumerate rights. It helpds to define what's federal turf which is what is left to the states, and specifies important areas in which the government is expressly prevented from infringing. It doesn't say what a citizen's rights are. It makes a big deal about areas that are off-limits from government interference. Those are not the same things, at all. The US system presumes that rights exis
Re:Canada is more protective of rights than USA. (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, in Canada you can't walk around holding a pistol and suing everyone who looks at you funny. You also can't start a chapter of the KKK, start publishing material that has no value and offends a large audience. Oh, and queer-bashing? Also illegal. Why? Because you couldn't say or do the same things to someone that wasn't queer, and not get arrested/charged. That doesn't mean canada has lax free speech laws. That means Canada has a better system of protecting the rights of its citizens.
What rights are being protected here? The right to associate with whom you choose? Nope. The right to say what you think? Nope. All these are sacrificed for some alleged right to not be offended. Looks like folly to me. Maybe you should think about this.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Off the top of my head:
Bryan Adams.
Alanis Morissette.
Celine Dion.
Justin Bieber.
Your argument cuts like a knife through all criticism.
I'm OK with this (Score:2)
As long as it actually WAS libel.
There are enough people out there who distrust the police, we don't need unfounded accusations reducing police support further.
On the other hand, if the statements were factual, the cops and prosecutors involved need to be lined up against a wall and shot.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't worry, no matter how fake or factual his claims will be found officially to be baseless.
Re:I'm OK with this (Score:4, Informative)
Police and prosecutors say baseless crap all the time. Remember Richard Jewell [wikipedia.org]? The FBI can "leak" information to the media to destroy people's lives with impunity - the best that guy got, despite complete innocence, was the AG saying "I regret the leak." Well, gee, thanks.
the cops and prosecutors involved need to be lined up against a wall and shot.
Yeah, somehow that never seems to happen. All Mike Nifong [wikipedia.org] got was being disbarred, and spending one night in jail for contempt of court, on charges that he trumped up and that would have, if successful, put three men in jail for a long, long time. And those are the ones with lots of money to defend themselves. As far as I'm concerned, that level of dishonesty should lead to putting him in jail for the full length of the sentence he was trying to get.
Making it criminal helps the police (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Making it criminal helps the police (Score:4, Insightful)
The investigation that pressed the criminal charges was conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, not the local Calgary Police Service. The Royal's are the Canuck equivalent to the American FBI, and are a national police force.
There is a lot of infighting between the various Law Enforcement Agencies in Canada over jurisdictional rights, etc, and to the best of my knowledge, they don't really go out of each others way to help each other out that much.
This is very evident at family functions. I have a couple of cousins (cousins to each other as well) one is local CPS, and the other is RC. They get into pissing matches with each other all the time over who has the more important role in Canadian Civilization, and I am usually the one who gets to moderate their arguments, generally by telling them both to STFU, and handing them a beer.
Re:Making it criminal helps the police (Score:5, Informative)
The Royal's are the Canuck equivalent to the American FBI, and are a national police force.
This is incorrect. The FBI only has investigative jurisdiction over federal crimes, thus differentiating them from local police departments. The RCMP and the Calgary police department enforce the exact same set of laws - Criminal Code of Canada, and they have identical investigative jurisdictions. While the RCMP is a national police force, it is not the equivalent of the FBI.
Simply put, RCMP hands out parking tickets but the FBI does not.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have never had that experience with my friends who are in different areas of policing. Perhaps it's a family thing?
To local cops, FBI stands for "Fucking Big Idiots". To the FBI, local cops are bunglers who can't tell their asshole from... hey, what's that in the ground over there? But maybe your family is just more polite than this other guy's. I never got into any fights at any family events, but I can't say I wasn't close to getting in a fight with one of my uncles on one occasion. Fucking alkies. I don't really see eye to eye on anything with my family and have been out of touch for years. I hope to keep it that way
Is this the site? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.bownessca.com/ [bownessca.com]
The purpose of this site is to inform the residents of Bowness, the citizens of Calgary and others, as to how senior individuals within the City of Calgary placed the Bowness Community Association (the BCA) into receivership by illegal, corrupt and criminal means.
.
There has been over 5 years of corrupt and criminal acts that have been committed and they are continuing to be committed by Derek Podlubny and the present Board, ably assisted by lawyers from the law firm of Blake Cassels and Graydon.
Re:Is this the site? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Is this the site? (Score:4, Informative)
Both of these sites have a distinct flavour of crackpottery, mixed with a generous dose of lunacy and tipped with wholesome nuttiness.
I think the RCMP will end up with a rather embarrassing situation of having dragged a certifiable conspiracy nut before the courts wherein he will quickly drown them in spittle and general ranting incoherence, which then will prompt more reasonable citizenry to start asking pointed questions as to why the RCMP feels threatened by an individual whose case would best be dealt with by the medical profession and if maybe there is something to his ranting...
No kidding (Score:3, Informative)
Also I don't know the libel standard in Canada but in the US:
1) The statements must be untrue. Truth is the ultimate libel defense. So if his statements are true (probably not, but just saying) then that is the end of that.
2) The person making the statements had to know they were untrue. While this gets a little more "he said, she said," in the case of someone who's connection to reality is a bit tenuous, this could easily be a defense. He may honestly believe what he is writing is true. In that case, it is
Re:No kidding (Score:4, Informative)
The last defence of "responsible communication on matters of public interest" was created in 2009 by the Supreme Court of Canada in Grant v Torstar 2009 SCC 61 [canlii.org]. That case was actually covered in Slashdot: Landmark Canadian Hyperlink Case Goes to Supreme Court [slashdot.org].
Read of that case if you are interested in defamation law (but seek legal advice if you have a problem). It explains the legal tests for all of the defences. Since the defence of "responsible communications in matters of public interest" does not exist in US law, it means that American journalists and bloggers have a higher risk of liability for defamation than their Canadian counterparts. So which country has stronger freedom of expression?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy has an amazing sense of entitlement, and I say this as someone who lives in the Calgary area, and has heard of him through friends who live in the Bowness/Montgomery area.
Just reading the index to the main site that you listed it is obvious that he just has an axe to grind against the entire community association, probably because he was expelled. Why was he expelled? I have no idea, as all we are able to see is his side of the story, and as we all know there are always at least 3 sides to ever
Re: (Score:2)
The front page is really ambiguous and more griping about the failure to stand up about the claims he has made. More interesting are his actual claims:
http://www.rosscarrock.info/id6.html [rosscarrock.info]
Personally, I would attribute most of his problems (if true, we obviously are not seeing any primary sources here) to simple negligence rather than intentional malice or fraudulence. It may be worth looking into, however, and if at the very least this guys stink causes the association to get their accounting and record keep
Re: (Score:2)
Explains the lack of canadian rappers.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:f the cops! (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow!
What grade are you in?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
See, the funny thing is in America our president can insult the police and its all fine and dandy. Just saying.
Actually, the funny thing is that it was neither libel nor slander, in this case.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
See, the funny thing is in America our president can insult the police and its all fine and dandy. Just saying.
The federal government is a separate entity from the state and local governments and, in certain ways, is superior to them. For example, the FBI can override the jurisdiction of local cops, particularly if a crime happens across state lines. For those reasons, yes, the President can criticize or even insult police.
But it wasn't all fine and dandy. Obama is a politician and took a lot of heat for, basically, opening his big mouth when he shouldn't have. That's been a recurring criticism of Obama: that he tal