🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Co4vBv.IEs@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> rjwells@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Justin Wells) writes:
>
>In response to all you American types who think it's such a great
>idea to break Canadian laws from America via. the net:
>
>What would happen if Canadians, and other non-Americans, started
>posting death threats to president@whitehouse.gov?  Clearly this is in
>violation of *American* law.. probably an outright death threat is in
>violation of Canadian law.. but there's no doubt some middle ground
>threat which is fine under Canadian law (what's a president?) but
>totally illegal in the U.S.A.?
>
>Are you going to send your secret service (SS -- funny, those initials
>remind me of Hitler) to nab me?  Probably would..
>
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that it is legal for US Law
Enforcement people to kidnap and bring into the country foreign nationals
for trial under US law. Not even foreign heads of state are immune (like
Noreiga, for example).
--
Earl Cooley III
shiva@indial1.io.com

In <2oe52a$n7q@indial1.io.com> shiva@indial1.io.com (Earl Cooley) writes:
>The United States Supreme Court has ruled that it is legal for US Law
>Enforcement people to kidnap and bring into the country foreign nationals
>for trial under US law. Not even foreign heads of state are immune (like
>Noreiga, for example).

Perhaps, but in the case of Canada it would make more sense to make use
of the extradition treaty between the US and Canada.

There was a case several years ago where the State of Florida sent a
couple of bounty hunters to Canada to retrieve a Canadian who was charged
with fraud in Florida.  What the bounty hunters did in Canada is considered
under Canadian law to be kidnapping.  Proceedings were started to extradite
the bounty hunters back to Canada to face trial, but they voluntarily
chose to come to Canada before the extradition process was completed.
I don't know what sentence, if any, the bounty hunters received.

It seems quite likely that a Canadian uttering death threats to the
President of the United States could be extradited to face trial in the US.
--
John Stewart -- News Administrator, National Capital Freenet
Internet: aa088@freenet.carleton.ca or Mr.Canoehead@algonquin.carleton.ca
"We love Canada.  They've got lots of debt and will tax their people to
death to pay it."  -- London Financier

In <Co4vBv.IEs@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> rjwells@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Justin Wells) writes:

>What would happen if Canadians, and other non-Americans, started
>posting death threats to president@whitehouse.gov?  Clearly this is in
>violation of *American* law.. probably an outright death threat is in
>violation of Canadian law.. but there's no doubt some middle ground
>threat which is fine under Canadian law (what's a president?) but
>totally illegal in the U.S.A.?

You could do this, of course, but it is hardly a parallel case. You
would be breaking US law without helping keep information free form
the dictates of national sovereignty or helping any percentage of the
US populous aquire information they want but are denied by their
government.

If you want a parallel case, make sure to break our infomation bans
when they arise.


--

In <Co4vBv.IEs@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> rjwells@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Justin Wells) writes:


>In response to all you American types who think it's such a great
>idea to break Canadian laws from America via. the net:

>What would happen if Canadians, and other non-Americans, started
>posting death threats to president@whitehouse.gov?  Clearly this is in
>violation of *American* law.. probably an outright death threat is in
>violation of Canadian law.. but there's no doubt some middle ground
>threat which is fine under Canadian law (what's a president?) but
>totally illegal in the U.S.A.?

>Are you going to send your secret service (SS -- funny, those initials
>remind me of Hitler) to nab me?  Probably would..

Seems to me that there is a world of difference between making information
freely available over the Internet and mailing a death threat to someone no
matter how it is sent.

In article <Co4vBv.IEs@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>, rjwells@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Justin Wells) writes...
>
>In response to all you American types who think it's such a great
>idea to break Canadian laws from America via. the net:
>
>What would happen if Canadians, and other non-Americans, started
>posting death threats to president@whitehouse.gov?  Clearly this is in
>violation of *American* law.. probably an outright death threat is in
>violation of Canadian law.. but there's no doubt some middle ground
>threat which is fine under Canadian law (what's a president?) but
>totally illegal in the U.S.A.?
>
>
>tired: alt.fan.karla-homolka
>wired: seizures (legal/medical) related to alt.fan.karla-homolka


If the ban was reasonable fine. But denying individualsto knowlegde is a
crime in itself. We must educate the public by letting them know
EXACTLY what happened. What are the TRUE facts in the case? I don't
care what the opinions of the medea are. In fact it would have been
more intelligent to restrict the printing/broudcasting of opinions
and let the public know what is going on.
We must educate everyone so that this tradegy does not occur again or
at least will help people (14 yr old GIRLS) to be prepared and
perhaps use some prevention.

The opinion of the medea often is what shapes many minds of the public.
the presentation of valid FACTS will allow individuals to have a base
to decide and STILL dive Teale a fair trial. With American opinion
bambarding the net, it is less unliky.

Furthermore, the Judge could have selected one major newspaper
to be the ONLY ones allowed to print the facts witha restriction of
opinion. The highest bidderof course would be the winner of such
an honor....and help pay that debt to....

For all I care, the judge could have initiated a private printing
company to print a 5 page newsletter for 2$ that anyone can order.
The job would certainly pay for itself and certainly make some money as
well.

All this to say that there are ways to give individuals a fair trial
and at the same time inform the public SAFELY without the spreading of
the opinions of idiotic medea men whom I have very little repect for...


Alexandre

In <12APR199411424187@pavo.concordia.ca> a_graco@pavo.concordia.ca (GRACOVETSKY, ALEXANDRE) writes:
>If the ban was reasonable fine. But denying individualsto knowlegde is a
>crime in itself. We must educate the public by letting them know
>EXACTLY what happened. What are the TRUE facts in the case?

Educate the public?  To what end?  I don't need to know all the gruesome
details to be convinced that a terrible crime has been commited.  It
disturbs me that so many people find this type of story entertaining.
--
John Stewart -- News Administrator, National Capital Freenet
Internet: aa088@freenet.carleton.ca or Mr.Canoehead@algonquin.carleton.ca
"We love Canada.  They've got lots of debt and will tax their people to
death to pay it."  -- London Financier

lcooper@kaiwan.com (Larry Cooper) writes:

>In <Co4vBv.IEs@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> rjwells@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Justin Wells) writes:


>>In response to all you American types who think it's such a great
>>idea to break Canadian laws from America via. the net:

>>What would happen if Canadians, and other non-Americans, started
>>posting death threats to president@whitehouse.gov?  Clearly this is in
>>violation of *American* law.. probably an outright death threat is in
>>violation of Canadian law.. but there's no doubt some middle ground
>>threat which is fine under Canadian law (what's a president?) but
>>totally illegal in the U.S.A.?

I read an article in the province stating a student in America was
arrested for doing just this...

--
 / Trevor Bradley (tbradley@sfu.ca) | Yes, it's the same place as in \
|     Simon Fraser University       |  the lumberjack song!  You got  |
 \      Burnaby, BC, CANADA         |  a problem with that??? :)     /

JRH

Justin Wells (rjwells@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:

: In response to all you American types who think it's such a great
: idea to break Canadian laws from America via. the net:

: What would happen if Canadians, and other non-Americans, started
: posting death threats to president@whitehouse.gov?  Clearly this is in
: violation of *American* law.. probably an outright death threat is in
...rest elided...

There are many parallels to this situation already:

- Iraqis calling for the assassination of the President of the U.S.
- Americans calling for the assassination of Saddam Hussein

(This is actually a direct parallel to the point Justin Wells raised:
go back to the Gulf War period and you'll find dozens of Usenet
threads in which Americans debated the hows and whys of killing Saddam
Hussein. Was this "illegal" on the Net? By whose rules? Apparently
not. Thus, by extension, I would assume that a discussion by Iranian
and Iraqis of how to kill Clinton would result in nothing. A
discussion by Canadians of this would be different, as Canada is in
the pocket of Washington...no offense meant to Canadians, but that's
the truth.)

- discussion of how "we" ought to assassinate the Serbian leader is
commonplace, and so on

Fortunately (or not, depending on your point of view), there's a huge
distinction between idle talk about which leaders ought to be
assassinated and actual action. Most people saying that Saddam Hussein
ought to be killed or that Chief Butholezi is an obstruction and needs
to be taken out by the Green Berets have no plans to actually _do_
anything. Thus, I see no Big Deal with folks around the world adding
to the chatter about who ought to be taken out and shot.

Law authorities in each country may have their own views, but that
shouldn't be our concern.

If Canadians want to exercise their free speech in this way, more
power to them. Just as I'll continue to write about Karla Homolka's
admission of rape-torture and murder of her and Teale's victims.

The Net does not reside in any one country. Not even the U.S.

--Tim May

--
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

In article <lcooper.766162623@kaiwan>, Larry Cooper <lcooper@kaiwan.com> wrote:
>In <Co4vBv.IEs@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> rjwells@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Justin Wells) writes:

>>What would happen if Canadians, and other non-Americans, started
>>posting death threats to president@whitehouse.gov?  Clearly this is in
>>violation of *American* law.. probably an outright death threat is in
>>violation of Canadian law.. but there's no doubt some middle ground
>>threat which is fine under Canadian law (what's a president?) but
>>totally illegal in the U.S.A.?
>
>Seems to me that there is a world of difference between making information
>freely available over the Internet and mailing a death threat to someone no
>matter how it is sent.

What's the difference?  By publishing details of the trial you're breaking
Canadian law, by threatening the president I would be breaking American
law.  Do you see a difference?  I don't see a difference.

Justin

--
<rjwells@uwaterloo.ca, stem@io.org, stem@sizone.pci.on.ca> (Justin Wells)

"Knowledge for its own sake" -- that is the last snare of morality: with
that one becomes completely entangled in it once more.    - F. Nietzsche

In article <Co4vBv.IEs@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> rjwells@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Justin Wells) writes:
>
>In response to all you American types who think it's such a great
>idea to break Canadian laws from America via. the net:
>
>What would happen if Canadians, and other non-Americans, started
>posting death threats to president@whitehouse.gov?  Clearly this is in
>violation of *American* law.. probably an outright death threat is in
>violation of Canadian law.. but there's no doubt some middle ground
>threat which is fine under Canadian law (what's a president?) but
>totally illegal in the U.S.A.?

	DO IT! DO IT!

>Are you going to send your secret service (SS -- funny, those initials
>remind me of Hitler) to nab me?  Probably would..
>Justin
	
	Justin:

	this sounds like a great idea!  If I were Canadian (I am not)
	I would threaten that assholes life too.  HMMMMM anybody
	interested in making any money???

	8v)  smiley included only for the NSA, CIA, SS, DIA, FBI, DEA,
	and deForestry Service

	David

	I wonder if the FBI will come knocking on my door asking me
	about my attempts to hire foreign agents to asassinate the
	idiot.  Oh silly me they don't knock, they shoot then burn your
	house down.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
David E. Stewart                  Slavic Language DTP
2647 Ellendale Pl                 Restaurant Menus, Letters
Los Angeles, CA 90007-2235        Newsletters, Manuals, Business Cards
USA                               Documentation, Graphics, Flyers
VOX/FAX 213 731 1775
email destewar@usc.edu

In <Co5zAA.E3y@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> rjwells@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Justin Wells) writes:

>What's the difference?  By publishing details of the trial you're breaking
>Canadian law, by threatening the president I would be breaking American
>law.  Do you see a difference?  I don't see a difference.

This is because you are indulging yourself in nationalist pride. You
think of yourself as a Canadian first and a citizen of the net second.

--
Clay Shirky

In article <Co5zAA.E3y@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
	rjwells@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Justin Wells) says:
>What's the difference?  By publishing details of the trial you're breaking
>Canadian law, by threatening the president I would be breaking American
>law.  Do you see a difference?  I don't see a difference.

I think that most people would see a significant difference between
publishing banned information and threatening the life of a human
being.
--
Frank Peters  -  UNIX Systems Programmer  -  Mississippi State University
Internet: fwp@CC.MsState.Edu  -  Phone: (601)325-7030  -  FAX: (601)325-8921

In article <2oe52a$n7q@indial1.io.com> shiva@indial1.io.com (Earl Cooley) writes:

   In article <Co4vBv.IEs@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> rjwells@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Justin Wells) writes:
   >
   >In response to all you American types who think it's such a great
   >idea to break Canadian laws from America via. the net:
   >
   >What would happen if Canadians, and other non-Americans, started 
   >posting death threats to president@whitehouse.gov?  Clearly this is in
   >violation of *American* law.. probably an outright death threat is in
   >violation of Canadian law.. but there's no doubt some middle ground
   >threat which is fine under Canadian law (what's a president?) but
   >totally illegal in the U.S.A.?
   >
   >Are you going to send your secret service (SS -- funny, those initials
   >remind me of Hitler) to nab me?  Probably would..
   >
   The United States Supreme Court has ruled that it is legal for US Law
   Enforcement people to kidnap and bring into the country foreign nationals
   for trial under US law. Not even foreign heads of state are immune (like
   Noreiga, for example).

I believe the federal court eventually ruled that Noriega was a
Prisoner of War.  

-- 
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 681 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA		(I accept MIME,HTML,Hyperbole,PGP)

In article <2of9n5$jhe@panix.com>, Clay Shirky <clays@panix.com> wrote:
>In <Co5zAA.E3y@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> rjwells@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Justin Wells) writes:
>
>>What's the difference?  By publishing details of the trial you're breaking
>>Canadian law, by threatening the president I would be breaking American
>>law.  Do you see a difference?  I don't see a difference.
>
>This is because you are indulging yourself in nationalist pride. You
>think of yourself as a Canadian first and a citizen of the net second.

You're damn right I do.

Justin




--
<rjwells@uwaterloo.ca, stem@io.org, stem@sizone.pci.on.ca> (Justin Wells)

"Knowledge for its own sake" -- that is the last snare of morality: with
that one becomes completely entangled in it once more.    - F. Nietzsche

Frank Peters <fwp@CC.MsState.Edu> wrote:
>	rjwells@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Justin Wells) says:

>>What's the difference?  By publishing details of the trial you're breaking
>>Canadian law, by threatening the president I would be breaking American
>>law.  Do you see a difference?  I don't see a difference.


>I think that most people would see a significant difference between
>publishing banned information and threatening the life of a human
>being.

By publishing that banned information you threaten the rights of one
human being, and perhaps the lives of others.  The American constitution
gives Bill Clinton a right to his life; the Canadian constitution gives
Paul Teale a right to a fair trial.

In terms of rights, human lives, and law there isn't a whole lot of
difference between ending someones life, and forcing them to spend
the rest of it behind bars.

Justin
--
<rjwells@uwaterloo.ca, stem@io.org, stem@sizone.pci.on.ca> (Justin Wells)

"Knowledge for its own sake" -- that is the last snare of morality: with
that one becomes completely entangled in it once more.    - F. Nietzsche

In article <Co4vBv.IEs@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>, Justin Wells wrote:
>
>In response to all you American types who think it's such a great
>idea to break Canadian laws from America via. the net:
>
>What would happen if Canadians, and other non-Americans, started
>posting death threats to president@whitehouse.gov?

I think you'd be surprised.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

	      Dennis R. Hilton	   <drhilton@kaiwan.com>

"A strong body makes the mind strong.  As to the species of exercises,
  I advise the gun.  While this gives moderate exercise to the body,
  it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind.  Games
  played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for
 the body and stamp no character on the mind.  Let your gun therefore
    be the constant companion of your walks."  --- Thomas Jefferson

In <Co5zAA.E3y@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> rjwells@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Justin Wells) writes:
>>
>>Seems to me that there is a world of difference between making information
>>freely available over the Internet and mailing a death threat to someone no
>>matter how it is sent.

>What's the difference?  By publishing details of the trial you're breaking
>Canadian law, by threatening the president I would be breaking American
>law.  Do you see a difference?  I don't see a difference.

Well, if we're talking about the article in Wired, actually it did not itself
reveal any details of the crime, only about how the gag order was being gotten
around.  And, of course, Wired is an American publication and if the Canadians
want to censor it, that's their problem.

As for the information that is on the Internet, that is an international forum
that is available for accessing.  If Canadians access information that an
American or Japanese or British citizen posts their, that is their
responsibility.  As a member of a society that still believes in the primacy
of freedom of expression and the importance of an informed citizenry, I have
no plans to censor myself to make the Canadian government happy.

In article <2of9n5$jhe@panix.com>, Clay Shirky <clays@panix.com> wrote:
>In <Co5zAA.E3y@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> rjwells@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Justin Wells) writes:
>>What's the difference?  By publishing details of the trial you're breaking
>>Canadian law, by threatening the president I would be breaking American
>>law.  Do you see a difference?  I don't see a difference.
>
>This is because you are indulging yourself in nationalist pride. You
>think of yourself as a Canadian first and a citizen of the net second.

oh, i see, if i'm a US nationalist, it's ok, but if i'm a non-US nationalist
it is not.

--
[ Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 416 506-0654 ]
[   "... or you can become a road-kill on the information superhighway."      ]
[                                   -- Colin Mcgregor                         ]

In <PPogjuti0HeD061yn@kaiwan.com> DRHilton@kaiwan.com (Dennis R. Hilton) writes:

>In article <Co4vBv.IEs@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>, Justin Wells wrote:
>>
>>In response to all you American types who think it's such a great
>>idea to break Canadian laws from America via. the net:
>>
>>What would happen if Canadians, and other non-Americans, started
>>posting death threats to president@whitehouse.gov?

Is that illegal?




--
Wei-Yuen Tan           | Comp.Sci./Physics, University of British Columbia
-----------------------+------------------------------------------------------
a5g192@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca | If my opinions remotely resembled those of the blokes
weitan@physics.ubc.ca  | who run UBC, then those blokes would be running OS/2

rjwells@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Justin Wells) writes:

>In article <lcooper.766162623@kaiwan>, Larry Cooper <lcooper@kaiwan.com> wrote:
>>In <Co4vBv.IEs@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> rjwells@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Justin Wells) writes:

>>>What would happen if Canadians, and other non-Americans, started
>>>posting death threats to president@whitehouse.gov?  Clearly this is in
>>>violation of *American* law.. probably an outright death threat is in
>>>violation of Canadian law.. but there's no doubt some middle ground
>>>threat which is fine under Canadian law (what's a president?) but
>>>totally illegal in the U.S.A.?
>>
>>Seems to me that there is a world of difference between making information
>>freely available over the Internet and mailing a death threat to someone no
>>matter how it is sent.

>What's the difference?  By publishing details of the trial you're breaking
>Canadian law, by threatening the president I would be breaking American
>law.  Do you see a difference?  I don't see a difference.

	I don't agree that there is no difference, just because they are
both breaking foreign laws doesn't make them the same..

	That said, I say wholeheartedly, DO IT!

	I'm all for it..
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Jesse Montrose jesse@netcom.com jesse@xaostools.com ftp.netcom.com:/pub/jesse
World Wide Web information with ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/jesse/html/home.html

In article <aa088.766158686@freenet2>
aa088@freenet.carleton.ca (John Stewart) writes:
[snip]
> It seems quite likely that a Canadian uttering death threats to the
> President of the United States could be extradited to face trial in the US.
Anyone uttering a death threat to another, through e-mail or not, is
in violation of the Criminal Code of Canada.
It's *against the law* in Canada, doesn't matter where the intended
recepient is.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fred M. Davis                   | These opinions are mine and are not
Northern Telecom Ltd.           | necessarily those of the company
Semiconductor Components Group  | fmdavis@bnr.ca
Nepean, ON.                     | va3fd@k9iu.ampr.org
A.R.O.  VA3FD                   | freddy.davis@lambada.oit.unc.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In article <aa088.766158686@freenet2>,
John Stewart <aa088@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:
|In <2oe52a$n7q@indial1.io.com> shiva@indial1.io.com (Earl Cooley) writes:
|>The United States Supreme Court has ruled that it is legal for US Law
|>Enforcement people to kidnap and bring into the country foreign nationals
|>for trial under US law. Not even foreign heads of state are immune (like
|>Noreiga, for example).

Fortunately they're not completely deranged.  Even after the Supreme Court
ruled in this fashion, the Federal judge presiding over the case at
in which this was ruled (Alverez-Machain) tossed the whole case out.

|Perhaps, but in the case of Canada it would make more sense to make use
|of the extradition treaty between the US and Canada.

|There was a case several years ago where the State of Florida sent a
|couple of bounty hunters to Canada to retrieve a Canadian who was charged
|with fraud in Florida.

The Jaffe case.

|What the bounty hunters did in Canada is considered
|under Canadian law to be kidnapping.  Proceedings were started to extradite
|the bounty hunters back to Canada to face trial, but they voluntarily
|chose to come to Canada before the extradition process was completed.
|I don't know what sentence, if any, the bounty hunters received.

I believe they got 6 months.  Also, if I recall correctly, after much fuss
and time wasting, the Jaffe case itself self-destructed, and Jaffe was
able to return to Canada.  From what I remember, it looked as if the judge
was extremely unhappy with the kidnapping, but needed a different excuse
for dismissal.  Presumably similar to Alverez-Machain.

|It seems quite likely that a Canadian uttering death threats to the
|President of the United States could be extradited to face trial in the US.

The extradition process requires that the "offense" is illegal in Canada
too.  You cannot be extradited to the US from Canada for committing something
that is illegal in the USA, and not illegal in Canada.  This is because our
extradition laws are designed to protect people against persecution from
repressive laws in other countries.  Especially refugees.

As uttering death threats against the president is not illegal in
Canada, they'd have to come up with something different.  I don't think
our "normal" threat laws are deemed serious enough to be candidates for
extradition.  Also, there is the question of jurisdiction - our courts
are not likely to extradite to the US for a (especially minor) crime
committed on Canadian soil.  On the other hand, this would probably be
subject to ordinary "uttering threats" law in Canada, and they may end
up being charged and convicted *here*.  So I would recommend caution ;-)
--
Chris Lewis: _Una confibula non sat est_
Phone: Canada 613 832-0541  Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Latest psroff: FTP://ftp.uunet.ca/distrib/chris_lewis/psroff3.0pl17/*
Latest hp2pbm: FTP://ftp.uunet.ca/distrib/chris_lewis/hp2pbm/*

>>>>> "John" == John Stewart <aa088@freenet.carleton.ca> writes:
In article <aa088.766158686@freenet2> aa088@freenet.carleton.ca (John Stewart) writes:


    John> In <2oe52a$n7q@indial1.io.com> shiva@indial1.io.com (Earl
    John> Cooley) writes:
    >> The United States Supreme Court has ruled that it is legal for
    >> US Law Enforcement people to kidnap and bring into the country
    >> foreign nationals for trial under US law. Not even foreign
    >> heads of state are immune (like Noreiga, for example).

    John> Perhaps, but in the case of Canada it would make more sense
    John> to make use of the extradition treaty between the US and
    John> Canada.

    John> There was a case several years ago where the State of
    John> Florida sent a couple of bounty hunters to Canada to
    John> retrieve a Canadian who was charged with fraud in Florida.
    John> What the bounty hunters did in Canada is considered under
    John> Canadian law to be kidnapping.  Proceedings were started to
    John> extradite the bounty hunters back to Canada to face trial,
    John> but they voluntarily chose to come to Canada before the
    John> extradition process was completed.  I don't know what
    John> sentence, if any, the bounty hunters received.

    John> It seems quite likely that a Canadian uttering death threats
    John> to the President of the United States could be extradited to
    John> face trial in the US.  

Do you mean that the US (or Canada) would extradite their own
citiziens??? Anglo-Saxon law is even weirder than I imagined....

In article <2oeajm$ii6@panix.com>, Clay Shirky <clays@panix.com> wrote:
>In <Co4vBv.IEs@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> rjwells@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Justin Wells) writes:
>
>>What would happen if Canadians, and other non-Americans, started 
>>posting death threats to president@whitehouse.gov?  Clearly this is in
>>violation of *American* law.. probably an outright death threat is in
>>violation of Canadian law.. but there's no doubt some middle ground
>>threat which is fine under Canadian law (what's a president?) but
>>totally illegal in the U.S.A.?
>
>You could do this, of course, but it is hardly a parallel case. You
>would be breaking US law without helping keep information free form
>the dictates of national sovereignty or helping any percentage of the
>US populous aquire information they want but are denied by their
>government.
>
>If you want a parallel case, make sure to break our infomation bans
>when they arise.
>-- 
>Clay Shirky

This is an interesting thread.  You are quite right, however, that the
example given is not a good one because it doesn't bring up parallel issues.
Do the following two examples fit the bill?

Americans are forbidden from phoning Cuba directly themselves.  I think we
can all agree that this limits free speech between those in the USA and
those in Cuba.  Of course, most Canadians respect the right of the USA to
enact its own laws.  But say, hypothetically, that a Canadian company
offered the following service: Americans could phone a number in Canada,
get a second dial tone, and then dial direct to Cuba.  (Without going into
details, this is not fiction.)

Americans are forbidden from listening to certain radio frequencies.  In
fact, shortly it will be illegal to sell radios in the USA capable of
tuning in these forbidden frequencies.  In Canada a private individual can
legally listen to any frequency and radios banned for sale in the USA are
perfectly legal.  Again, I am sure most Canadians respect the American
right to enact laws restricting its citizens.  However, hypothetically
speaking only, what if a Canadian radio distributor assisted Americans who
believe that freedom of speech is the same as having the right to know
everything by selling them radios which tune frequencies forbidden in the
USA?

Hope this helps your discussion.

In article <12APR199411424187@pavo.concordia.ca>,
GRACOVETSKY, ALEXANDRE <a_graco@pavo.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
>The opinion of the medea often is what shapes many minds of the public.
>the presentation of valid FACTS will allow individuals to have a base
>to decide and STILL dive Teale a fair trial. With American opinion
>bambarding the net, it is less unliky.
>

Excuse me, but the word FACT hit one of my hot buttons.  Isn't the heart of
the matter the idea that "facts" admissible in one legal hearing/ trial/
whatever can be ruled inadmissible in another?  The courts in both Canada and
the US, rightly or wrongly, have rules about what "facts" the juries are to be
allowed to hear.

So: are those people in favour of removing the ban also in favour of
forbidding exclusion of evidence?  or at least, seriously revamping them?

This is *not* a rhetorical question.

In article <1994Apr13.141304.19111@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de>,
Peter Bruells <Peter.Bruells@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de> wrote:
>Do you mean that the US (or Canada) would extradite their own
>citiziens??? Anglo-Saxon law is even weirder than I imagined....

I think you're getting confused between extradition and deportation/expulsion/
exile/stripping of citizenship.  A citizen of Canada cannot be deported,
expelled, exiled or have their citizenship revoked [*].  I believe this is
also true in the US.

Extradition is different.  If a Canadian citizen, say, committed a major
crime in the US, and escaped back to Canada before arrest, the US government
can initiate extradition proceedings to have the person returned to the US
to stand trial.  Canadian law imposes several rules on the extradition process
to make sure that things are fair, regardless of whether the person is
a citizen of Canada or not.  For example, the crime must also be a crime
in Canada, the requesting country must have a track record of acceptably
fair trials, the crime must not be political in nature, there's reason to
believe that the right person is being accused, and that if convicted
the person should not be subject to unreasonably harsh penalty.

Germany is no different in this regard.  Germany has reciprocal extradition
agreements with both Canada and the US, and can and has extradited German
citizens to stand trial in Canada, the US and elsewhere.  Presumably,
Germany also has laws to protect people from unjust extradition similarly to
Canada.

There are supposedly countries that inspite of extradition treaties that say
that they must, will not extradite their own nationals under any circumstances.
I've heard that Mexico and Poland are like this, but I don't know for sure.

Incidentally, in many cases Canada has reciprocal arrangements by which Canadian
citizens convicted of crimes in foreign countries can be repatriated to
Canada to continue the serving of their sentence here.  This isn't used
very often, but it does exist.

[*] Except in one scenario.  If a "new" citizen can be shown to have lied
on their citizenship application, where the truth would have prevented them
becoming a citizen, citizenship can be revoked and the person deported.
-- 
Chris Lewis: _Una confibula non sat est_
Phone: Canada 613 832-0541  Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Latest psroff: FTP://ftp.uunet.ca/distrib/chris_lewis/psroff3.0pl17/*
Latest hp2pbm: FTP://ftp.uunet.ca/distrib/chris_lewis/hp2pbm/*

In article <Co7Du3.Dx0@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>, nishri@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Alex Nishri) writes:
> Americans are forbidden from phoning Cuba directly themselves.  I think we
> can all agree that this limits free speech between those in the USA and
> those in Cuba.  Of course, most Canadians respect the right of the USA to
> enact its own laws.  But say, hypothetically, that a Canadian company
> offered the following service: Americans could phone a number in Canada,
> get a second dial tone, and then dial direct to Cuba.  (Without going into
> details, this is not fiction.)

Too bad you got your facts wrong.  Its an economic embargo.  Lots of people
telephone Cuba from the U.S. everyday (especially from south Florida).
However, AT&T (and soon Sprint, yes Sprint got approval to provide telephone
service to Cuba) is forbidden from sending money to Cuba.  So the money
is deposited in an escrow account.

Of course, the Cuban government doesn't like not getting the money.  So
Cuba encourages people to route the calls through other countries (such
as Canada) which will pay Cuba.  The U.S. Government had no problem with
a Canadian company offering a service where people in the U.S. could dial
a number in Canada and then direct dial to Cuba.  They had a problem with
the transfer of money to Cuba.  The Canadian company was blocked from
collecting money from people in the U.S. and sending part of it to Cuba,
not from making telephone calls to Cuba.  
-- 
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100

nishri@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Alex Nishri) writes:


>Do the following two examples fit the bill?

>Americans are forbidden from phoning Cuba directly themselves.  

Well, you just popped out to 3rd base.
I've called Cuba many times. Service sucks, you can't hear,
but illegal? Guess again.
-- 
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close...........(v)301 56 LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close)....kibo# 777............pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead..............vr....................20915-1433

Hello,

clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:

>In article <1994Apr13.141304.19111@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de>,
>Peter Bruells <Peter.Bruells@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de> wrote:
>>Do you mean that the US (or Canada) would extradite their own
>>citiziens??? Anglo-Saxon law is even weirder than I imagined....

>I think you're getting confused between extradition and deportation/expulsion/
>exile/stripping of citizenship.  

He is not.

>Extradition is different.  If a Canadian citizen, say, committed a major
>crime in the US, and escaped back to Canada before arrest, the US government
>can initiate extradition proceedings to have the person returned to the US
>to stand trial.  Canadian law imposes several rules on the extradition process
>to make sure that things are fair, regardless of whether the person is
>a citizen of Canada or not.  For example, the crime must also be a crime
>in Canada, the requesting country must have a track record of acceptably
>fair trials, the crime must not be political in nature, there's reason to
>believe that the right person is being accused, and that if convicted
>the person should not be subject to unreasonably harsh penalty.

>Germany is no different in this regard.  Germany has reciprocal extradition
>agreements with both Canada and the US, and can and has extradited German
>citizens to stand trial in Canada, the US and elsewhere.  Presumably,
>Germany also has laws to protect people from unjust extradition similarly to
>Canada.

This is nonsense. Pure and simple. We have it in the constitution, on very
prominent place, that no German citizen may be extradited to another state.
Not even within the EU.

If it's illegal here, they will take me to court here. If not, then 
they won't.

>There are supposedly countries that inspite of extradition treaties that say
>that they must, will not extradite their own nationals under any circumstances.
>I've heard that Mexico and Poland are like this, but I don't know for sure.

I would seriously doubt that Germany signed any treaty violating the 
constitution. (And if they did, the treaty is likely void in this regard).

Regards

Christoph Weber-Fahr

-- 
  Christoph Weber-Fahr                  |  E-Mail:  weber@rhrk.uni-kl.de 
  Universitaet Kaiserslautern,  KIT     |  S-Mail:  Postfach 3049
  Tel. 0631/205-3391                    |           D-67653 Kaiserslautern
--------------------------  My personal opinion only    ---------------------

In <1994Apr14.170205.24377@rhrk.uni-kl.de> weber@rhrk.uni-kl.de (Christoph Weber-Fahr [KIT]) writes:

>Hello,

>clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:

>>In article <1994Apr13.141304.19111@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de>,
>>Peter Bruells <Peter.Bruells@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de> wrote:
>>>Do you mean that the US (or Canada) would extradite their own
>>>citiziens??? Anglo-Saxon law is even weirder than I imagined....

How wierd did you imagine it?

>>I think you're getting confused between extradition and deportation/expulsion/
>>exile/stripping of citizenship.  

>He is not.

>>Extradition is different.  If a Canadian citizen, say, committed a major
>>crime in the US, and escaped back to Canada before arrest, the US government
>>can initiate extradition proceedings to have the person returned to the US
>>to stand trial.  Canadian law imposes several rules on the extradition process
>>to make sure that things are fair, regardless of whether the person is
>>a citizen of Canada or not.  For example, the crime must also be a crime
>>in Canada, the requesting country must have a track record of acceptably
>>fair trials, the crime must not be political in nature, there's reason to
>>believe that the right person is being accused, and that if convicted
>>the person should not be subject to unreasonably harsh penalty.

>>Germany is no different in this regard.  Germany has reciprocal extradition
>>agreements with both Canada and the US, and can and has extradited German
>>citizens to stand trial in Canada, the US and elsewhere.  Presumably,
>>Germany also has laws to protect people from unjust extradition similarly to
>>Canada.

>This is nonsense. Pure and simple. We have it in the constitution, on very
>prominent place, that no German citizen may be extradited to another state.
>Not even within the EU.
>If it's illegal here, they will take me to court here. If not, then 
>they won't.

>>There are supposedly countries that inspite of extradition treaties that say
>>that they must, will not extradite their own nationals under any circumstances.
>>I've heard that Mexico and Poland are like this, but I don't know for sure.

>I would seriously doubt that Germany signed any treaty violating the 
>constitution. (And if they did, the treaty is likely void in this regard).

>Regards

>Christoph Weber-Fahr

Hey there! I just happen to have my english translation of the ol' Grundgesetz
right here, and I quote:

Section 1 (Basic Rights)

 Article 16

  (1) No one may be deprived of their German citizenship. Loss of citizenship
      may arise only pursuant to law, and against the will of the person
      affected only if such person does not thereby become stateless.

  (2) No German may be EXTRADITED to a foreign country. Persons persecuted on
      political grounds shall enjoy the right to asylum.
      (Is that last bit the part that was recently changed?)

This is very interesting, I think.

Are there any well-known cases where a German has commited a serious crime
in another country and has been tried and convicted for that crime in
Germany and served (or is currently serving) their sentence?

What exactly happens in such situations?

I can't imagine that Germany would simply let someone who (z.B.) murdered 
someone in Canada and managed to make it back to Germany to go unpunished.

Would that person be arrested and tried in Germany by German authorities? 
Would the German government pick up the tab for witnesses to be flown to
Germany to participate in the trial? Or what?

Here's some more questions:

 - Is Kohl going down this year or not?

 - Why do some people put a D before the Postl(mumble)zahl?
   Is it because they're so used to putting a W or O and they canna
   break the habit?

ttfn

Jeff McFarlane

In article <2oe52a$n7q@indial1.io.com>,
Earl Cooley <shiva@indial1.io.com> wrote:
>In article <Co4vBv.IEs@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> rjwells@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Justin Wells) writes:
>>
>>What would happen if Canadians, and other non-Americans, started 
>>posting death threats to president@whitehouse.gov?  Clearly this is in
>>violation of *American* law.. probably an outright death threat is in
>>
>>Are you going to send your secret service (SS -- funny, those initials
>>remind me of Hitler) to nab me?  Probably would..
>>
>The United States Supreme Court has ruled that it is legal for US Law
>Enforcement people to kidnap and bring into the country foreign nationals
>for trial under US law. Not even foreign heads of state are immune (like
>Noreiga, for example).

I can see it now......"Mr Wells, you are charged under U.S. law with
malicious mischief, conviction of which carries a lengthy sentence. How
do you plead?"

Jusin: "My Canada includes Karla Homolka 'cause she's a babe."


-- 
*************************************************************************
Mark Terka     | werewolf@io.org             | public key (werewolf) at
Toronto,Canada | dg507@cleveland.freenet.edu | pgp-public-keys@demon.co.uk
*************************************************************************

In <Co6GsE.DsM@reptiles.org> jim@reptiles.org (Jim Mercer) writes:

>>This is because you are indulging yourself in nationalist pride. You
>>think of yourself as a Canadian first and a citizen of the net second.

>oh, i see, if i'm a US nationalist, it's ok, but if i'm a non-US nationalist
>it is not.

Jim, I have on more than one occaision said that I hope that when the
US tries to control the information we have access to down here that
our Canadian friends exhibit as much contempt for our government's
effort to control the flow of information over the net as some of us
have for your governments attempts to do the same.

I loathe patriotism and nationalism, and US nationalism is one of the
most harmful and corrosive members of that category. The net is one
hope for dissolving national pride.


-- 
Clay Shirky

In <Co7Du3.Dx0@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> nishri@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Alex Nishri) writes:

>Americans are forbidden from phoning Cuba directly themselves.  I think we
>can all agree that this limits free speech between those in the USA and
>those in Cuba.  Of course, most Canadians respect the right of the USA to
>enact its own laws.  But say, hypothetically, that a Canadian company
>offered the following service: Americans could phone a number in Canada,
>get a second dial tone, and then dial direct to Cuba.  (Without going into
>details, this is not fiction.)

I had forgotten about this excellent service. This is a perfect
example of ways in which telecommunications can prevent governments
from restricting information. 

>Americans are forbidden from listening to certain radio frequencies.  In
>fact, shortly it will be illegal to sell radios in the USA capable of
>tuning in these forbidden frequencies.  In Canada a private individual can
>legally listen to any frequency and radios banned for sale in the USA are
>perfectly legal.  Again, I am sure most Canadians respect the American
>right to enact laws restricting its citizens.  However, hypothetically
>speaking only, what if a Canadian radio distributor assisted Americans who
>believe that freedom of speech is the same as having the right to know
>everything by selling them radios which tune frequencies forbidden in the
>USA?

Another excellent example. A good furthering of this idea within
cyberspace would be an ITR-style archive of banned frequencies. this
would be difficult now, but in a few years, it would be possible to
set up an asynchronous "Radio Free America" archive, stored on foreign
soil and accessible from the net.



-- 
Clay Shirky

Justin Wells (rjwells@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:

: In response to all you American types who think it's such a great
: idea to break Canadian laws from America via. the net:

: What would happen if Canadians, and other non-Americans, started
: posting death threats to president@whitehouse.gov?  Clearly this is in
: violation of *American* law.. probably an outright death threat is in
: violation of Canadian law.. but there's no doubt some middle ground
: threat which is fine under Canadian law (what's a president?) but
: totally illegal in the U.S.A.?

MASSIVE Wrong-o, there, JW.

Your beloved Canada, I hope you're proud to know, is a more civilized
place that the USA in this particular respect.  They have a law against
threatening their president; we have laws against threatening ANYBODY.

Will all you clowns who love to fill the USENET with long diatribes
about legal matters PLEASE do just ten minutes of homework for ONCE?

Justin, check out the criminal code sections 423(1)b, or 424.
424 is particularly interesting, entitled  "Threats to commit offense
against internationally protected person".  It is normally used in
reference only to aircraft related offenses - its out little way of
nailing people who blow up airliners anywhere but happen to be in
Canada when they're caught, or did any of the dirty work in our borders.

Still, I can't help but wonder if we would choose to regard a friendly
head of state as "internationally protected", since the penalty is
much tougher (14 years) than if charged under 423.

BTW, I am NOT a lawyer, and the above is NOT legal advice.  I know
almost nothing about the law.  But I do have a  copy of the book
on hand, so I know more than you bothered to learn...

Now you know.  Don't threaten people when you're in Canada.  It isn't
nice, and we don't LIKE people who aren't nice.

In article <1994Apr14.011636.628@sdg.dra.com>,  <sean@sdg.dra.com> wrote:
>In article <Co7Du3.Dx0@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>, nishri@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Alex Nishri) writes:
>> Americans are forbidden from phoning Cuba directly themselves.  I think we
>> can all agree that this limits free speech between those in the USA and
>> those in Cuba.  Of course, most Canadians respect the right of the USA to
>> enact its own laws.  But say, hypothetically, that a Canadian company
>> offered the following service: Americans could phone a number in Canada,
>> get a second dial tone, and then dial direct to Cuba.  (Without going into
>> details, this is not fiction.)
>
>Too bad you got your facts wrong.  Its an economic embargo.  Lots of people
>telephone Cuba from the U.S. everyday (especially from south Florida).
>However, AT&T (and soon Sprint, yes Sprint got approval to provide telephone
>service to Cuba) is forbidden from sending money to Cuba.  So the money
>is deposited in an escrow account.
>
>Of course, the Cuban government doesn't like not getting the money.  So
>Cuba encourages people to route the calls through other countries (such
>as Canada) which will pay Cuba.  The U.S. Government had no problem with
>a Canadian company offering a service where people in the U.S. could dial
>a number in Canada and then direct dial to Cuba.  They had a problem with
>the transfer of money to Cuba.  The Canadian company was blocked from
>collecting money from people in the U.S. and sending part of it to Cuba,
>not from making telephone calls to Cuba.  
>-- 
>Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
>Domain: sean@dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100

You are right--your government has told you that the reason for certain
restrictions and procedures when dealing with Cuba is "economic embargo".
And you are right--a company operating on Canadian soil, where this
restriction does not exist, was stopped from offering a service using the
telephone network because it violated the spirit of the American restriction.

Now on the other hand we have a restriction in Canada-we have been told
there is a court order asking for certain information not to be published
until a certain trail has begun.  And we have a company operating on
American soil, where this restriction does not exist, offering a way around
the spirit of the Canadian restriction by publishing the information to
Canadians via a computer network.  (I conclude it is being published to
Canadians because this company released a statement saying it was putting
the information up on a gopher/WWW server early only because of the court
order.)

So the example stands.  Note, that one should not confuse the merits of the
economic embargo or merits of the order to delay publication of information
with the issues that arise when telephone and computer network technology
are used outside a country to get around its national laws.  In both cases
above, a company outside a country circumvents the intention of that
country's laws.  If you believe that this is a valid form of dissent, then
is any non-citizen of your country, living anywhere in the world free to
come up with ways to circumvent the laws of your country they disagree
with? Only certain laws?

So, I am curious, what area code do you use when direct dialing (ie without
operator assistance) Cuba?

Thus spake Christoph Weber-Fahr [KIT] (weber@rhrk.uni-kl.de):

 >This is nonsense. Pure and simple. We have it in the constitution, on very
 >prominent place, that no German citizen may be extradited to another state.
 >Not even within the EU.

Ah, yes.  The German constitution.  Didn't it also have a provision
that any and all refugee claimants were to be allowed entry to the
Fatherland?  And wasn't that provision recently repealed (or whatever
you call it) to placate the right?

It seems the German constitution is subject to sudden changes, and I
don't think I'd put too much faith in it.

My opinions only.
-- 
         -- Tony Reed --
<tony_reed@nyongwa.montreal.qc.ca>

>>>>> "Mcfarlane" == Mcfarlane Jeffrey Alexander <a209mcfa@cdf.toronto.edu> writes:
In article <a209mcfa.766358165@cdf.toronto.edu> a209mcfa@cdf.toronto.edu (Mcfarlane Jeffrey Alexander) writes:

	[...]

    Mcfarlane> Hey there! I just happen to have my english translation
    Mcfarlane> of the ol' Grundgesetz right here, and I quote:

    Mcfarlane> Section 1 (Basic Rights)

    Mcfarlane>  Article 16

    Mcfarlane>   (1) No one may be deprived of their German
    Mcfarlane> citizenship. Loss of citizenship may arise only
    Mcfarlane> pursuant to law, and against the will of the person
    Mcfarlane> affected only if such person does not thereby become
    Mcfarlane> stateless.

    Mcfarlane>   (2) No German may be EXTRADITED to a foreign
    Mcfarlane> country. Persons persecuted on political grounds shall
    Mcfarlane> enjoy the right to asylum.  (Is that last bit the part
    Mcfarlane> that was recently changed?)

    Mcfarlane> This is very interesting, I think.


    Mcfarlane> Are there any well-known cases where a German has
    Mcfarlane> commited a serious crime in another country and has
    Mcfarlane> been tried and convicted for that crime in Germany and
    Mcfarlane> served (or is currently serving) their sentence?

There were, but since I didn't pay attention, I can't provide
sources. :(

    Mcfarlane> What exactly happens in such situations?

    Mcfarlane> I can't imagine that Germany would simply let someone
    Mcfarlane> who (z.B.) murdered someone in Canada and managed to
    Mcfarlane> make it back to Germany to go unpunished.

Nope. It wouldn't. As long as the alleged crime is a crime in Germany,
the elleged offender will be prosecuted upon notification of the
proper authorities and judged according to German law. But he or she
will NOT be turned over to a foreign country.

    Mcfarlane> Would that person be arrested and tried in Germany by
    Mcfarlane> German authorities?  Would the German government pick
    Mcfarlane> up the tab for witnesses to be flown to Germany to
    Mcfarlane> participate in the trial? Or what?

Good question.  I'll try to dig up some infos on this.


    Mcfarlane> Here's some more questions:

    Mcfarlane>  - Is Kohl going down this year or not?

Hard to tell. Just now it's not a question of who's more able to run
the country, but who is less UNable. And right now the SPD and her
leader, Scharping, are not exactly promising. Clueless, all of them...



    Mcfarlane>  - Why do some people put a D before the
    Mcfarlane> Postl(mumble)zahl?  Is it because they're so used to
    Mcfarlane> putting a W or O and they canna break the habit?

Nope, that's just an additional information used by some Europeans. D
for german, AU for Austria, etc. It's not really needed.




    Mcfarlane> ttfn

    Mcfarlane> Jeff McFarlane

tony_reed@nyongwa.montreal.qc.ca (Tony Reed) writes:
>Thus spake Christoph Weber-Fahr [KIT] (weber@rhrk.uni-kl.de):

> >This is nonsense. Pure and simple. We have it in the constitution, on very
> >prominent place, that no German citizen may be extradited to another state.
> >Not even within the EU.

>Ah, yes.  The German constitution.  Didn't it also have a provision
>that any and all refugee claimants were to be allowed entry to the
>Fatherland?  

No. It had a provision that people that are prosecuted because of political
crimes get asylum.

>And wasn't that provision recently repealed (or whatever
>you call it) to placate the right?

Well, I won't discuss what placates whom, but it was modified so that
the determination of who is politically prosecuted can involve lists 
of countries where there is no such prosecution at all (previously
it had to be refuted case by case in court) and that people that
already applied for asylum in another safe country can't apply here again.

A lot of people have argued that this considerably weakens the right to
asylum. Others argue that it helps only to throw people out who
obviously have no right to asylum but entertain administration and
courts for years with legal procedures. Pick your choice.

If you like to discuss that in more depth, maybe you take this thread
to soc.culture.german.

>It seems the German constitution is subject to sudden changes, and I
>don't think I'd put too much faith in it.

Given the fact that it protects me and not you, and that you don't
enjoy an equal protection by the Canadian constitution, I wouldn't
overestimate this lack of faith.

Regards

Christoph Weber-Fahr


-- 
  Christoph Weber-Fahr                  |  E-Mail:  weber@rhrk.uni-kl.de 
  Universitaet Kaiserslautern,  KIT     |  S-Mail:  Postfach 3049
  Tel. 0631/205-3391                    |           D-67653 Kaiserslautern
--------------------------  My personal opinion only    ---------------------

weber@rhrk.uni-kl.de (Christoph Weber-Fahr [KIT]) writes:


>Given the fact that it protects me and not you, and that you don't
>enjoy an equal protection by the Canadian constitution, I wouldn't
>overestimate this lack of faith.

Let's not be hasty. It's not like the Canadian government will deport
any Canadian to any foreign country that says: "Hey that guy broke one 
of our laws. Please send him over to be executed."                
Canada will not extradite any citizen to the vast majority of the world's
nations. Only to those countries that we have a mutual-extradition treaty
with.

Does anyone out there know which countries these are?

And the Canadian government can refuse to extradite if they so desire. We
are not *bound* by foreign laws. 

Try removing Canada, picking up Germany, reducing her population to about 
28 million, slapping it on the top of the U.S.A. and then avoiding a mutual
extradition treaty with America (hey aren't those laws of yours *cute*)

In fact, in 20 years or so, is it so hard to imagine a Germany with extradition
-like arrangements with it's Euro-neighbours, perhaps even a EU-wide justice
system (maybe just with the Inner Six + Austria?)
Yes, I know that would require changing the Basic Law but might not Germany
have a Constitution/(Verfassung (?)) by then anyway? Recent events have shown:
anything's possible. :-)


>Regards

>Christoph Weber-Fahr

ttfn

Jeff McFarlane

In <1994Apr15.150713.10324@arbi.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>
Peter.Bruells@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (Peter Bruells) writes:

>>>>>> "Mcfarlane" == Mcfarlane Jeffrey Alexander <a209mcfa@cdf.toronto.edu> writes:

>	[...]

>    Mcfarlane>   (2) No German may be EXTRADITED to a foreign
>    Mcfarlane> country. Persons persecuted on political grounds shall
>    Mcfarlane> enjoy the right to asylum.  (Is that last bit the part
>    Mcfarlane> that was recently changed?)

>    Mcfarlane> This is very interesting, I think.

>    Mcfarlane> Are there any well-known cases where a German has
>    Mcfarlane> commited a serious crime in another country and has
>    Mcfarlane> been tried and convicted for that crime in Germany and
>    Mcfarlane> served (or is currently serving) their sentence?

>There were, but since I didn't pay attention, I can't provide
>sources. :(

O well...            

>    Mcfarlane> What exactly happens in such situations?

>    Mcfarlane> I can't imagine that Germany would simply let someone
>    Mcfarlane> who (z.B.) murdered someone in Canada and managed to
>    Mcfarlane> make it back to Germany go unpunished.

>Nope. It wouldn't. As long as the alleged crime is a crime in Germany,
>the elleged offender will be prosecuted upon notification of the
>proper authorities and judged according to German law. But he or she
>will NOT be turned over to a foreign country.

>    Mcfarlane> Would that person be arrested and tried in Germany by
>    Mcfarlane> German authorities?  Would the German government pick
>    Mcfarlane> up the tab for witnesses to be flown to Germany to
>    Mcfarlane> participate in the trial? Or what?

>Good question.  I'll try to dig up some infos on this.
 
Thanks Peter.
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
Could get to be expensive though, if there were alot of witnesses.
Extra bonus: witness crime = free European vacation! :)

>    Mcfarlane> Here's some more questions:

>    Mcfarlane>  - Is Kohl going down this year or not?

>Hard to tell. Just now it's not a question of who's more able to run
>the country, but who is less UNable. And right now the SPD and her
>leader, Scharping, are not exactly promising. Clueless, all of them...

Wie deprimerend! And I thought only Canada had such problems! :)

Saaaaay, if you are in Oldenburg, Peter, you must've been there for the
recent Niedersachsen-election. I heard the SPD cleaned up there. Is this
seen as a sign of things to come? Have there been any other Superwahljahr
elections yet?                

ttfn   

Jeff McFarlane

In article <CoA90p.56w@cuug.ab.ca>, Roy Brander <branderr@cuug.ab.ca> wrote:

Uh oh, doorhead here wants to start a flame war.  Ok, dork, since you're
accusing me of not having read various things about Canadian law, let's just
juxtapose two lines to see how competent you are:


I wrote (quoting from your quote no less):

>: probably an outright death threat is in
>: violation of Canadian law.. but there's no doubt some middle ground
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: threat which is fine under Canadian law (what's a president?) but
>: totally illegal in the U.S.A.?


To which you wrote:

>They have a law against
>threatening their president; we have laws against threatening ANYBODY.
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Read much?  I don't claim to know what the middle ground threat might be,
I'm just speculating that there might be one.  Clearly an outright
deaththreat is too far -- but apparently you don't comprehend English
well enough to understand what I said, so why am I bothering now?


>But I do have a  copy of the book
>on hand, so I know more than you bothered to learn...

Grow up.  Since you can't read, your book obviously does you no good.
Go back to kindergarten, pal.  Don't post me another message because I
refuse to be drawn into some ridiculous pre-school flamewar.


Justin

--
Justin Wells     <rjwells@uwaterloo.ca, stem@io.org, stem@sizone.pci.on.ca>

 "Knowledge for its own sake" -- that is the last snare of morality:  with
 that one becomes completely entangled in it once more.     - F. Nietzsche

About Justin's remark about the president:

In the world Trade Center bombing, they FBI arrested the other suspects
and linked them to Sheikh Abdul Rahman because they went to his mosque every
Friday afternoon, for an hour.

If the FBI should arreest Justin, for being a conspirator in a scheme of
"urban terrorism", would they then check out all of Justin's email contacts?

Would they check up on hislist of aliases?
All the names found in his mbox?
All the messages saved in his archives form Usenet?
And all threads replying to him, on any newsgroup?

if you are reading this, Justin, do me a favour and delete it right now.
Delete the log file from your comm. program.  Go and reset your scrollback
buffer right now.  And, DONT SAVE IT!!

You never heard it frmo me.



--
-----------------------------
Hasan Murtaza
Engineering Science 9T6
University of Toronto

nishri@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Alex Nishri) writes:

>So the example stands.  Note, that one should not confuse the merits of the
>economic embargo or merits of the order to delay publication of information
>with the issues that arise when telephone and computer network technology
>are used outside a country to get around its national laws.  In both cases
>above, a company outside a country circumvents the intention of that
>country's laws.  If you believe that this is a valid form of dissent, then
>is any non-citizen of your country, living anywhere in the world free to
>come up with ways to circumvent the laws of your country they disagree
>with? Only certain laws?

I think the point here is that basic freedoms like the press and 
communications should be suspended very sparingly - like when you're 
talking about military enemies and stuff.

Allowing any judge in Canada to impose a sweeping ban on publications, 
and ruining Canada's international reputation (we've gone from being 
peacekeepers to a banana republic that censors foreign publications) is 
stupid. The only excuses that I have heard are procedural, for the 
convenience of the Crown Prosecutor's office. "It would be too difficult 
to sequester a jury, etc., " just doesn't cut it. 

One of the reasons that procedure was implemented in the States was the
growth of communications (TV, newspapers, etc.) Canada enjoys those
conveniences, and views its most basic freedoms as bureaucratic irritants.
This isn't just about one case. It's about how Canadians live and think
and learn. I'm frightened at how quickly the Canadian system swept those
considerations aside, and I'm appalled that the system has apologists.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: this is an area where we
Canadians can learn from the Americans. Canadians are so arrogant and sure
of their cultural superiority versus their neighbors in the US. This is
clearly an area where Canada's culture, legal traditions, and history of
government interference in individual lives show a dark, dangerous side.
It might not be long before Canada adopts flogging at this rate. 

Justin Wells (rjwells@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
: In article <CoA90p.56w@cuug.ab.ca>, Roy Brander <branderr@cuug.ab.ca> wrote:

: Uh oh, doorhead here wants to start a flame war.  Ok, dork, since you're

: Grow up.  Since you can't read, your book obviously does you no good.
: Go back to kindergarten, pal.  Don't post me another message because I
: refuse to be drawn into some ridiculous pre-school flamewar.


: Justin

If I'm the one starting a war, how come you're using all the mean words? Sir.

I read you, and your intent was plain.  The comment still stands that our
laws are more general than theirs.  Ours do not specify death.  423
specifies "threats of violence".  There simply is no threat that can
be made in Canada which is legal here but unlawful in the States. Period.

OK, OK, I apologise for taking a snappish tone with you, Mr. Touchy.  God
knows you're rude enough to everyone else on this group when you get into
an argument.  And I'm still tired of people writing more words than they've
read on a given subject.  I'd love to find a group somewhere that sees
people doing 1 hour of homework for every hour on-line.  You *DO* find
such things on the science and engineering groups where USENET started,
like guys from Hayes labs writing in the modems group.  But I don't
see any lawyers here enlightening us about this stuff, just people

Thus spake Mcfarlane Jeffrey Alexander (a209mcfa@cdf.toronto.edu):
 >weber@rhrk.uni-kl.de (Christoph Weber-Fahr [KIT]) writes:


 >>Given the fact that it protects me and not you, and that you don't
 >>enjoy an equal protection by the Canadian constitution, I wouldn't
 >>overestimate this lack of faith.

 >Let's not be hasty. It's not like the Canadian government will deport
 >any Canadian to any foreign country that says: "Hey that guy broke one 
 >of our laws. Please send him over to be executed."                
 >Canada will not extradite any citizen to the vast majority of the world's
 >nations. Only to those countries that we have a mutual-extradition treaty
 >with.

And I would add that in MHO extradition treaties among democratic 
countries form the basis for, if nothing else, a sense of 
"good neighbours".  I wouldn't want Canada to alow its citizenry
to be extradited to Saudi Arabia to stand trial for "offending
the dignity of a Saudi", though.  Or to Commie China...

British criminals used to flee to Spain, and live in the sun,
because Britain had no treaty with Spain.  I guess the EC 
treaties have put an end to that.
 
-- 
         -- Tony Reed --
<tony_reed@nyongwa.montreal.qc.ca>

Gordon H. Buchan (buchang@CAM.ORG) wrote:

: I think the point here is that basic freedoms like the press and 
: communications should be suspended very sparingly - like when you're 
: talking about military enemies and stuff.


lets get one thing straight here, we are talking about the right of an 
indi. (teale) to get a fair trial vs the right of the public, to get the 
'dirt'

: Allowing any judge in Canada to impose a sweeping ban on publications, 
: and ruining Canada's international reputation (we've gone from being 
: peacekeepers to a banana republic that censors foreign publications) is 
: stupid. The only excuses that I have heard are procedural, for the 
: convenience of the Crown Prosecutor's office. "It would be too difficult 
: to sequester a jury, etc., " just doesn't cut it. 

: One of the reasons that procedure was implemented in the States was the
: growth of communications (TV, newspapers, etc.) Canada enjoys those
: conveniences, and views its most basic freedoms as bureaucratic irritants.
: This isn't just about one case. It's about how Canadians live and think
: and learn. I'm frightened at how quickly the Canadian system swept those
: considerations aside, and I'm appalled that the system has apologists.
: I've said it before, and I'll say it again: this is an area where we
: Canadians can learn from the Americans. Canadians are so arrogant and sure
: of their cultural superiority versus their neighbors in the US. This is
: clearly an area where Canada's culture, legal traditions, and history of
: government interference in individual lives show a dark, dangerous side.
: It might not be long before Canada adopts flogging at this rate. 

The rights of the ind. shoul and must outway the rights of the group. 
Otherwise we will end up the smae way then the old U.S.S.R.

In other words it is only because of the ban that we can say the our 
rights are truly portected. 

Also note there has been cases in  the states where a judge has baned 
lawyers and press from commenting on a ongoing trial for the same reason

--
+----------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
  Robert Galambos            | 'I never let my schooling interfer with my
  galambo@cam.org (prefered) |   EDUCATION'                       Mark Twain
  73657.2416@COMPUSERVE.COM  | 'Life is like a bowl of cherries....
  R.GALAMBOS1@GENIE.GEIS.COM |   you choke on the pits'
                             | ' Trying to keep the Sharks and Vultures
                             |   away in the GREAT WHITE NORTH'

In article <2p29fi$kjg@Tandem.CAM.ORG>,
Robert Galambos <galambo@CAM.ORG> wrote:
>Gordon H. Buchan (buchang@CAM.ORG) wrote:
>
>: I think the point here is that basic freedoms like the press and 
>: communications should be suspended very sparingly - like when you're 
>: talking about military enemies and stuff.

An unrelated news story broke in Toronto last week.  There was a
murder--front page news.  One of the newspapers broke a story that the police
department had issued a confidential bulletin to other police.  That
newspaper got vilified by other media outlets and by many calls to that
newspaper's ombudsman for having potentially helped the people the police
were trying to track down.

Questions: Having obtained information which might impede a police
investigation is the press always justified in publishing it?  Is the
press justified in printing the names of victims of crime, even if
printing the name may cause more harm to the victim (e.g. rape cases).
We could also ask: Does the public right to know mean that the police always
have to tell you every detail of every investigation?  Once they arrest
someone, must the crown release every detail of the case to the public before
it comes to trail?  Once the crown releases the information to the defense,
is the public entitled to know the details too?

We are all for freedom of the press--but please define it.

>lets get one thing straight here, we are talking about the right of an 
>indi. (teale) to get a fair trial vs the right of the public, to get the 
>'dirt'

I think it is worthwhile to point out more of the rights involved:
- the right of the public to know the right person has been caught.  Many
  people were traumatized when the murders occurred and radically altered
  their life because of fear.  People worried for their lives and that of
  their loved ones escorted kids to school, stopped jogging, etc.  These
  people have a right to know the perpetrator of these crimes has been caught.
  In a very real sense, peoples liberty and freedom is curtailed until
  the information is available for them to see and challenge.

- the right of the public to know that justice was served on Karla Homolka.
  For example, if there was a "deal" between the crown and Karla's lawyers,
  the public will want to know that Karla is not getting away with murder.
  Justice must be seen to occur.

- the right of the public for unbiased justice when Paul's trail begins.

- the various rights of the jury which will be chosen for Paul's trail.
  Notice that the members of the jury are not volunteers.  Sequestering
  amounts to taking away of the freedom and liberty of a group
  of people chosen randomly.

- the right of the accused to full disclosure of the crown's case before the
  trail, and for access to the crown's witnesses before the trail.

- there are others.

These rights conflict to various degrees and require a balance to be struck.
It is certainly possible to change the balance, but care should be taken
at the time of the change to make sure nothing falls through the cracks.

>: Allowing any judge in Canada to impose a sweeping ban on publications, 
>: and ruining Canada's international reputation (we've gone from being 
>: peacekeepers to a banana republic that censors foreign publications) is 
>: stupid. The only excuses that I have heard are procedural, for the 
>: convenience of the Crown Prosecutor's office. "It would be too difficult 
>: to sequester a jury, etc., " just doesn't cut it. 

First of all, I think its fair to point out that the "ban" only applies
until the start of Paul's trail.  There has been considerable debate in 
the newspapers, radio, and TV about how much the public's right to know
is affected by deferring publication of these details for months.

As for sequestering juries, there are other issues.
Consider one of the trails resulting from the Rodney King case;
based on vague news reports I get the impression that the sequestered
jury nearly came to blows.  I ask: what was the effect on jury members from
being involunatarily denied access to their families?  what was the affect
on jury members in being confined with a bunch of strangers?  What was the
affect on the rights and freedoms of the jury members?  What was the affect
on the kind of decision the jury came to?

You don't mention jury selection, but this is another technique used in some
systems to weed out those who are pre-disposed or influenced.  However, this
too is not the perfect answer.  Particularly once the prosecution and
accused are each allowed to have jury selection experts, there is a
perception that this turns into a game of selecting a sympathetic jury.


You also didn't mention that a ban could have been avoided had Karla's
trail been delayed until that of her husband.  With no trail, there would
not have been information, and there would not be any reason for a ban.
Of course, this approach would have taken away the public's right to
seeing speedy justice and Karla's right to having her case resolved in
a timely fashion.

So ... what approach are you advocating?

buchang@CAM.ORG (Gordon H. Buchan) writes:

>Allowing any judge in Canada to impose a sweeping ban on publications, 
>and ruining Canada's international reputation (we've gone from being 
>peacekeepers to a banana republic that censors foreign publications) is 
>stupid. The only excuses that I have heard are procedural, for the 
>convenience of the Crown Prosecutor's office. "It would be too difficult 
>to sequester a jury, etc., " just doesn't cut it. 

>One of the reasons that procedure was implemented in the States was the
>growth of communications (TV, newspapers, etc.) Canada enjoys those
>conveniences, and views its most basic freedoms as bureaucratic irritants.

	The problem is that you have no conception of the reality of the 
situation.  You CANNOT sequester a jury for half a year, the amount of 
time, at minimum, that it will take before the trial.  You attitude is 
sickening and niave.  The publication ban was NOT for the convinience of 
the prossecutor's office, but to attempt to ensure a FAIR trial for the 
defendant.  Get your facts straight please.  


-- 
======================================================================
Marc "Ranfry" Lombart                        Lover, author, singer and
Internet ranfry@cam.org                      great debater.  Never at
Compuserve 70702,1603                        a loss for words.