Charter Battle Underway - Injunctions Very Important To You -- LIFE OR DEATH FOR US

[To The Real King!!]

Hi People,

Well Monday should tell how we do in the Injunction for Quebec and the one in BC will be coming up too. If we can just get these three granted (already strengthened by the Ontario one) then I believe we can make a deal to ask that this be in effect all across Canada IN EVERY PROVINCE. Remember it is the Government that are now infringing our rights and the Ontario court saw that right away. If that carries for the others, things should be fine all across the country. The government does not want to sea court after court across the country grant these and since they are now seen to be the ones infringing Canadians rights to receive foreign encrypted signals, they want to stop the damage and be seen to give us our rights, not further impair them.

If this happens as expected the injunctions should be valid until each level of court rules. We do not anticipate losing in the same courts that already interpreted the law 100% opposite to the Supreme Court. These courts are not particularly happy in my opinion because the Supreme Court said the law is NOT ambiguous. Well if the law is not ambiguous (confusing with two possible different meanings) then I would guess that the Supreme Court are saying that the lower courts and all the way to the appeals courts are dumb and should have ruled opposite to the way they did. This wont sit well with these courts who sat through actual trials which is much more illuminating than looking at the papers afterwards like the Supreme Court does.

So I believe the lower courts will rule in our favor and the Injunctions will obviously be maintained at the “Status Quo” of the day BEFORE the Supreme court Ruling until the next level of court hers the issue. In my opinion we will be good to go foe a couple of years if the courts proceed at their normal pace.

The government knows that when you tell citizens what TV they can or cannot watch and therefore what expression they can receive, this amounts to censorship and that is verboten in a democracy.

Freedom of Expression (to receive or to give expression) is the most basic and fundamental right in a modern democratic society. Without it you can not make decisions on many essential things that control you life. For instance you may not be able to get top grade information on various technologies which will affect your income. Or on news, religion or on ethnic programming, important in that the charter says Canada is multicultural. If it is then why is multicultural Spanish, Turkish, Italian or other programming prohibited. It walls within the objectives of our Charter and so prohibiting it is against the charter. What is the reason for the Injunctions. In a few words its known as “THE BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE.”

And in law what does this mean. Well if the status quo is maintained then nothing changes for BEV and * Choice who the SCR seeks to protect. But if we fight and WIN and we are closed down before that, then what kind of a win is it. It would be pretty hollow for businesses that have existed for a long time to WIN but have no customers left since they were seized under the new SCR. So that’s what it is about and in law the balance of Convenience is squarely with us.

BEV'S sales for instance have increased something like 37% year over year which is fantastic. That wont change with the status quo. But our hard fought victory not to be CENSORED would be hollow and useless if we were prevented from operating businesses or receiving expression in the meantime. There would be no EQUITY in that and the court must seek an equitable solution since our rights are clearly being infringed by the governments CENSORSHIP under the ruling.

Many newspapers and independent 3rd parties have already said that and that can be seen at:

http://www.legal-rights.org/supremecourt/scrlist.html

So I think we Ned to see everyone calm down and expect a complete return to the norm in a few days. This is what we are battling for and we do need funds to accomplish our goals. If you believe in “freedom of expression” at all and realize this is our LAST kick at the can then as member of the satellite community anywhere PLEASE DONATE GENEROUSLY. Its DO or DIE this time. And at the very worst we will get a few years more of the level headed situation and at best we will WIN and it will NOT be illegal to view foreign encrypted broadcasting. Use our PayPal to donate by clicking on the bold lime green below.

Please DONATE for the SUPREME COURT ANTI-CENSORSHIP BATTLE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)

The court has left a large hole to drive a truck through on this issue of the charter because they know very well that Censorship DOES infringe the Charter. The Ruling itself and the hole can be seen at:

http://www.legal-rights.org/SCRrulingcanam.html

have a look because the gyrations and machinations that the SUPREME COURT went through to justify this political ruling are just amazing to behold.http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif
Please be part of the solution because it is YOUR RIGHTS and mine that are being taken away by this terrible ruling.
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrkblack.gif

Thanks & Good Luck,

To The REAL King!!

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/bllrbanner.gif

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/lrbanner.gif
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal AT:
http://www.legal-rights.org

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please!


Please DONATE for the SUPREME COURT ANTI-CENSORSHIP BATTLE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html) <-- Click here Please!

Por favor dona para la BATALLA EN LA SUPREMA CORTE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)<-- Haz Click aqui

[mark669]

TTRK,

In 1948 the UN established a Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is supposed to be upheld by all western governments inlcuding Canada. Article 19 reads as follows:


"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

What do you think?


669

[Arrow22]

Is it possible that this might cause the
rules and regulations to loosen,
allowing daveTV access to canada?

It sounds like the arguement could be also applied to the regs
that keep him out of canada legally.

[mmadmikes1]

When the argument over lumber is over , they can claim it's a violation of free trade, it is pretty clear a restriction on US product(content)But DTV would have to fight that battle and it wouldn't help testers (black market) or dealers(Grey market). Am I wrong this isn't a fight for tester's good it is a fight for Canadians right to choose. As free people ,Americans and Canadians , this should be more important than Free TV. In the end we know they will outlaw TV hacking in Canada . P-4 or AC-4 will get rid of a ton of free tv anyway.

[Spawndevices]

do we have any new info or schedule of dates for
ON, QUE AND BC???

spawn

[To The Real King!!]

Hi Spawn,

As you know someone has been trying to contact you for support and we have to wait in Quebec now for a WIN in Ontario. The judge there will make a decision and release it Friday at noon. But if we are to ACT we need the support badly so please contact your friend in Alberta and see what can be done. I had asked him to make it a 3 way phone call and I am still open to that. Just E-mail me with the time preferred and I will make myself available.

As to the Supreme Court Ruling can anyone say SELLOUT. THis is the situation right now.
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/Parliament with Dish.jpg
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrkblack.gif

Thanks & Good Luck,

To The REAL King!!

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/lrbanner.gif
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal AT:
http://www.legal-rights.org

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please!


Please DONATE for the SUPREME COURT CENSORSHIP BATTLE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html) <-- Click here Please!

Por favor dona para la BATALLA EN LA SUPREMA CORTE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)<-- Haz Click aqui!


Please DONATE for the SUPREME COURT ANTI-CENSORSHIP BATTLE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)

[trying2]

The current federal train of thought created this whole mess with their agenda to protect a certain heritage/ language gimmick. Since that time they have opened the door to all sorts of other cultures and gave them the opinion/expectation that when you make Canada your home .. you are something-Canadian.. not Canadian-something

Now we all sit in this mess. USA owns almost every major factory and closing in on every utility/natural resource we have. Yet Canadians are "protected" from American.. and other broadcasting. This is not knocking Americans.. It is the sorry state we Canadians are in. Put a buck in the bank.. put a buck into an investment.. tax the %%^& out of it to "save" our social believes.. blah blah.. Protect Canada that the feds sold out years ago.
Canadians have many "companies" that have had special treatment for years. One company is now chasing and using the momentum they have gained to yet again.. close the doors on any other entity.

I'm Canadian.. loosing faith in it real fast.. but I AM CANADIAN. I do not like the "protection" that the feds are providing.. If I was an immigrant.. I would be angry also.. as now the promise the feds made.. they are cohering the "politically appointed" judges into enforcing a law.. that the clumsy politicions cannot "pass" law on.. as the populace would not vote for.

Rome fell apart people.. do not think history cannot repeat itself.

1 Donate to the cause..
2 Next election.. Kick those clowns right out of their gold pensions.

[To The Real King!!]

Hi Mark,

Here is a clip from my http://www.legal-rights.org site where I have this posted.


http://www.legal-rights.org/Laws/UN_ICCPR_19.html

It is the entire paragraph 19 of the ICCPR and I have long mentioned it and even presented itin my court case. Canada Ratified it and I aso user it here:

http://www.legal-rights.org/Laws/supreme_law.html

as part of the Constitution, the supreme law in Canada. Some people however seem to be forgetting that including the Supreme Court of Canada.

People, here is a post by GS2 that was in a thread criticising us that Rise threw in the trash. Thats where the thread belongs but this post was too important to pass up on, in my opinion. So here it is explaining WHY we have had the past 5 years with open skies in Canada!!! And he is VERY right about that.
BY GS2


I am an old folk.


We fought a worthy cause all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Although we lost the SCC for five years now folks have seen the benifits and the winning decisions.


The Government and ExpressVu never in their wildest dreams did they ever expect such a legal fight never mind going to the Supreme Court.


In all these years many folks were able to watch TV broadcast of their choice and many dealers were able to service customers without interference.


No one can ever take that away.


The word is in major newspapers across Canada. There are so many positive articles that support our postion.


I would encourage you to look at the Canadian Freedom and legal forum as they are all posted there.


We already had a plan ready if we lost at the Supreme Court and have executed it. The SC decision was on a Friday and on the next buisness on Monday we were in court and successfully had a Judge grant a tempory injunction against any enforcement of the law.


Our plan can only be discussed with a few as we don't want to telegraph our strategy to the opposition. We only asked for donations when the plan was implimented.


The legal fees were payed by two people myself and Incredible starting from a month ago for retainers for the Charter Challenge.


People have come to rely on us to get these things rolling.


I would be more than happy to be able to discuss this on any radio show


GS2



What this post points out that it is because of the fights all the way to the Sureme Court that we have had the last several years to act with impunity and have an open sky in Canada. many perhaps do NOT realize that these battles are why and now begin to question this. But you cannot argue about the years we have already had its just that most people dont even know that. Bravo GS2, this is a really excellent post, one of you best ever I believe. This post really cuts to the chase!!http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrkblack.gif

Thanks & Good Luck,

To The REAL King!!

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/lrbanner.gif
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal AT:
http://www.legal-rights.org

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please!


Please DONATE for the SUPREME COURT CENSORSHIP BATTLE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html) <-- Click here Please!

Por favor dona para la BATALLA EN LA SUPREMA CORTE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)<-- Haz Click aqui!

[chubba]

Originally posted by trying2
The current federal train of thought created this whole mess with their agenda to protect a certain heritage/ language gimmick. Since that time they have opened the door to all sorts of other cultures and gave them the opinion/expectation that when you make Canada your home .. you are something-Canadian.. not Canadian-something

Now we all sit in this mess. USA owns almost every major factory and closing in on every utility/natural resource we have. Yet Canadians are "protected" from American.. and other broadcasting.

If I was an immigrant.. I would be angry also.. as now the promise the feds made.. they are cohering the "politically appointed" judges into enforcing a law.. that the clumsy politicions cannot "pass" law on.. as the populace would not vote for.

Rome fell apart people.. do not think history cannot repeat itself.

1 Donate to the cause..
2 Next election.. Kick those clowns right out of their gold pensions.


You are right on target, trying2:

The Charter Challenge will focus heavily on the rights of New Canadians and their now prohibited ability to watch TV from their homeland.

Excellent post - thank you for sharing your insight.

:)

[Birbao]

Hi TTRK,
It's me, from Superspud...anyhoo, I love the picture you posted of the Parliament Hill with the ExpressVu dish. I'd say put the dish on one of the gargoyles. Packs more of a punch ;)

Anyhoo, has anyone heard from Shiela? I only heard about what the Supreme Court said. What about the horse's mouth (symbolically speaking)? I wish I lived in her riding as I'd have a much better impact on voicing my opinion to her.

[kalyna]

Its time to get one thing straight...

The Charter Battle is about making Grey Market (reception of foreign signals) here in Canada, Legal.

Black market has been RULED illegal, and even if the Charter is won BLACK market will remain illegal for then as Canadians we would have the right to sub to foreign signals, making it CLEARLY even more so, illegal. The injunction in place now is only DELAYING the enforcement of the LAW.

For many Black Market people.... time to wake up and REALLY Understand this.

I was at Alan Gold's presentation last night, and it just unbelievable how many BLACK market people just do not understand what truely the Charter Fight is all about :( :(

Today at noon may be a HUGE reality check for many of us :( :(

Kalyna

[Hudss]

ahh men kalyna that is the truth
cheers and keep up the good work TTRK n GS2
tyvm

[trusoulja2g]

Originally posted by kalyna

Black market has been RULED illegal, and even if the Charter is won BLACK market will remain illegal for then as Canadians we would have the right to sub to foreign signals, making it CLEARLY even more so, illegal.


Could you please explaining this reasoning a little further for me? Maybe you could tell me what Mr. Gold explained at the meeting.

It has been my understanding that the decoding of foreign encrypted signals has been ruled illegal. To me, this covers both testing (black market) and subbing (grey market). If we win with the Charter argument and the law is declared unconstitutional, then the decoding of foreign encrypted signals would become legal. Am I right so far?

The way I see it, there has never been any law specifically banning either testing or subbing. The law bans the decoding of foreign encrypted signals. So if we win with the Charter argument and the decoding of the signals becomes legal, then there is no law regulating testing or subbing. Testing and subbing both involve decoding the foreign encrypted signals. Since the decoding would be legal, there would be nothing that makes either testing or subbing illegal.

Of course, the government would probably make a new law that legalized subbing and banned testing, but that would be another matter for the future.

If you disagree, please point where I'm wrong.

[kalyna]

Sorry no go..

If you are not paying for it, its black market, decrypting without paying for it is illegal grey market covers paying for the sub.

TESTING and BLACK Market is illegal in Canada hence the 7-0 decision that issue has been closed period. The only thing we as Canadians can hope for legally is to be able to subscribe and that means winning the Supreme Court Charter Challenge.

Sad but true,

Kalyna

[1 CRAZY CANUCK]

Kalyna, my friend that's all I've been asking for since [what?] '94! - eh!
We, as Canadians, should have the RIGHTS to make the CHOICES. It's that simple! For the longest time I was using a "device" that anyone could connect to your phone line and your DirecTv receiver. Where a particular "marketing" company, in Canada [there was many of these] had already set-up a deal with a "mother" company over in the States and your receiver's request were processed through this little box via a "1-800 number"; and, it was charged to your account at the Canadian Sub-Station that you had signed-up with. You could order the "fights"; the "Specials"; the "Sports" [Center Ice; etc.]; the "PPV"; anything, just like you lived over there. But, "OUCH" did the exchange hurt! - eh!
And, all I've been fighting for is the right for a Canadian to purchase DirecTv; or, DishNetwork; just as easily as "BEV."; or, StarChoice is for us, now; and this should be his/her CHOICE!
"OUR RIGHTS TO OUR CHOICES; NOBODY SHOULD BE ABLE TO CLAIM "EXCLUSIVE", ON ANY OF THIS...NO ONE. -eh!
Why is this so hard to understand?
I was willing to pay until the R.C.M.P.'s warned the PUBLIC that "this" was worse than, "pirating". So, guess what happened? Hmmmm!

[cr0]

President Bush has just made a statement that Cubans should have
access to ALL foreign broadcasts. Should this not be so for
Canadians as well ??

[To The Real King!!]

Hi trusoulja2g

I agree with you totally. There is nothing in the law or the ruling that differentiates black or grey. The supreme court even said that at paragraph 2 when they said:


2 The respondents facilitate what is generally referred to as "grey marketing" of foreign broadcast signals. Although there is much debate -- indeed rhetoric -- about the term, it is not necessary to enter that discussion in these reasons. Rather, the central issue is the much narrower one surrounding the above statutory provision: does s. 9(1)(c) operate on these facts to prohibit the decryption of encrypted signals emanating from U.S. broadcasters? For the reasons that follow, my conclusion is that it does have this effect. Consequently, I would allow the appeal.

I am not sure what part of that is not understood but it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that the NARROW ISSUE is PROHIBITING the DECRYPTION and nothing else.

I think what Kal means is that they will try to change the law but that does not change the fact that if this offends our rights then the law is STRUCK. Here is what the constitution says about this:

Section 52 The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

Again I do not know what part of "OF NO FORCE OR EFFECT" that is not understood but the entire LAW will be struck relating to 9 (1) C and 10 (1) B which is the part that PROHIBITS the freedom to DECODE and then VIEW.

Here is the infringement and it does NOT TALK about whether you pay, don't pay or trade popsicles for it:


Section 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a)Freedom of conscience and religion;

(b)Freedom of thought, belief opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of communication;

(c)Freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d)Freedom of association.

Again I do not know what part of freedom of the press (to READ IT) or freedom of other means of communication (TV) is not understood but since its ONLY illegal to receive a signal without payment IF IT IS a signal that can be AUTHORIZED (and DirecTV® cannot be) what is unclear about you rights here.

In any case if there is an infringement of your right to freedom of speech (and that applies equally to the listener and the speaker) then the law DOES NOT EXIST as for the PROHIBITION. Simple.

Now Kal I know you are following what Mr. Gold says and he says that because he believes that it will be easier to fight on GREY than BLACK but in my opinion that is a PIPE DREAM he has, not reality. Does he really think this subterfuge will STOP BEV and the CROWN form talking about BLACK. You can be DAMN SURE it wont.

Anyhow the concept of http://www.legal-rights.org/images/rotate_rib.gif is for EVERYONE , not just the "wonderful people."

Secondly look at the cases that have WON THIS RIGHT.

TRY ZUNDEL for instance at:

http://www.legal-rights.org/rulings/zundel.html

Four justices found it to be an infringement on Zundel's rights under s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and additionally that right CANNOT be refuted under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a reasonable limit prescribed by law and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society? Yes HE WON. And this case is about distributing HATE material against JEWS which is a LOT more wrong than anyone receiving a TV signal free, believing it is NOT against the law because DirecTV® are not authorized in Canada. 17 Judges AGREED with that proposition yet WHO could agree with Zundel distributing HATE literature and a booklet " did 6 million really die." This is a horrible booklet and yet they believed he has the right under freedom of speech.

Now this guys website was later prohibited by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in January 2002 but he was STILL GRANTED a charter right by the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. See

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/news-comm/2002/NewsComm180102.asp?l=e

There are other sites about this creep and some that spoof him :

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/z/zundel-ernst/

http://www.zundelsite.org/

I wont go into many because there are HUNDREDS of sites because he is a REALLY BAD GUY. I just wish we could get 10% of the press this guy got.

You just cannot GET much worse than ZUNDEL. So we are NOT looking for "lily white" cases here and I believe that Mr. Gold is wrong if he imagines that. Its a very bad tactic in a courtroom. Yes we do NOT need people yelling about black but you do NOT hide it either.

It has been said many times and by Justices of the Supreme Court that the charter is not there to protect legality. Its the WORST CASES of freedoms that need protection, such as ZUNDEL so that we do not as a society prohibit speech or listening (viewing) because we do not agree with it in principle. The charter is there to protect the freedoms of speech (listening) or ANY freedom in the WORST cases.

Legality and good usually do NOT NEED protection but in this case they DO. But so does the BAD PART (if you will) the BLACK MARKET TOO. You can read WHO is covered at:

http://www.legal-rights.org/Laws/info_on_charter.html

From the University of Alberta. Almost all universities have section explaining this since the CHARTER is there to PROTECT YOU AGAINST the GOVERNMENT and nobody else. Many do not understand this. Because the government always thinks they have a valid objective in taking away rights, the CHARTER is to balance that unreasonable view. We KNOW they are often WRONG but they will never admit that and try to justify EVERYTHING they do from pepper spraying students to having criminal supporters get big government grants to being paid 650,000.00 for the same report 2 years in a row.

Read up on the rulings about charter infringements at:

http://www.legal-rights.org/courtrulings.html

at the left bottom area. You will soon learn that it is the ZUNDEL's and the ROBIN SHARPS and GAY rights in LITTLE SISTERS that win protection. Or the Cigarette companies that sell products that KILL hundreds of thousands every year. THOSE are the cases that WIN on the charter and someone should WAKE UP before we lose this for a bad presentation and surprise.

Because whether anyone likes it or not there will be intervention (if this gets to the Supreme Court) and ALL they will talk about is the BLACK MARKET. But the law was BADLY DRAFTED and to protect the rights of SUBSCRIBERS (and its ridiculous to prohibit them) you will AUTOMATICALLY also protect the black market, like it or not.

Remember it is the DECRYPTION (and therefore clear viewing) that is PROHIBITED and it is DECRYPTION that will be allowed since the law prohibiting decryption will be VOID if we win.

What is NOT illegal is therefore LEGAL in Canada, that is how law works.

So in my opinion it is a terrible mistake to try to present a false optic of this and talk of ONLY the Grey market in court. The issue will be the trenching upon the rights of those who wish to decrypt the signal, all of them no matter how they decrypt it.

Anyhow that's my opinion on this and I am keeping ithttp://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrkblack.gif

Thanks & Good Luck,

To The REAL King!!

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.gif

[trying2]

In my humble opinion.
Why? First we have to look at how this (as I stated before, WHOLE MESS originated) We could not subscribe to foreign broadcasting that did not met the Canadian content rules) Hence DTV and others could not sell to us. This content issue must be addressed one way or another FIRST. Our federal content rules have to change.. or the foreign broadcaster has to meet these rules under the CURRENT state of affairs. Nothing has change here. The court ruling was a reinterpretation of a law that had not/has not been federally changed. I believe the “theme” of not stealing what you cannot purchase still applies. To actually subscribe to a foreign service WAS the infraction, not “testing”.

What the court has ruled is that we simply cannot receive ANY foreign broadcasting from a non-licensed sat. supplier. That to me is misguided censorship in its worst form. With my proximity to the boarder, I can pick up TV Ariel broadcasts, I can pick up Am and FM radio stations. I like any other Canadian can subscribe/purchase foreign newspapers; I can subscribe/purchase foreign magazines and books. My point is... laws that weave as the politics sees fit.

So the whole argument left is not “if” I can purchase “grey”. The law already said no. The law has not changed. For this to come forth as the argument would mean that the law must change FIRST.

Without changing anything but an interpretation or existing wordings, they have said.. no you cannot receive this particular form of foreign material even if the signal is there. That is censorship.

Censorship is what the new appeal is about.

To argue about just a “grey” issue, the foreign broadcasters would jump on board in support.. as now they could expand their markets. They have already been down that Canadian road

[trusoulja2g]

Thank you, TTRK and trying2, for emphasizing my point.

Let's not kid ourselves here. This board is called the "Pirate's Den." Most of the information contained here is related to "black market" decoding of American TV signals. Kalyna, I know that you have provided a valuable service to the testing community in the past. In no way do I believe that it's all over for us. I have seen no indiction that the law is currently being enforced.

After thinking the matter through, it seems very unlikely to me that the court or government would revise the law to allow subscribing to DTV and ban testing. The last thing BEV and Sheila Copps want is to open up the mainstream Canadian TV market to foreign competition. Do you really think the government is going to allow DTV to actively advertise and attract subscribers (mostly from Bell and Shaw, the two main corporations fighting us), without having to follow CanCon regulations? That would be the most disatrous result for BEV and it just isn't going to happen. Allowing DTV to become a legal, authorized satellite TV provider in Canada would be a bigger revolution than allowing testing to continue. The grey market has the potential for far worse consequences for BEV and Shaw. Do you think the Canadian government really cares that Canadian dealers are exporting to the US, where they're are used illegally? Does the Canadian government care that DTV is losing money because of the Canadian dealers? NO! For Bell and the Canadian government, the only two options are a total ban or maintaining the pre-SC ruling status quo. We must have faith that the SC will realize that a total ban is completely unconstitutional. There is already political pressure at the grassroots level against a total ban, as the National Post article (posted in this forum) mentioned about the recent byelections. We may very well have a complete victory at the end of the Charter battle.

[chubba]

Originally posted by trusoulja2g
Thank you, TTRK and trying2, for emphasizing my point.

Let's not kid ourselves here. This board is called the "Pirate's Den." Most of the information contained here is related to "black market" decoding of American TV signals. Kalyna, I know that you have provided a valuable service to the testing community in the past. In no way do I believe that it's all over for us. I have seen no indiction that the law is currently being enforced.

After thinking the matter through, it seems very unlikely to me that the court or government would revise the law to allow subscribing to DTV and ban testing. The last thing BEV and Sheila Copps want is to open up the mainstream Canadian TV market to foreign competition. Do you really think the government is going to allow DTV to actively advertise and attract subscribers (mostly from Bell and Shaw, the two main corporations fighting us), without having to follow CanCon regulations? That would be the most disatrous result for BEV and it just isn't going to happen. Allowing DTV to become a legal, authorized satellite TV provider in Canada would be a bigger revolution than allowing testing to continue. The grey market has the potential for far worse consequences for BEV and Shaw. Do you think the Canadian government really cares that Canadian dealers are exporting to the US, where they're are used illegally? Does the Canadian government care that DTV is losing money because of the Canadian dealers? NO! For Bell and the Canadian government, the only two options are a total ban or maintaining the pre-SC ruling status quo. We must have faith that the SC will realize that a total ban is completely unconstitutional. There is already political pressure at the grassroots level against a total ban, as the National Post article (posted in this forum) mentioned about the recent byelections. We may very well have a complete victory at the end of the Charter battle.

Extremely well put, trusoulja2g

;)

[To The Real King!!]

Hi Folks,

There is no question that you folk are all correct on this.

If a distributor such as DirecTV® are NOT a lawful distributor and do not have authority to broadcast here or sell that signal in Canada, then how would it be possible to "steal" this signal. There is nothing in the law that prohibits you from receiving the signal ANY WAY YOU CAN, If the law (The RC Act 9(1)B and 10 (1) C trenches on your charter rights in that it censors the ability of Canadians to purchase or view this foreign signal. In Canada if something is not PROHIBITED then it is permitted.

If Decoding is prohibited via an "ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION" then that is CLEARLY against the charter 2B and because it also has the threat of "jail time" in the provision, it also infringes your rights under section 7. Where there are 2 Charter Rights that are prohibited (trenched upon) the Supreme Court has said that it will be virtually impossible for the government to save it by section 1. That is the worry here.

I have posted a page at legal-rights called:

http://www.legal-rights.org/charterengaged.html

and there is a ruling there by the Supreme Court of Canada on solicitation by prostitutes (which is not illegal) just as the act of subscribing would not be except for the "absolute Prohibition" which must be struck and which will give people a very good idea of what is acceptable under the law. Its at:

http://www.legal-rights.org/SCR193.html

That ruling and many others that can be seen at the lower left of the page at:

http://www.legal-rights.org/courtrulings.html

make it VERY CLEAR that because viewing TV is not a VIOLENT form of expression then it is a clear right of Canadians (save violence) to receive expression that has meaning. Even the ADVERTISEMENTS have been said by the SC to have meaning so there is no part of the TV Broadcasts that does NOT have meaning and therefore it is ALL protected under section 2B.

So the RIGHT is being trenched upon and what is unknown is "will it be saved by section 1". The answer is a clear NO because it is NOT implemented with "minimum Impairment" so as to justify it. For instance the government has to state their objective (culture?) and then explain HOW the law of "ABSOLUTE BAR or PROHIBITION" fits with the "Minimum Impairment" rule.

For instance what does a RELIGIOUS Broadcast have to do with Culture. What does NEWS of a happening in Pakistan where a Mr. Daniel Pearl was killed by extremists have to do with viewing a broadcast by Al-Jissera TV, reporting on that issue. And are there not may broadcasts from France that ASSIST in the culture of French speaking Canadians. So it may have been appropriate to ban CERTAIN Broadcasts (not in my opinion, but the courts) but there can be NO JUSTIFICATION to ban ALL BROADCASTS that are foreign from anywhere in the world and no matter WHAT expression they contain. That is the problem the government have and to me it cannot be justified.

If you read the ruling at

http://www.legal-rights.org/SCR193.html

you will see that there is a 3 part test initially.

(1) Does this law infringe and trench on charter rights under 2 b and 7?

(2) Is the means (absolute prohibition) "PROPORTIONAL" to the desired (according to the government) objective or is it is rationally connected to the legislative objectives, whatever they are and ;

(3) Is the prohibition done with a "MINIMUM IMPAIRMENT" of Canadians rights so that the prohibition interferes as little as possible with freedom of expression.

I wont go into arguing this here but in my view this does NOT pass any of these tests, is simply CENSORSHIP of what we can and cannot view andis a total denial of the right or "freedom of expression" and cannot be justified when it is called an "ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION".

And the lower courts AND the Supreme Court of Canada will have to rule that way.

Doing otherwise would go against the many rulings that they have made over the years and there is no reason for them to do this. This is just too clear an issue.

And it has noting whatsoever to do with TESTING or paying since the ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION is absolute irregardless of HOW you receive the signal. The word "ABSOLUTE " HERE is in reference to "PROHIBITION" and here is its ordinary meaning.

[quote]
absolute [adj.]
ETYM- Latin

[To The Real King!!]

Hi Folks,

There is no question that you folk are all correct on this.

If a distributor such as DirecTV® are NOT a lawful distributor and do not have authority to broadcast here or sell that signal in Canada, then how would it be possible to "steal" this signal that is abandoned like it was garbage. It is NOT encrypted to prevent Canadians from RECEIVING IT, but rather to get people to PAY for it where it is authorized for sale. Since they CANNOT sell it in Canada, they have NO LOSS and therefore what would you be STEALING? There is nothing in the law that prohibits you from receiving the signal ANY WAY YOU CAN, If the law (The RC Act 9(1)B and 10 (1) C ) trenches on your charter rights in that it CENSORS the ability of Canadians to DECRYPT or view this foreign signal and is therfore STRUCK. In Canada if something is not PROHIBITED (because it is STRUCK) then it is permitted.

If Decoding is prohibited via an "ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION" then that is CLEARLY against the charter 2B and because it also has the threat of "jail time" in the provision, it also infringes your rights under section 7. Where there are 2 Charter Rights that are prohibited (trenched upon) the Supreme Court has said that it will be virtually impossible for the government to save it by section 1. That is the only real worry here.

I have posted a page at legal-rights called:

http://www.legal-rights.org/charterengaged.html

and there is a ruling there by the Supreme Court of Canada on solicitation by prostitutes (which prostitution is not illegal) just as the act of subscribing would not be illegal except for the "absolute Prohibition" which must be struck. This will give people a very good idea of what is acceptable under the law and what is NOT and must be struck. There also must be a "minimum Impairment" of rights to accomplish the objective and so as to justify it in law. For instance the government has to state their objective (culture?) and then explain HOW the law of "ABSOLUTE BAR or PROHIBITION" fits with the "Minimum Impairment" rule.

http://www.legal-rights.org/SCR193.html

For instance what does a RELIGIOUS Broadcast have to do with Culture that is not MORE important to "freedom of Religion". What does NEWS of a terrible happening in Pakistan where a Mr. Daniel Pearl was killed by extremists and first revealed in a broadcast by Al-Jissera TV, reporting on that issue in terms of Culture? What culture? Does keeping Canadinas unaware of world events assist in our Canadian culture? And are there not many broadcasts from France that ASSIST in the culture of French speaking Canadians. What about the fact that section 27 of the charter says Canada is MULTICULTURAL and foreign broadcasts in various languages will assist in that end and noble right. So it may have been appropriate to ban CERTAIN Broadcasts (not in my opinion, but the courts) but there can be NO JUSTIFICATION to ban ALL BROADCASTS that are foreign from anywhere in the world and no matter WHAT expression they contain. That is the problem the government have and to me it cannot be justified.

If you read the ruling at

http://www.legal-rights.org/SCR193.html

you will see that there is a 3 part test initially to determine the justification of any government objetive.

(1) Does this law infringe and trench on charter rights under 2 b and 7, possibly 27 and 2 as well?

(2) Is the means (absolute prohibition) "PROPORTIONAL" to the desired (according to the government) objective or is it is rationally connected to the legislative objectives, whatever they are and ;

(3) Is the prohibition done with a "MINIMUM IMPAIRMENT" of Canadians rights so that the prohibition interferes as little as possible with freedom of expression.

I wont go into arguing this here but in my view this does NOT pass any of these tests, is simply CENSORSHIP of what we can and cannot view and is a total denial of the right or "freedom of expression" and cannot be justified when it is called an "ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION".

And the lower courts AND the Supreme Court of Canada will have to rule that way.

Doing otherwise would go against the many rulings that they have made over the years and there is no reason for them to do this. This is just too clear an issue.

And it has nothing whatsoever to do with TESTING or paying since the ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION is absolute regardless of HOW you receive the signal, that is totally unimportant to the prohibition claimed. The word "ABSOLUTE " HERE is in reference to "PROHIBITION" and here is its ordinary meaning.


absolute {adj.}
ETYM- Latin absolutus , p. p. of absolvere : cf. French absolu . Related to Absolve .
1. Complete and without restriction or qualification; sometimes used informally as intensifiers; "absolute freedom"; "an absolute dimwit"; SYN. downright, out-and-out, rank, right-down, sheer.
2. Expressing finality with no implication of possible change; "an absolute (or unequivocal) quarantee to respect the nation's authority"; SYN. conclusive.
3. Not capable of being violated or infringed; "absolute human rights"; SYN. infrangible, inviolable.
4. Not limited by law; "an absolute monarch."
5. Perfect or complete or pure; "absolute loyalty"; "absolute silence"; "absolute alcohol."

If something is done WITHOUT RESTRICTION OR QUALIFICATION then how can it be "proportional" or with "minimum impairment."

Absolute is as maximum and as TOTAL as it gets.

The right to "FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION" is a FUNDAMENTAL right and it can not be considered to be FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE to deny that right.

And most of all it is certainly not a "PESKY RIGHT" as it is characterized by Mr. McKenzie in his diatribe at:

http://www.legal-rights.org/bell/ccrmckenzie.html

It will be a PERFECT Document to show the court, any court, where he tries to represent anyone as an intervenor in this matter. His simple belief that this is a "PESKY RIGHT" is very liable to immediately turn off the court to his opinion and argument, even before he starts arguing. So he was always afraid of this argument on our part and I now doubt that we will see him in any court on this issuehttp://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrkblack.gif

Thanks & Good Luck,
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/rotate_rib.gif
To The REAL King!!

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif

And that CERTAINLY will not mike it a bad day for me :)

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.gif

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please!


Please DONATE for the SUPREME COURT CENSORSHIP BATTLE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html) <-- Click here Please!

Por favor dona para la BATALLA EN LA SUPREMA CORTE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)<-- Haz Click aqui!