Trudeau (and 29 other Liberal MPs) voted for Harper’s explicitly xenophobic Barbaric Cultural Practices Act.
Every year, 15 million girls are forced into marriage worldwide. Complications from childbirth are the leading cause of death among these child brides. Physical abuse, sexual slavery, and so-called ‘honour’ killings are also carried out daily against girls and women around the world. A brutal practice carried out in some African and Middle Eastern countries is female genital mutilation, which has impacted more than 125 million girls and women alive today
So banning that is a bad thing?
The public reaction and the initial intent of the bill from a conservative perspective may be abhorrent but…
This might not be too bad for Kim Dotcom, if he could be prosecuted in NZ, plead guilty and get home detention
Hadn't thought of it that way, let's hope so. Much as many people dislike the man injustice is still injustice.
The rest of that bill makes pretty scarey reading though, the paranoid loon in me sees US influence all through it.
245 Application of section 243 to acts outside New Zealand looks ominous.
Part of the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill.
And Dot Com's defence could be screwed if this is retroactive..
245 Application of section 243 to acts outside New Zealand
Section 243 applies to an act that has occurred outside New Zealand and that is alleged to constitute an offence resulting in proceeds only if—
the act was an offence under the law of the place where and when it occurred; or
it is an act to which section 7 or 7A of this Act applies; or
an enactment provides that the act is an offence in New Zealand, and no additional requirement exists for the act to be an offence in the place where and when it occurred.
If a person is charged with an offence under section 243 and subsection (1)(a) applies, it is to be presumed, unless that person puts the matter at issue, that the act was an offence under the law of the place where and when it occurred.
Seems like the kind of hypothetical that can only be kept aloft by frantically flapping one’s willingly suspended critical faculties.
Are you shooting holes in my argument?
Honestly, who, these days, deletes TXTs from their phone? They don't take up much room so the only reason would be, I believe, to hide something.
A veritable pile….
An ostentatious one at that...
I am surprised nobody has mentioned this…
Trudeau is the eldest son of former Prime Minister of Canada Pierre Trudeau and Margaret Trudeau.
A new political dynasty?.
The first Trudeau to arrive in Canada was Etienne Trudeau (1641–1712), a carpenter and home builder, in 1659.
Good roots, similar to our Samuel Parnell
Samuel Duncan Parnell (19 February 1810 – 17 December 1890) was an early New Zealand settler often credited with the establishment of the eight-hour day in New Zealand.
He trained as carpenter's apprentice until 1834, when he took a job at a joinery on Theobald's Road in London. As carpenters in London routinely worked 12 to 14 hours per day, the problems with such long working days would have been painstakingly clear to him.
But hey… There goes the neighbourhood…
So if I copy someones computer file, and the court holds that to be their property, and then I destroy that copy, have I vandalised their property?
Technically yes but the intent would be dubious, vandalising or destroying a copy serves no purpose other than to conceal you posession of the document and should be regarded as deception.
Reading a document is a great example – is entering a building and reading a document then leaving theft?
No, not theft, the test for theft is to permanently deprive the owner.
Interesting point though. Under section 230…
Taking, obtaining, or copying trade secrets
“(1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who, with intent to obtain any pecuniary advantage or to cause loss to any other person,—
“(a)dishonestly and without claim of right, takes, obtains, or copies any document or any model or other depiction of any thing or process containing or embodying any trade secret, knowing that it contains or embodies a trade secret; or
“(b)dishonestly and without claim of right, takes or obtains any copy of any document or any model or other depiction of any thing or process containing or embodying any trade secret, knowing that it contains or embodies a trade secret.
So it would seem that if you employed someone with a “photographic Memory” to read the formula for a top secret widget then has any law been broken? and if you then manufacture said widget and claimed you were “told by an associate” how to design and manufacture said widget, what law has been broken? Of course it is patently wrong to do such a thing but law is a tricky thing.
(Patently wrong… fnahh)
Surely it is a matter of intent? To gain information for the benefit of someone other than those intended.
To use a password without the express permission of the "setter" of that password means that you are deceiving the authorisation process so if the intent was to gain advantage by deception then surely this constitutes an offence, yes?.
Part 10 of the crimes act is full of parts that seem to me to meet this kind of interpretation.
But then, I Am Not A Lawyer. (I just can't bring myself to use that acronym)
Copyright is evil and should be abolished. Art yearns to be free…
You can sing for your supper but I won’t buy you breakfast, lunch or tea…
/gets popcorn, sits back in anticipation…