From: imprint@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (IMPRINT -- UW's Student Newspaper)
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 15:48:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.151223.12312@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> [A repost of an article related to an alledged ban of _High Times_ in
> Canada. Anyone know the real story? - Carl]
> 
> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
> 
> >In article <_z#nw=l.adamsr@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
> >>Thus spake clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis):
> >>>
> >>>The situation is no different than the US.  Where the Supreme Court
> >>>can and does permit exceptions to the constitution, even though there
> >>>are no explicit escape clauses.  One only need look at the exceptions
> >>>that have resulted in the suspensions of due process in property seizures
> >>>permitted under the anti-drug and anti-organized crime legislation,
> >>>or the violations of two contitutional clauses by the seizure
> >>>of Dr. Alvarez Machain.

[deletia]

> >>	Eliminate the most obvious form of Canadian censorship (explicit
> >>sexual material) for a moment, and examine some of the other materials
> >>subject to censorship there, most notable among which is material which
> >>takes a position in opposition to your current legal or political postures.
> >>As an example of this kind of material - try to purchase or even subscribe
> >>to a magazine such as "High Times" in Canada. Such magazines have *NO*
> >>explicit sexual content,

It's also against the law to commit suicide...High Times, although illegal,
can be subscribed to by Canadians.  Canada's most infamous hemp activist,
Marc Emery (who has recently moved to Tibet), owned a bookstore in London
Ontario where he sold High Times openly.  His store was about 400 yards from
the police headquarters, who knew what he was up to.  There is a department
within this university, for example, that has a subscription to High Times.
Illegal, but tolerated.

[CCF, NDP ...Marxist-leninist etc. deleted]

> >can pass any law that it damn well feels like, regardless of what the
> >constitution says.  The US could pass a law tomorrow that makes disparaging
> >remarks about George Bush illegal.  And the police could arrest people and
> >lay charges.  And lower courts may even be able to convict.
> >
> >The constitution doesn't come into play until and unless those people
> >arrested challenge the law they were arrested under as being
> >unconstitutional.  Then the Supreme Court gets to decide whether the
> >law stands or not (or a lower court points at a previous Supreme Court
> >decision and makes a ruling based upon that).  The American system works
> >that way.  And the Canadian system works that very same way.
> >
Note that one has to have a rather substantial bank account to challenge
the law.  Also, it's of interest that Mulroney has canned the multi-
million dollar program to fund citizens who wanted to challenge various
elements of the constitution.

> >Perhaps "High Times" could (I have no idea, I've never seen one, but
> >I have heard of it methinks) be considered in violation of the
> >hate speech (Keegstra) or knowing false news/hatred (Zundel) laws.  But
> >again, as Carl's quotes have shown, the American Supreme Court
> >has indicated, time after time, that they *would* uphold bans
> >of such material provided that the likelyhood of the material
> >causing nontrivial harm was sufficiently high.  If there's a difference
> >between Canada and the US here, it's only in how "high" "high" has
> >to be.
> >
> >If customs is indeed impounding High Times due to political content,
> >and High Times isn't even advocating the violation of Canadian
> >law, all it would take is for one person to stand on their hind
> >feet and challenge the ban.  There's no way on earth that the
> >Supreme Court would uphold the ban unless the magazine has things
> >you're not telling us about.

It doesn't. And this is why the magazine has the "illegal but tolerated" status
And if anyone wants to give me a quarter million or so dollars, I'd be
happy to challenge the law.

> 
>
> >Frankly, I suspect that if High Times is indeed being impounded
> >it's not because of content.  You see, if High Times doesn't
> >want to collect Canadian GST from Canadian subscribers then
> >High Times can't mail it into the country.  And High Times
> >is probably one of those rags that would rather rant about
> >a political conspiracy rather than admit that they simply
> >don't feel like collecting the tax.  [Yes, foreign GST collection
> >is indeed silly, but it has nothing to do with free speech.]
> >

Wrong. There's a huge market in Canada for High Times and related material.
No business in their right mind would refuse a market of a couple million
people (10-30% of 26 million) because of a boneheaded thing like the GST.

As for it's content...occasionally there are features about how to "grow
your own", best ways to ingest various drugs, etc.  So, occasionally the
magazine does advocate the consumption of a naturally occurring but illegal
plant.  I do so occasionally as well, within this newspaper, and the police
haven't yet come to see me. 
WRT books containing "grow tips" and actual consumption of cannabis itself,
I'd posit that the attitude in Canada is quite tolerant, especially when I
read horror stories on the net about American drug raids, zero tolerance,
etc.

-- 
> >Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
> >Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
> >Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
> --
> Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Dave Thomson, U of Waterloo
- opinions mine, not imprint's


-- 

Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal.computing