<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
>

<channel>
	<title>Index on Censorship &#187; Canada</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/tag/canada/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.indexoncensorship.org</link>
	<description>for free expression</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 16:22:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
<!-- podcast_generator="Blubrry PowerPress/4.0.8" -->
	<itunes:summary>for free expression</itunes:summary>
	<itunes:author>Index on Censorship</itunes:author>
	<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:image href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/powerpress/itunes_default.jpg" />
	<itunes:subtitle>for free expression</itunes:subtitle>
	
		<item>
		<title>Canada: Activist charged with criminal defamation</title>
		<link>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/09/canada-activist-charged-with-criminal-defamation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/09/canada-activist-charged-with-criminal-defamation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 15:26:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Marta Cooper</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Index Index]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minipost]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[activism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criminal libel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dan Kellar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[g20]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=26689</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Ontario Provincial Police have charged an activist with two counts of defamatory libel for online comments he made regarding undercover police officers. Using fake names, Dan Kellar outed two officers who had infiltrated activist networks. Upon learning that one of them was spotted in Toronto, he put out a “community alert’’ on the website of an activist group he was involved with. Police claim the [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/09/canada-activist-charged-with-criminal-defamation/">Canada: Activist charged with criminal defamation</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org">Index on Censorship</a>.</p>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[Ontario Provincial Police have <a title="The Record - Activist charged with criminal defamation over posting about undercover officers" href="http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/593237--activist-charged-with-criminal-defamation-over-posting-about-undercover-officers" target="_blank">charged an activist</a> with two counts of defamatory libel for online comments he made regarding <a title="The Record - Activist charged with criminal defamation over posting about undercover officers" href="http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/593237--activist-charged-with-criminal-defamation-over-posting-about-undercover-officers" target="_blank">undercover police officers</a>. Using fake names, Dan Kellar outed two officers who had infiltrated activist networks. Upon learning that one of them was spotted in Toronto, he put out a “community alert’’ on the website of an activist group he was involved with. Police claim the comments were likely to injure the reputation of the officers by exposing them to hatred, contempt or ridicule. Kellar says the charges are an attempt to stifle dissent. He will appear in court in Toronto on 20 September.<p>The post <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/09/canada-activist-charged-with-criminal-defamation/">Canada: Activist charged with criminal defamation</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org">Index on Censorship</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/09/canada-activist-charged-with-criminal-defamation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canada: Decision to pull Dire Straits song reversed</title>
		<link>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/09/canada-decision-to-pull-dire-straits-song-reversed/</link>
		<comments>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/09/canada-decision-to-pull-dire-straits-song-reversed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2011 08:58:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sara Yasin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Index Index]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minipost]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canadian Broadcast Standards Council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[censorship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dire Straits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[music]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=26307</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) overturned a January decision to pull a 1985 song by the popular Dire Straits. The song, &#8220;Money for nothing&#8221;, was pulled from airwaves after complaints over the lyrics, which use the word &#8220;faggot&#8221;. The council reversed the decision after considering the meaning of the lyrics, which were meant to be [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/09/canada-decision-to-pull-dire-straits-song-reversed/">Canada: Decision to pull Dire Straits song reversed</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org">Index on Censorship</a>.</p>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[The <a title="Index on Censorship: Canada" href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/tag/canada/" target="_blank">Canadian</a> Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-14750076">overturned a January decision</a> to pull a 1985 song by the popular Dire Straits. The song, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTP2RUD_cL0&amp;ob=av2n">&#8220;Money for nothing&#8221;</a>, was pulled from airwaves after complaints over the lyrics, which use the word &#8220;faggot&#8221;. The council reversed the decision after considering the meaning of the lyrics, which were meant to be satirical.

&nbsp;<p>The post <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/09/canada-decision-to-pull-dire-straits-song-reversed/">Canada: Decision to pull Dire Straits song reversed</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org">Index on Censorship</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/09/canada-decision-to-pull-dire-straits-song-reversed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>UK: New Google Street View privacy pressure</title>
		<link>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/10/uk-google-street-view/</link>
		<comments>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/10/uk-google-street-view/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:45:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>William Clowes</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Index Index]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minipost]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Germany]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google street view]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Information Commissioner's Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=17033</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), Britain&#8217;s privacy watchdog, has reopened its investigation into Google Street View after the company admitted it copied personal data. Google is facing similar pressures from privacy watchdogs in other countries, including Spain, Germany, and Canada. In May, the ICO had investigated revelations that Google had gathered unprotected information but it concluded [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/10/uk-google-street-view/">UK: New Google Street View privacy pressure</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org">Index on Censorship</a>.</p>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), Britain&#8217;s privacy watchdog, <a title="BBC: Privacy body to re-examine Google" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11614970" target="_blank">has reopened its investigation</a> into Google Street View after the company admitted it copied personal data. Google is facing similar pressures from privacy watchdogs in other countries, including <a title="PC World: Spain Moves to Fine Google Over Street View" href="http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/208173/spain_moves_to_fine_google_over_street_view.html" target="_blank">Spain</a>, <a title="Guardian: Google defends Germany Street View rollout" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/13/google-germany-street-view" target="_blank">Germany</a>, and <a title="Vancouver Sun: Google Street View broke Canada's privacy laws: commissioner  Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Google+Street+View+broke+Canada+privacy+laws+commissioner/3694285/story.html#ixzz13MoixKVN" href="http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Google+Street+View+broke+Canada+privacy+laws+commissioner/3694285/story.html" target="_blank">Canada</a>. In May, the ICO had investigated revelations that Google had gathered unprotected information but it <a title="BBC: Google cleared of wi-fi snooping" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10805090" target="_blank">concluded</a> that no “significant” personal details had been collected. The renewed scrutiny stems from <a title="Telegraph: Google spied on British emails and computer passwords " href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8083008/Google-spied-on-British-emails-and-computer-passwords.html" target="_blank">Google’s admission</a>, following analysis by other privacy bodies, that they had harvested more information than previously thought.<p>The post <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/10/uk-google-street-view/">UK: New Google Street View privacy pressure</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org">Index on Censorship</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/10/uk-google-street-view/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canada: Google Street View violates privacy laws</title>
		<link>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/10/canada-google-street-view-violates-privacy-laws/</link>
		<comments>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/10/canada-google-street-view-violates-privacy-laws/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:34:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Index on Censorship</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Index Index]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minipost]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News and Analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google street view]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=16881</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Google has been found in violation of  Canadian privacy law. On Tuesday the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Jennifer Stoddart, stated in a news release on the Commissioner&#8217;s website that Google&#8217;s Street View mapping cars had unintentionally gathered personal information about Canadian citizens. This collection of citizens information was a &#8220;serious violation of Canadians&#8217; privacy rights,&#8221; said [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/10/canada-google-street-view-violates-privacy-laws/">Canada: Google Street View violates privacy laws</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org">Index on Censorship</a>.</p>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[Google has been found in <a title="Guardian: Google Street View broke Canada's privacy law with Wi-Fi capture" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/19/google-street-view-privacy-canada" target="_blank">violation of  Canadian privacy law</a>. On Tuesday the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, <a title="Biography of Jennifer Stoddart" href="http://www.priv.gc.ca/aboutUs/bio_e.cfm#contenttop" target="_blank">Jennifer Stoddart</a>, stated in a <a title="Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada: Google contravened Canadian privacy law, investigation finds" href="http://www.priv.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2010/nr-c_101019_e.cfm" target="_blank">news release </a>on the Commissioner&#8217;s website that Google&#8217;s Street View mapping cars had unintentionally gathered personal information about Canadian citizens. This collection of citizens information was a &#8220;serious violation of Canadians&#8217; privacy rights,&#8221; said Stoddart.<p>The post <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/10/canada-google-street-view-violates-privacy-laws/">Canada: Google Street View violates privacy laws</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org">Index on Censorship</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/10/canada-google-street-view-violates-privacy-laws/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canada: Activist silenced by &#8220;astonishing&#8221; bail conditions</title>
		<link>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/10/canada-activist-silenced-by-astonishing-bail-conditions/</link>
		<comments>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/10/canada-activist-silenced-by-astonishing-bail-conditions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:03:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Intern</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Index Index]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minipost]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[G20 Protests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=16804</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A Canadian court has placed numerous restrictions on an activist as part of his bail release. Alex Hundert may not speak with any member of the press, nor may he plan, attend, or participate in any public event related to a political issue. He was charged with three counts of conspiracy for involvement in violent [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/10/canada-activist-silenced-by-astonishing-bail-conditions/">Canada: Activist silenced by &#8220;astonishing&#8221; bail conditions</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org">Index on Censorship</a>.</p>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[A Canadian court has placed <a title="the Star: 'Staggering' conditions on accused G20 ringleader " href="http://www.thestar.com/news/torontog20summit/article/875746--staggering-conditions-on-accused-g20-ringleader?bn=1" target="_blank">numerous restrictions</a> on an activist as part of his bail release. Alex Hundert may not speak with any member of the press, nor may he plan, attend, or participate in any public event related to a political issue. He was charged with three counts of conspiracy for involvement in violent activities at the G20 summit in Toronto last June. Hundert was released in July on $100,000 bail with around 20 court-imposed restrictions, including a ban on attending public demonstrations. After being rearrested for participating in a panel discussion at Ryerson University, he was released on 13 October on the condition that he adhere to <a title="National Post: G20 accused forced to accept 'silent' bail conditions, family says" href="http://www.nationalpost.com/news/accused+forced+accept+silent+bail+conditions+family+says/3683081/story.html" target="_blank">additional restrictions</a>. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has said the measures are &#8220;<a title="570 News: Activist finds big supporters" href="http://www.570news.com/radio/570news/article/115348--activist-finds-big-supporters" target="_blank">only aimed at silencing speech</a>&#8220;.<p>The post <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/10/canada-activist-silenced-by-astonishing-bail-conditions/">Canada: Activist silenced by &#8220;astonishing&#8221; bail conditions</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org">Index on Censorship</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/10/canada-activist-silenced-by-astonishing-bail-conditions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canada: Website operator charged with libel</title>
		<link>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/09/canada-website-operator-charged-with-libel/</link>
		<comments>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/09/canada-website-operator-charged-with-libel/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:47:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Intern</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Index Index]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minipost]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=15901</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The Royal Canadian Mounted Police announced on Friday that a blogger in Calvary faces five charges related to his website. John Kelly, 53, has long been highly critical of Calgary police officers, using his site to accuse officers of “perjury, corruption and destroying evidence” according to the RCMP. Charges include four counts of publishing libellous statements on the [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/09/canada-website-operator-charged-with-libel/">Canada: Website operator charged with libel</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org">Index on Censorship</a>.</p>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Royal Canadian Mounted Police announced on Friday that a blogger in Calvary <a title="Calgary Herald: Police Lay Charges of Libel, Obstruction Against Calgary Webiste Operator" href="http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Police+charges+libel+obstruction+against+Calgary+website+operator/3539705/story.html#ixzz104APPuqQ" target="_blank">faces five charges related to his website</a>. John Kelly, 53, has<a title="Calgary Herald: Charges expected for website critical of Calgary police officers" href="http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Charges+expected+website+critical+Calgary+police+officers/3538714/story.html" target="_blank"> long been </a>highly critical of Calgary police officers, using his site to accuse officers of “perjury, corruption and destroying evidence” according to the RCMP. Charges include four counts of publishing libellous statements on the Internet against specific police officers between November 2009 and Sept. 4, 2010. Critics of the Defamatory Libel law <a title="Rabble: The Case Against John Kelly" href="http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/djclimenhaga/2010/09/case-against-john-kelly-canadas-unconstitutional-defamatory-libe" target="_blank">assert that </a>it “violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”.<p>The post <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/09/canada-website-operator-charged-with-libel/">Canada: Website operator charged with libel</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org">Index on Censorship</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/09/canada-website-operator-charged-with-libel/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Quebec to ban niqab</title>
		<link>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/05/quebec-ban-niqab/</link>
		<comments>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/05/quebec-ban-niqab/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 15:55:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Intern</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Index Index]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minipost]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[veil]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=12525</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Quebec&#8217;s legislature has introduced a bill which could ban woman wearing the niqab face veil if they wish to access public services in the province. Public debate on the controversial Bill 94 has been suspended until August after more than 60 recommendations were received in the first three days of testimony. It is now unlikely [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/05/quebec-ban-niqab/">Quebec to ban niqab</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org">Index on Censorship</a>.</p>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a title="Montreal Gazette: Multiculturalism policy is 'idiocy', Bill 94  hearing told  Read more:  http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Multiculturalism+policy+idiocy+Bill+hearing+told/3054131/story.html#ixzz0orXC5LAh" href="http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Multiculturalism+policy+idiocy+Bill+hearing+told/3054131/story.html">Quebec&#8217;s  legislature</a> has introduced a bill which could ban woman wearing the niqab face veil if they wish to access public services in the province. Public debate on the controversial Bill 94 has been <a title="Montreal Gazette: Multiculturalism policy is 'idiocy', Bill 94 hearing told  Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Multiculturalism+policy+idiocy+Bill+hearing+told/3054131/story.html#ixzz0or6ej8cs" href="http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Multiculturalism+policy+idiocy+Bill+hearing+told/3054131/story.html">suspended until August</a> after more than 60 recommendations were received in the first three days of testimony. It is now unlikely that the bill will be voted into law before the end of the current legislative session in June.<p>The post <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/05/quebec-ban-niqab/">Quebec to ban niqab</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org">Index on Censorship</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/05/quebec-ban-niqab/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canada: No constitutional right to protect sources, court rules</title>
		<link>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/05/canada-right-protect-source/</link>
		<comments>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/05/canada-right-protect-source/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2010 17:01:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Intern</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Index Index]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minipost]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[source protection]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=12133</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that journalists do not have the constitutional right to protect the identity of their sources. The judgment means  the question of whether a reporter must reveal their sources should be decided on a case-by-case basis. At issue were a series of articles written in 2001 by Andrew McIntosh of [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/05/canada-right-protect-source/">Canada: No constitutional right to protect sources, court rules</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org">Index on Censorship</a>.</p>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Supreme Court <a title="Star: No blanket immunity for journalistic source, top court" href="http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/806037--no-blanket-immunity-for-journalistic-sources-top-court-rules?bn=1" target="_blank">ruled on Friday</a> that journalists do not have the constitutional right to protect the identity of their sources. The judgment means  the question of whether a reporter must reveal their sources should be decided on a case-by-case basis. At issue were a<a title="Post: L'affaire Grand-Mere: a timeline" href="http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=3002942" target="_blank"> series of articles</a> written in 2001 by Andrew McIntosh of the National Post newspaper. The pieces claimed that prime-minster, Jean Chrétien, had intervened on behalf of a constituent who was seeking a loan from a government-owned development bank. The bank claimed that documents which McIntosh used in support of his allegations were in fact forgeries, and a search warrant was issued to seize copies. The <a title="SCC: R v National Post" href="http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2010/2010scc16/2010scc16.html" target="_blank">court found</a> that the warrant was justified, because the accusations of forgery were “of sufficient seriousness to justify the decision of the police to investigate”.<p>The post <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/05/canada-right-protect-source/">Canada: No constitutional right to protect sources, court rules</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org">Index on Censorship</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/05/canada-right-protect-source/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canada takes chill off libel laws</title>
		<link>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/12/canada-takes-chill-off-libel-laws/</link>
		<comments>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/12/canada-takes-chill-off-libel-laws/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:19:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Index on Censorship</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Index Index]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minipost]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ottawa Citizen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public defence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=6894</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The Canadian Supreme Court ruled on 23 December to strengthen the public interest defence in libel cases. The chief justice stated that the law as it stood did not &#8220;give adequate weight&#8221; to free expression. The court also moved to change the wording of the defence of “responsible journalism” to “responsible communication”, which potentially allows [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/12/canada-takes-chill-off-libel-laws/">Canada takes chill off libel laws</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org">Index on Censorship</a>.</p>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Canadian Supreme Court ruled on 23 December to strengthen the public interest defence in libel cases. The chief justice stated that the law as it stood did not &#8220;give adequate weight&#8221; to free expression. The court also moved to change the wording of the defence of “responsible journalism” to “responsible communication”, which potentially allows the law to cover new media such as blogs. The decision followed high profile libel cases involving two newspapers, the Star and the Ottawa Citizen. 

<a href="http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/742121--rewriting-our-libel-laws ">Read more</a>

<p>The post <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/12/canada-takes-chill-off-libel-laws/">Canada takes chill off libel laws</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org">Index on Censorship</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/12/canada-takes-chill-off-libel-laws/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canadian paper apologises for PM wafer row</title>
		<link>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/07/canadian-paper-apologises-for-pm-wafer-row/</link>
		<comments>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/07/canadian-paper-apologises-for-pm-wafer-row/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:23:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Index on Censorship</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Index Index]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minipost]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephen Harper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Telegraph-Journal of Saint John]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=4603</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The Telegraph-Journal of Saint John  newspaper has issued a front-page apology to the Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper for its earlier story suggesting he slipped a communion wafer into his jacket pocket during a Catholic funeral mass. The publisher and editor are no longer with the paper after it was forced to apologise. Read more [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/07/canadian-paper-apologises-for-pm-wafer-row/">Canadian paper apologises for PM wafer row</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org">Index on Censorship</a>.</p>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Telegraph-Journal of Saint John  newspaper has issued a front-page apology to the Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper for its earlier story suggesting he slipped a communion wafer into his jacket pocket during a Catholic funeral mass. The publisher and editor are no longer with the paper after it was forced to apologise. Read more <a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/673262">here</a><p>The post <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/07/canadian-paper-apologises-for-pm-wafer-row/">Canadian paper apologises for PM wafer row</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org">Index on Censorship</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/07/canadian-paper-apologises-for-pm-wafer-row/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced

 Served from: www.indexoncensorship.org @ 2013-05-18 11:21:51 by W3 Total Cache --