Interesting stuff – I know Canada doesn’t have as much protection of freedom of speech as the U.S., but I wonder if there is anything to the letter at the top here in which the writer claims the journalist could be prosecuted for being involved with bringing President Bush to Canada? Probably not – but I don’t know enough about Canadian law.
This link contains a letter written to a journalist, basically saying the journalist could be prosecuted under Canadian laws:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2004/cover112704.htm
Canada Free Press threatened with jail for supporting Bush
Cover Story
Canada Free Press threatened with jail for supporting Bush
November 27, 2004
Re: your article in the free press.
( By your tone, and obvious despisal of the anti-Bush protestors, you and your free press is no more independent and fair than the corporate owned media. If you and your editors want to affiliate yourself with them, and should you have any say in Bush’s visit here, as such you and your colleagues could be personally liable to prosecution under the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act by virtue of section 21 of the Canadian Criminal Code, for crimes so serious that they are punishable in Canada by up to life imprisonment.)
Here are two articles you may wish to educate yourself by (sic):
Gloria Bergen
If you follow the link above, below this letter are two letters written to the Canadian government by Canadian law professors, citing incorrect “facts” and misrepresenting things such as White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalaze’s memorandum on treatment of detainees, that make the argument that Canadian government officials could be prosecuted for extending the invitation to Bush to speak – the letter writer extends the prosecution to the journalist, should she have had anything to do with the invitation.
Interesting stuff – follow the link and read the whole think for yourselves.
It seems to me that the professors are trying to use the laws to stifle debate and to control government policy – and that it’s quite a stretch to apply it that way.
However, one can see why the U.S. has been very reluctant to sign off on the ICC treaties, which would give foreign courts jurisdiction to pursue claims such as these.