elapsed, the more the public interest in discussion of the history of President Mitterrand’s two terms of office prevailed over the requirements of protecting the President’s rights with regard to medical confidentiality. This certainly does not mean that the court considers that the requirements of historical debate may release medical practitioners from the duty of confidentiality, …However, once the duty of confidentiality has been breached,… the passage of time must be taken into account in assessing whether such a serious measure as banning a book – a measure which in the instant case likewise general and absolute – was compatible with freedom of expression.” I am in respectful agreement with the sentiments expressed above, and in my view are applicable with equal force to the ‘dead’ persons protection under scrutiny. Criminalizing satire. Under section 103(a) publication of a “defamatory matter” is unlawful unless it is true and it was for the public benefit that it should be published. This section seems to be premised on the idea that deliberate lies, exaggeration and distortion of reality cannot serve any usefulness connected to the purposes of freedom of expression. Because satire by its nature distorts and exaggerates reality, it follows that by providing that publication of a defamatory matter is unlawful provided it is true and for the public benefit, section 103 has the effect of implicitly criminalizing satirical expression. Satirical expression, notwithstanding the fact that it distorts and exaggerates reality, assists individuals in attaining and fostering political participation. Commenting, (in a different context), on the argument that deliberate lies do not in any way contribute to furthering the values underlying guaranteeing freedom of expression, the Supreme Court of Canada R v Zundel (Mclachlin J) said the following: “[T]he submission presents two difficulties which are, in my view, insurmountable. The first stems from the difficulty of
elapsed, the more the public interest in discussion of the history of President Mitterrand’s two terms of office prevailed over the requirements of protecting the President’s rights with regard to medical confidentiality. This certainly does not mean that the court considers that the requirements of historical debate may release medical practitioners from the duty of confidentiality, …However, once the duty of confidentiality has been breached,… the passage of time must be taken into account in assessing whether such a serious measure as banning a book – a measure which in the instant case likewise general and absolute – was compatible with freedom of expression.” I am in respectful agreement with the sentiments expressed above, and in my view are applicable with equal force to the ‘dead’ persons protection under scrutiny. Criminalizing satire. Under section 103(a) publication of a “defamatory matter” is unlawful unless it is true and it was for the public benefit that it should be published. This section seems to be premised on the idea that deliberate lies, exaggeration and distortion of reality cannot serve any usefulness connected to the purposes of freedom of expression. Because satire by its nature distorts and exaggerates reality, it follows that by providing that publication of a defamatory matter is unlawful provided it is true and for the public benefit, section 103 has the effect of implicitly criminalizing satirical expression. Satirical expression, notwithstanding the fact that it distorts and exaggerates reality, assists individuals in attaining and fostering political participation. Commenting, (in a different context), on the argument that deliberate lies do not in any way contribute to furthering the values underlying guaranteeing freedom of expression, the Supreme Court of Canada R v Zundel (Mclachlin J) said the following: “[T]he submission presents two difficulties which are, in my view, insurmountable. The first stems from the difficulty of
Peta%20v%20Minister%20of%20Law%20%26%20Constitutional%20Affairs.docx