Newsgroups: alt.censorship From: ae062@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jennifer Clarke Wilkes) Subject: CANADIAN GOV'T CENSORS GAMES Message-ID: Sender: news@freenet.carleton.ca Reply-To: ae062@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jennifer Clarke Wilkes) Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 13:09:28 GMT Lines: 70 On April 20, 1994, the Canadian Minister of Justice, Allan Rock, tabled draft amendments to the Criminal Code intended to protect society from the pernicious influence of so-called killer cards and games. Canada has for some time been in the grip of national hysteria over this supposed threat to society, in particular the Serial Killer board game and the Eclipse Comics True Crime trading cards. A vocal opponent has been the mother of a serial killer victim (Debbie Mahaffey, mother of Leslie (in whose death Paul Teale and Karla Homolka are implicated). She is a very sympathetic figure and has been immensely helpful to groups opposed to "violence in entertainment" in Canada. The board game in question is repeatedly described as killing babies. It isn't. It is about murder, but is a tongue-in-cheek effort aimed at a small adult market. It's expensive and hand-made, with rather poor quality components, and not attractive to or even sold to children. Most important, it is no longer being produced (public outrage drove the game's creator out of his job and away from the city where he lived). True Crime cards are also marketed to a small adult audience. No criminals profit from their sale: all info on the cards is condensed from material in the public domain. Anyone can read all the gory details they want in a newspaper or "true crime" novel. But for the sake of protecting Canada from this non-existent threat, the government would drastically limit minors' access to many harmless games, and place unreasonable restrictions on game dealers or social organizations where games are played. The proposed law would make it a federal offence, punishable by stiff fines and/or up to two years in jail, to "sell or otherwise distribute" to anyone under the age of 18: "(a) a card that was produced for commercial benefit, a dominant characteristic of which is a description or a pictorial depiction of an actual violent criminal or of an actual violent crime; or (b) a board game that was produced for commercial benefit, in which the players play the part of murderers and pretend to engage in violent criminal activity." So, for example, the card game "Family Business", a humourous game set in the Chicago mob wars, would be illegal in several ways. The game cards have stylized representations of actual Chicago mobsters like Scarface, as well as actual crimes like the St. Valentine's day massacre. Also, the object of the game is to rub out the other gangs. Yet the game is quite harmless and can safely be played with children. Any political board game in which assassination is a player option is at risk. A fantasy game like "HeroQuest" or "Dungeon!", which is in effect armed robbery and assault, is at risk. Maybe even playing the German side in a WWII war game is pretending to engage in violent criminal activity, since the Nazi leaders were convicted of crimes against humanity. Role-playing games are not board games. However, if the tactical situation is represented by counters or figures on a map sheet, it is virtually indistinguishable in mechanics from a board game. Becasue of widespread public belief that these games involve plotting murders, they are at risk. The act of role-playing an assassin or a vampire, even if it is the game master controlling a non-player villain, would be illegal for minors. More next message. -- Jennifer Clarke Wilkes CAR-PGa Canadian Director "For all your game defence needs" Newsgroups: alt.censorship From: ae062@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jennifer Clarke Wilkes) Subject: CANADIAN GOV'T CENSORS GAMES, PART 2 Message-ID: Sender: news@freenet.carleton.ca Reply-To: ae062@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jennifer Clarke Wilkes) Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 13:10:50 GMT Lines: 59 The corollary amendments to these proposals are even more disturbing. The act of "distributing" -- which is not narrowly defined and could include simply showing to or playing with -- such materials to a minor would be made an "enterprise crime". In other words, it would be treated as profiteering from crime and would expose a game dealer to the "search, seizure and detention" provisions of the Criminal Code. These allow the Crown to obtain a warrant to enter premises, seize and dispose of offending materials, and authorize fines equal in amount to the alleged profit, on pain of increasing prison terms. It would not be a defence under the proposed law to claim that you thought the person you "distributed" offending material to was over 18, unless you take "all reasonable steps" to ascertain that fact. In other words, to ensure they are not subjected to potential charges, game stores, clubs and conventions would have to demand ID. This can only lead to self-censorship of stock and the barring of minors from gaming events, "just to be safe". It is an unreasonable limitation on minors' access to public places. The Customs Tariff would also be amended to place these types of materials on the prohibited import list. In other words (and it actually says this), customs officials would be authorized to seize items at the border if their sale to minors would be illegal. Until the sale has actually been made, no offence has been committed, but customs officers are being told in effect to look into the future. This is completely unacceptable. These amendments put a powerful legal tool into the hands of vocal anti-game and anti-violence groups, who can use it to harass law-abiding game vendors. Even if a game is ultimately found to be inoffensive, the vendor would be obliged to engage legal counsel and endure a protracted court battle, while his accusers would enjoy the publicly-funded services of the police forces and Crown attorneys. At the age of 16, you are old enough to carry a gun into battle. You're old enough to drive a car. You're old enough to enter into sexual relationships. But you're apparently not old enough to be able to distinguish between imaginary "crimes" and real objectionable activity. You can go to the bookstore or library and pick up "Helter Skelter", but you can't play a game where the murders aren't even real. You can play in a murder mystery party game and pretend to be a murderer, but you can't do the same thing if you roll dice and move pieces around a board. If you want more info on this, please drop me an e-mail. Those who wish to protest to the government can write to the Minister of Justice: The Honourable Allan Rock, P.C., M.P. Minister of Justice House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A 0A6 -- Jennifer Clarke Wilkes CAR-PGa Canadian Director "For all your game defence needs" Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.board,alt.censorship From: ae062@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jennifer Clarke Wilkes) Subject: Parliamentary Committee Recommends Anti-game Measures Message-ID: Sender: ae062@freenet3.carleton.ca (Jennifer Clarke Wilkes) Reply-To: ae062@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jennifer Clarke Wilkes) Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 14:35:54 GMT Lines: 62 On November 16, the Commons Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs laid its report before Parliament on the proposed legislation to ban the distribution to minors of "crime cards and games." The committee recommended adopting even *broader* restrictions on free expression. To wit: it recommends, rather than targeting these specific products, amending the "obscenity" provisions of the Criminal Code to make illegal "communication to exploit and glorify cruelty, horror and violence for no socially redeeming purpose." It also recommends expanding the type of material covered to include such items as music and music videos, computer and video games, "obscene" topic newsgroups, comics, posters and games. The obscenity provisions (notably s. 163) of the Code affect all persons, not just minors. They dictate what material Canada Customs will stop at the border, where it can be summarily named "obscene" and either returned or (more often) destroyed. The accused importer must prove his innocence. It is to be hoped that the Minister of Justice, who expressed concern about freedom of expression when introducing the proposal, will reject the committee's recommendation as unacceptably broad. However, Canada is in the grip of hysteria about violence (having recently condemned the Power Rangers) and crime (especially youth crime), and such measures may well enter the criminal law, possibly in upcoming packages to revise the general part of the Criminal Code. More than ever, it is important to make the Minister aware of the tremendous problems these measures will cause, and to let him hear from the many law-abiding citizens whose lives would be unacceptably constrained by such legislation. Write to him at: The Honourable Allan Rock, P.C., M.P. Minister of Justice House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0A6 It is worth noting that Pierrette Venne, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, stood to dissent from the majority report when it was tabled. The BQ members of the committee had been the most critical of the process during hearings, and they repeated their objections in the House. Mme Venne pointed out that nobody on the committee, nor any of the MPs who had presented numerous petitions on the subject, had ever seen the products until copies were obtained (at no little difficulty) for the hearings. Though gratuitous and tasteless exploitation of violence was a matter of concern, she asked whether the time and expense wasted on the inquiry was responsible. In her words: "We firmly believe that this committee should deal more with issues related to real violence rather than hypothetical violence due to the action of some shady publsihers." I will, as a contibutor to the hearings, receive a copy of the report shortly. I will post details at that time. -- Jennifer Clarke Wilkes || "One cannot make men good by an || Act of Parliament." "For all your game defence needs"|| Walter Bagehot, 19th-century English ---------------------------------|| political theorist. Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.board,alt.censorship From: ae062@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jennifer Clarke Wilkes) Subject: Committee Report on Crime Games Recommends Broad Ban Message-ID: Sender: ae062@freenet2.carleton.ca (Jennifer Clarke Wilkes) Reply-To: ae062@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jennifer Clarke Wilkes) Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 16:15:22 GMT Lines: 99 I have had the opportunity to review the Justice Committee's report on proposed legislation to ban "crime cards and games." There are one or two items of good news contained in it, but largely the document is quite unsettling. The committee noted that "there was general agreement that these products do not have a pervasive presence in the Canadian entertainment market." As it turns out, the assistance of Customs was required to obtain any sample. Only 13 sets of cards had ever been intercepted at the border, and of those, only one was prohibited entry. The game had never been seen, and had to be obtained from the US distributor. Despite acknowledging that there has been no conclusive link established between portrayals of violence and social violence, the committee accepted that it is a contributing factor. "...The undue exploitation of cruelty, horror or violence...has no social or cultural redeeming value. Although it is difficult to establish a cause and effect relation between such material and anti-social attitudes and actions, the Committee has reasonable grounds to beleive that there is at least a correlation between these social phenomena." However, the committee rejected the draft legislation as it was presented, noting that it was overly narrow in its application -- both in the types of media targeted and in the audience -- and that there were inadequate safeguards to stand up to a Charter challenge. It relies on the Butler decision of 1992 to support the current "obscenity" provisions of the Criminal Code and recommends that a third category -- "undue exploitation or glorification of cruelty, horror or violence" -- be added. Alternatively, a new section dealing with such material could be drafted following the model of the recent child pornography law. One bit of good news is that the committee recommends the repeal of the "crime comics" provisions, which have been in place since 1949 and have not been enforced since the 1950's. It noted that concentrating on the medium rather than on the characteristics of the communication was not the best approach. On the other hand, the committee also recommends adding a preamble to any new legislation, that includes the following paragraph: Crime cards and board games exploit, glorify and trivialize brutal violent crimes. Allowing the crime cards and board games to be sold as entertainment in the Canadian market will contribute to a culture of violence in our society, corrupt children and youth, and infringe the right of all Canadians to security of the person. Crime cards and board games are only the most recent media which glorify and exploit horror, cruelty and violence, with no redeeming cultural or social value. Finally, the committee recommends that certain safeguards be built in to cover situations in which apparent exploitation may have a "higher" purpose. They recommend special defences based on "artistic merit," "news gathering and dissemination" and "public controversy." Needless to say, no form of entertainment or "low" art is going to survive an "artistic merit" defence, and the other categories do not apply. However, it will still be legal for a tabloid to exploit a sensational murder in the name of "news gathering and dissemination" while a card drily describing the activity would be a forbidden item. Finally, the committee recommends that the provincial attorneys- general give consent before any prosecution is commenced. "A measure of this kind would ensure that criminal prosecutions are undertaken for substantive public policy reasons and not used as a technique in a frivolous or vexatious way to harass and intimidate those whose actions have no substantial deleterious effect on the community." This is a good thing, but unfortunately certain provinces are much more likely to stop material than others. Ontario in particular is a hotbed of activist groups pressuring government to ban violent entertainment. In its dissenting opinion, the Bloc Qu‚b‚cois noted that, in light of Canadian and foreign case law on freedom of expression, the recommended broadening of the definition of "obscenity" might well not withstand a court challenge. They ask: "Is it necessary to amend the Criminal Code to eliminate a social evil which in many ways appears to have been exaggerated?" It is heartening that the Minister of Justice, in responding to questions in the House, has expressed reservations on the very broad application of the recommended legislation. It is important to let him know just how broad the implications can be. Write to: The Honourable Allan Rock, P.C., M.P. Minister of Justice House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 -- Jennifer Clarke Wilkes || "One cannot make men good by an || Act of Parliament." "For all your game defence needs"|| Walter Bagehot, 19th-century English ---------------------------------|| political theorist. From: djones@CIM.McGill.CA (David Jones) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.board,alt.censorship,rec.collecting.cards,rec.games.trading-cards.misc Subject: Re: Committee Report on Crime Games Recommends Broad Ban Date: 8 Dec 1994 18:30:38 -0500 Organization: Centre For Intelligent Machines, McGill University Lines: 154 Message-ID: <3c84uu$340@Athena.McRCIM.McGill.EDU> References: <3c0dmr$1kq@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca> <3c67bk$f11@mack.rt66.com> <3c6d1j$9as@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca> In article , Carl M Kadie wrote: >something about the "killer card" legislation and free speech ... ELECTRONIC FRONTIER CANADA --- PRESS RELEASE (For immediate release --- December 7, 1994) PROPOSED BAN TOO BROAD -- FROM KILLER CARDS TO COMPUTER GAMES Draft legislation that would ban "killer cards" is back from the Justice Committee with recommendations that it be broadened to cover a much wider range of communication. This has many defenders of free speech alarmed. In a report recently presented to Parliament, the Justice Committee recommends changes to the legal definition of "obscenity" to include "undue exploitation or glorification of horror, cruelty, or violence". In addition to cards and games, the report names "music, videos, comics, posters, and computer bulletin boards" as forms of communication that need to be controlled by the government. Communication that falls within this expanded definition and has "no redeeming cultural or social value" would be prohibited. "They apparently stopped short of advocating book-burning", grumbles David Jones, a professor of Computer Science at McMaster University, who is not happy with the report. "When they start talking about banning computer games and communication on computer bulletin boards, that's where they've crossed over into our domain" says Jones, speaking for Electronic Frontier Canada (EFC), a group dedicated to protecting rights and freedoms in cyberspace. "New forms of communication and recreation made possible by new technologies are no less worthy of Charter protection than the more traditional media", says Jeff Shallit, another EFC member, who says he's "been frustrated by the off-again, on-again censorship of electronic communications at the University of Waterloo", where he is a professor of Computer Science. Asked about the general issue behind the new "killer card" legislation, John Bryden, Liberal MP for Hamilton, said "I think they're in a real minefield. It is very very difficult to draft legislation to control that type of material that doesn't seriously infringe on freedom of expression. Nobody likes to see killer cards, as they call them, but these very same legislators probably aren't aware of the fact for years down in Niagara Falls there's been a crime museum. You pay your two bucks and you go in there and you see Jack the Ripper, and so on." Partly because of his background as a writer, Bryden said he was sensitive to issues involving government control of communication. "It's not practical in terms of what you're going to lose versus what you might gain", said Bryden. In what some say is an acknowledgement that the proposed legislation is far too broad in its scope and open to abuse, the Committee recommends certain "safeguards" so that prosecutions would not be "frivolous" and would not be used to "harass or intimidate". Even though the proposed ban would apply only to communication that has "no redeeming social value", critics are still concerned. "There is a real social value merely in being able express one's views", says Jones. "It's an important part of the democratic process." Despite all the hand-wringing concern over the "social evil" represented by these controversial cards and games, the Justice Committee acknowledges that actual instances of the objectionable material are very rare. In fact, the Justice Committee had to actively import a foreign board game into Canada because no objectionable ones were available in this country. Several MP's have stated openly that they wonder how such a peripheral issue was able to keep the Justice Committee busy for months, and that they believe the Justice Committee "should concentrate on real violence rather than conjectural violence." -- 30 -- Contact Information: -------------------- Electronic Frontier Canada Dr. David Jones phone: (905) 525-9140 x24689 fax: (905) 546-9995 email: djones@insight.mcmaster.ca Dr. Jeff Shallit phone: (519) 888-4804 fax: (519) 885-1208 email: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca Dr. Richard Rosenberg phone: (604) 822-4142 fax: (604) 822-5485 email: rosen@cs.ubc.ca Electronic Frontier Canada, online archives: Gopher: gopher://gopher.ee.mcgill.ca/11/community/efc World-Wide-Web: http://www.ee.mcgill.ca/efc/efc.html Anonymous FTP: ftp://insight.mcmaster.ca/pub/efc -- John Bryden, Liberal MP for Hamilton-Wentworth phone: (905) 627-3934 phone: (613) 995-8042 fax: (613) 996-1289 -- Allan Rock Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (613) 992-4621 -- Ministerial Office (613) 947-5000 -- Parl. Hill Office (613) 990-7255 -- Ministerial Office Fax -- Jennifer Clarke Wilkes Director for Canadian Association for Role-Playing Games (also opposes the draft legislation) email: ae062@freenet.carleton.ca phone: (613) 741-2629 fax: (613) 745-5569 -- Bloc Quebecois MPs who wrote dissenting opinion to Justice Committee recommendations Pierrette Venne, MP for St-Hubert Pierre de Savoye, MP for Portneuf Francois Langlois, MP for Bellechasse -- Warren Allmand, MP for Notre-Dame-de-Grace Author of the controversial Justice Committee Report. ---------------------------- Documents available on-line: The following documents are available in electronic form to anyone with an Internet connection. 1. Proposed amendments to Criminal Code and Customs Tariff (re: killer cards) 2. Comments by Jennifer Clarke Wilkes made during Justice Committee hearings. 3. The full report of the Justice Committe (16nov94) 4. The Dissenting Opinion (Appendix A of the report) These can be accessed in two ways: Gopher: gopher -p "1/community/efc/events/killer-cards" ee.mcgill.ca Anonymous FTP: ftp insight.mcmaster.ca, look in /pub/efc/events/killer-cards Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.board,alt.censorship From: ae062@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jennifer Clarke Wilkes) Subject: Antigame bill update, and farewell Message-ID: Sender: ae062@freenet3.carleton.ca (Jennifer Clarke Wilkes) Reply-To: ae062@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jennifer Clarke Wilkes) Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 14:28:43 GMT Lines: 45 This is my last update on the Canadian proposal to ban or control "violent entertainment". The issue is still alive, but I am leaving Canada to take a new job and can no longer monitor the situation from Ottawa. I hope that other gamers will be able to keep on top of this. The Minister of Justice recently responded to the Justice Committee's report on proposed legislation to ban "killer cards and games". As you may recall, the committee recommendation was to greatly extend the application of such a ban, preferably by amending the Criminal Code definition of "obscene". The Minister agrees that there is a problem with "violent entertainment" and seems quite convinced that it is to blame for violence in society. To that extent, he agrees that amending the Criminal Code as recommended might be a worthwhile approach. On the positive side, though, he is unwilling to apply such control to any but the most outrageous examples of degradation (though this still requires an external judgement) and sees no value in piecemeal amendments to control specific kinds of products. The Minister has ordered a study into the issue, and the related matter of vioence on TV and in movies, with a report due by the end of August. Parliament will reconvene in mid-September and will study the report at that time. The report is expected to study non-legislative methods of control, such as ratings or the establishment of voluntary standards by the entertainment industry. However, the Minister has made some disturbing statements about hate, violence and porn on the Internet -- echoed by the Commons as a whole -- that suggest he is also considering legislative intervention in cyberspace. The Minister states that interested groups will be consulted -- though it must be noted that no gamer organizations were approached during the earlier hearings, nor were my requests to contribute answered. It is still worthwhile for interested parties to contact the Department of Justice and ask for the opportunity to be heard. The text of the Minister's reply can be obtained directly from the Minister's office or from Electronic Frontier Canada. Thanks to all who corresponded with me on this issue over the last year. I will continue to be in touch, once my new Internet account is activated. -- Jennifer Clarke Wilkes || "One cannot make men good by an CAR-PGa Canadian Director || Act of Parliament." || Walter Bagehot, 19th-century English ---------------------------------|| political theorist.