96. (1) The institutional head or a staff member designated by the institutional head may prohibit the entry into the penitentiary or the circulation within the penitentiary of any publication, video or audio material, film or computer program that the institutional head or staff member believes on reasonable grounds would jeopardize the security of the penitentiary or the safety of any person. |
||
(2) The institutional head or a staff member designated by the institutional head may prohibit the use by an inmate, including the display of, any publication, video or audio material, film or computer program that the institutional head or staff member believes on reasonable grounds |
||
|
(a)
|
would likely be viewed by other persons; and |
|
|
(b)
|
would undermine a person's sense of personal dignity by demeaning the person or causing personal humiliation or embarrassment to a person, on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion or sex. |
|
| Judicial Consideration - | ||
|
Fry v. Canada (Solicitor General) - (1996), 121 F.T.R. 50, [1996] F.C.J. No.1267 (F.C.T.D.) |
||
- An inmate sought judicial review of a decision depriving him of his computer equipment and programs, and preventing him from using them while serving his sentence. The court asserted that the possession or use of a personal computer and its programs by an inmate in the inmate's cell is in the nature of a privilege rather than a right. In this case, the inmate was found to have violated a clear and existing policy of the institution that was put in place to reduce the risk of serious security incidents or, in the case of copyright violations, to ensure compliance with the law. The offending programs may be present both in the hard drive and/or diskettes. The institutional head had reasonable grounds to believe that at least one program presented a risk to the security of the institution and that many other programs were either not authorized or did not comply with Canadian copyright laws. Accordingly, the court reached the conclusion that the CSC did not make a reviewable error and that the application for judicial review be dismissed. |
||
Corresponding Act: Sections 68-75 General - Living Conditions |
||