Canadian media organizations welcomed the announcement by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) to release a shipment of anti-war videotapes it "detained" earlier in March. But they expressed their concern about the fact the tapes were seized in the first place, stating: "Canadians have the right to expect that the CCRA will not become the filter through which political debate is strained. The federal government should review CCRA operations to ensure the Agency does not become a political censor." The two-hour anti-war film, "What I've Learned About U.S. Foreign Policy," by American documentary producer Frank Dorrel, was seized by Canada Customs in early March. Much of the footage was drawn from previously broadcast news footage. Dorrel said he previously shipped more than 1,000 copies of the tape to Canada. Canadian free speech defenders protested in February, Bill C-20 -- an Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) currently before the House of Commons, as a direct and serious attack on the freedom to create. By replacing the extant artistic merit defense against charges of child pornography with an as-yet-undefined concept of public good, Bill C-20 casts its net far too wide in its well-intentioned attempt to prevent the abuse of children, leaving the Criminal Code, if amended as proposed in Bill C-20, open to ludicrous misuse. "Irrelevant motives" could allow for confiscation of family photos. With the further traditional common law stipulation that "the motives of an accused are irrelevant," the bill could, for instance, allow the confiscation of any family album with photos of unclad babies, and the prosecution of family photographers. The groups of free speech are also concerned that the wording of the bill captures, with its overly broad net, both adults who create work for their own use, and teens between the ages of 14 (the legal age of sexual consent) and 18 (the age beyond which there are no restrictions on sexual representations) who choose to make various sorts of records of their own legal sexual activity. Whereas the right of 15-year-olds to videotape themselves having sex is hardly a rallying point, we do not think that doing it, if the 15-year-old decides to, should be actionable. In February, Customs officers continued to seize books despite a Supreme Court ruling Although the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2000 in the case of Vancouver's Little Sister's bookstore that Canada Customs must prove within 30 days that any seized imported book, magazine, or video is obscene, the seizures by Canada Customs have not ceased, nor been justified and are not consistent. In its decision, the Supreme Court reversed the onus of proof of the material not being obscene from the importer to Canada Customs having to prove that it was. As a result of the ongoing books seizures, Little Sister's will return to court in a continuation of its old fight against censorship. Journalists should be allowed to attend the preliminary hearing of accused serial killer Robert William Pickton. "It would be a serious affront to Canadians' right to know, and to the principle of a free press, if the request to close the court was granted," Canadian Journalists for Freedom of Expression Executive Director Joel Ruimy said. Pickton is charged with killing 15 women. Publication bans are routinely ordered in hearings to avoid influencing potential jurors. Journalists usually are permitted to attend preliminary hearings and collect information to help them cover any eventual trial. But there are fears that media organizations from outside Canada may choose to disregard the ban and publish details of the hearing. Freedom of speech advocates condemned last November the decision by Toronto police to obtain a warrant to seize raw news footage from the CTV program "W-5" in November. The free speech advocates argued that journalists work to inform the public, not to provide police with free investigative services. At issue is an interview recorded by W-5 in jail with Salim Danji, awaiting trial in connection with a case of alleged investment fraud. Police seized tapes Monday of the entire 1 1/2-hour interview, which had not yet been aired. Police had not seen the interview and so couldn't know what was in it. But they obtained the warrant by telling a judge the material could be helpful in their investigation. The media groups protested that the seizure was a fishing expedition and that it endangered the future ability of journalists to gather material because sources could well conclude that any interviews they give to journalists will end up in the hands of police. The free speech defenders noted that police forces across Canada, with the support of the courts, have aggressively sought a half-dozen times in the last two years to seize video tapes, notes, photos and other research materials collected by journalists. This suggests police forces have come to regard the media as their investigative adjunct; police may be finding it easier to grab media research than to do their own. The Diario de Hoy reported that a request for a visa for one of its journalists who wanted to travel to Canada was delayed for two days. The reporte wanted to look for information about a company involved in lucrative waste management corruption in 10 municipalities governed by the FMLN. The Gleaner company of Jamaica reported that was restricted in its efforts to publish a weekly, because authorities applied a law saying that foreigners cannot own media companies in the country.