Category: Criminal

Posted on

Joanne Person Speaks Out Following Charges Being Withdrawn Over Coutts Arrest

Joanne Person has finally spoken out out about an arrest last year which caused nationwide attention. She was charged with 1 count of Firearms Possession and 1 count of Mischief Over $5,000.00 for allegedly aiding and abetting protesters in Coutts on Feb 14, 2022. On January 16, 2023, the charges were officially withdrawn.

This stems from the a section of the Canada/U.S. border being blocked last winter during nationwide protests over martial law measures.

While there was brief coverage of her case being dropped, it was quite limited. The version told by Person in the livestream paints a very different story to what has been officially reported. This includes the conduct of, and treatment by the RCMP.

Person wasn’t actually a part of any alleged plot, but had merely been hosting protesters in Coutts at her residence.

Although released on bail, it took nearly a year to have the case withdrawn. While news of the charges being dropped is a relief, it doesn’t undo the stress and hardship which came with the arrest. Her name made national news, and no public apology has yet been offered.

Chris Carbert, Christopher Lysak, Anthony Olienick and Jerry Morin remain charged with conspiracy to murder RCMP officers. Police allege that there had been a cache of weapons found in the area. They are scheduled to go on Trial in June.

The stream was hosted by Stand4THEE, and is worth a watch.

(1) https://rumble.com/v29uldy-stand4thee-live-5-press-conference-with-joanne-person.html
(2) https://stand4thee.com/
(3) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/joanne-person-coutts-charges-court-prelim-mischief-1.6715505
(4) https://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/crown-withdraws-charges-against-coutts-protester-who-hosted-others-on-her-property
(5) https://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/another-one-of-the-coutts-blockade-suspects-granted-bail-pending-trial

Posted on

Private Member’s Bill C-229: Banning (Without Defining) Symbols Of Hate

Private Member’s Bill C-229 was introduced in early 2021 by N.D.P. M.P Peter Julian. The stated purpose of this piece is to ban so-called symbols of hate.

This goes far beyond Human Rights Tribunals and fines. This Bill (if passed) would amend the Criminal Code and potentially put people in prison for up to 2 years.

Free speech advocates should be calling out such legislation. However, considering this isn’t a Government Bill, it’s likely that few know about it.

-Whereas Parliament recognizes the importance of preventing all forms of hatred or violence against any group that is distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability;
-Whereas Parliament acknowledges past atrocities and violence committed against such groups by persons or organizations whose symbols, emblems, flags and uniforms continue to this day to be used to promote or incite hatred and violence against these groups;
-And whereas it is in the interest of all Canadians to prevent the display or sale of symbols or emblems such as the Nazi swastika and the Ku Klux Klan’s insignia, flags such as the standards of Germany between the years 1933 to 1945 and those of the Confederate States of America between the years 1861 to 1865 and uniforms, including the German and Confederate States of America military dress of those periods, as well as the hoods and robes of the Ku Klux Klan;

There’s also an obvious pivot here. While the Bill states that it’s in the interest of Canadians to ban Nazi or KKK symbols, the earlier text makes it obvious that the scope is far more broad. Specifically, it lists:

  • colour;
  • race;
  • religion;
  • national or ethnic origin;
  • age;
  • sex;
  • sexual orientation;
  • gender identity or expression;
  • mental or physical disability

Another major problem is there is no distinction between “hate”, and having a lively and controversial discussion. What about protests based on honest beliefs? Could signs, slogans and speech be lumped in with symbols?

Is it a violation of “gender identity or expression” to say that biological men don’t belong in women’s sports, changerooms or prisons? It it hateful to say that there are only 2 genders (assigned from before birth), and that there’s no switching between them?

As for discrimination against age, could pedophiles use this in order to justify actions and behaviours that would otherwise be considered criminal? Would it be illegal now to criticize and condemn them?

There is a further complication. The Bill would add a provision that states no prosecution will happen if in good faith: “including for educational purposes or accurate depiction in a film, and if on reasonable grounds the person believed the display to be proper and for the public benefit”. Now, who’s to say what’s good faith and what’s not?

It appears that such legislation could be selectively applied to target people depending on their ideology. This is so poorly written that it leaves plenty of room for abuse and misapplication.

Sources:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills?page=3
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-229
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-229/first-reading
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/peter-julian(16399)

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(A) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(B) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(C) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(D) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(E) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(F) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(G) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(H) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(I) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(J) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

Posted on

Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Assisted Suicide Requests

Remember how people were warning that assisted suicide (medical assistance in dying or MAiD) wouldn’t be the limited measure that was initially laid out? Those alarmists worried that safeguards and conditions would be rolled back to further expand this “procedure”.

Well, here we go again. Senate Bill S-248 would allow people to enter into contracts that would permit the euthanasia, even if the person isn’t capable of giving that final consent.

Supporters of MAiD had always claimed that the patient would always have the option to change their mind, and to back out. This would allow for contemplation, and for cooler heads to prevail.

From the description of the Bill:

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to
.
(a) permit an individual whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to enter into a written arrangement to receive medical assistance in dying on a specified day if they lose the capacity to consent to receiving medical assistance in dying prior to that day; and
.
(b) permit an individual who has been diagnosed with a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability to make a written declaration to waive the requirement for final consent when receiving medical assistance in dying if they lose the capacity to consent to receive medical assistance in dying, are suffering from symptoms outlined in the written declaration and have met all other relevant safeguards outlined in the Criminal Code.

Of course, the usual questions will come up. Did the person fully understand and support this decision? Was their undue influence? Did they ever change their mind? How do we determine whether or not they are capable of giving that final go-ahead?

There is still a provision that the person can speak or gesture to indicate that they no longer wish to go through with this. However, if they are incapacitated, that obviously won’t help.

This Bill was brought by Pamela Wallin. A decade ago, she became infamous for playing fast and loose with her expenses and got suspended, along with Mike Duffy and Patrick Brazeau.

In her capacity as a Senator, Wallin has had some interesting visitors recently.

Wallin brought this Bill on June 2, 2022. The day before, the Alzheimer Society of Canada had paid a visit. Among the topics listed in their lobbying profiled was: “Parliamentary review of medical assistance in dying with respect to advance requests”. In other words, go ahead, even if final consent can’t be obtained.

Field Trip Psychedelics Inc. has also been in touch with Wallin. This was concering the: “regulation of psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy that would give Canadians access to medical, non-recreational, psilocybin therapy.”

The Canadian Palliative Hospice Care Assocation also has contacted Wallin. Although their profile does mention end of life care, it doesn’t specify assisted suicide.

In any event, these are probably just coincidences, right?

Shouldn’t be any surprise that Wallin brought this Bill. But seriously, how far back do we keep pushing the line, or is there a limit?

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-248
(2) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-248/first-reading
(3) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-moving-to-suspend-pamela-wallin-mike-duffy-1.2101305
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=533156
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=367664&regId=905218&blnk=1
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=533156
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=14475&regId=923718&blnk=1
(8) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=523500
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=15059&regId=917004&blnk=1

Posted on

Bill C-5: Eliminating Mandatory Sentences For Serious Gun Crimes

Canada’s Bill C-5 is a piece of legislation has been rightfully criticized as gutting the strength of crimes involving firearms. While this is true, it’s quite shocking to see the actual details.

Comparing the current version of the Criminal Code versus the changes being pushed, it’s unsettling. Punishments for some of the most serious offences are being gutted.

Here’s a look at some of the changes that would be made.

Using firearm in commission of offence
.
85 (1) Every person commits an offence who uses a firearm, whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result of using the firearm,
.
(a) while committing an indictable offence, other than an offence under section 220 (criminal negligence causing death), 236 (manslaughter), 239 (attempted murder), 244 (discharging firearm with intent), 244.2 (discharging firearm — recklessness), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon) or 273 (aggravated sexual assault), subsection 279(1) (kidnapping) or section 279.1 (hostage taking), 344 (robbery) or 346 (extortion);
.
(b) while attempting to commit an indictable offence; or
(c) during flight after committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence.
.
Marginal note: Using imitation firearm in commission of offence
.
(2) Every person commits an offence who uses an imitation firearm
(a) while committing an indictable offence,
(b) while attempting to commit an indictable offence, or
(c) during flight after committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence,
.
whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result of using the imitation firearm.
.
Marginal note: Punishment
.
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
.
(a) in the case of a first offence, except as provided in paragraph (b), to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; and
.
(b) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years.

Under the current version of the Criminal Code, a person faced a minimum of a year in prison (for a first offence), and 3 years (for subsequent offences). While this is still pretty lenient, there were at least minimums. This applies to:

  • s.220 (criminal negligence causing death)
  • s.236 (manslaughter)
  • s.239 (attempted murder)
  • s.244 (discharging firearm with intent)
  • s.244.2 (discharging firearm — recklessness)
  • s.272 (sexual assault with a weapon)
  • s.273 (aggravated sexual assault),
  • s.279(1) (kidnapping)
  • s.279.1 (hostage taking)
  • s.344 (robbery)
  • s.346 (extortion)

However, s.85(3) would be rewritten to remove the minimum terms, and simply replace them with 14 year maximums. Not only are the minimums removed, but another part of the Bill changes the rules surrounding conditional sentencing (house arrest) for serious crimes.

It’s worth pointing out that there doesn’t seem to be much of a distinction between a crime committed using a real firearm v.s. one where a replica is used. Makes sense, as it wouldn’t really matter to the victims, if they believed it to be real.

Reasonable people can disagree on how widespread minimum sentencing should be. That said, there are offences where it needs to exist, just to have some sense of law and order.

Possession of firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized
.
92 (1) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm or a non-restricted firearm knowing that the person is not the holder of
.
(a) a licence under which the person may possess it; and
(b) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate for it.
.
Marginal note: Possession of prohibited weapon, device or ammunition knowing its possession is unauthorized
.
(2) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, other than a replica firearm, or any prohibited ammunition knowing that the person is not the holder of a licence under which the person may possess it.
.
Marginal note: Punishment
.
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) in the case of a first offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years;
(b) in the case of a second offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; and
(c) in the case of a third or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years less a day.

For possession of a firearm (where it’s known to be illegal, second and subsequent convictions currently carry mandatory jail sentences. This Bill would change that to simply a maximum punishment of 10 years. It would be entirely up to the Judge to impose the sentence.

Possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition
.
95 (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who, in any place, possesses a loaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, or an unloaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm together with readily accessible ammunition that is capable of being discharged in the firearm, without being the holder of
.
(a) an authorization or a licence under which the person may possess the firearm in that place; and
(b) the registration certificate for the firearm.
.
Marginal note: Punishment
.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
.
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
(i) in the case of a first offence, three years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, five years; or
.
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

In fairness, this change is one that actually makes sense. There is no crime or issue other than simple possession and storage. Here the minimum sentence (if by way of indictment) would be 1, 3, or 5 years, depending on previous convictions. In theory, a person could be locked up for handing the guns of a friend or family member.

Granted, there was the exception built in for being directly supervised by someone with lawful possession. That said, the current form seemed to open to interpretation.

s.96(2)‍(a) of the Criminal Code carries a 1 year minimum for people who obtain firearms if they knew that it was done illegally. That minimum would be removed under Bill C-5. Of course, there’s an exception that allows the person to turn it in without consequences.

s.99(3) covers weapons trafficking, and lists a 1 year minimum jail term for people convicted of this offense. Consistent with other changes, that mandatory provision would be removed. Instead, there would simply be a 10 year maximum sentence.

s.100(3) gets into possession for the purposes of trafficking. Similarly, the 1 year mandatory minimum sentence would be struck from the Criminal Code.

s.103(2.1) removes the 1 year minimum sentence for importing or exporting firearms, if it’s known they are unauthorized. However, this change will only apply to guns that are neither restricted nor prohibited.

Discharging firearm with intent
.
244 (1) Every person commits an offence who discharges a firearm at a person with intent to wound, maim or disfigure, to endanger the life of or to prevent the arrest or detention of any person — whether or not that person is the one at whom the firearm is discharged.
.
Marginal note: Punishment
.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
.
(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
.
(i) in the case of a first offence, five years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years; and
.
(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years.

Currently, if it’s not a prohibited or restricted firearm, and not done in association with a criminal organization, there is a 4 year minimum. That would disappear under this Bill.

Side note: if a gun is discharged in a way that’s designed to wound, maim or disfigure, to endanger the life of a person, that sounds pretty close to attempted murder.

Discharging firearm — recklessness
.
244.2 (1) Every person commits an offence
.
(a) who intentionally discharges a firearm into or at a place, knowing that or being reckless as to whether another person is present in the place; or
(b) who intentionally discharges a firearm while being reckless as to the life or safety of another person.
.
Definition of place
.
(2) For the purpose of paragraph (1)(a), place means any building or structure — or part of one — or any motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft, railway vehicle, container or trailer.
.
Marginal note: Punishment
.
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and
(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
.
(i) five years, in the case of a first offence, and
(ii) seven years, in the case of a second or subsequent offence; and
.
(b) in any other case, is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years.

Recklessly discharging a firearm (that’s not restricted or prohibited) currently carries a 4 year minimum jail sentence. That would be eliminated under this Bill, at least in its current form.

A pattern in this legislation is that removing minimum sentences only seems to apply to non-restricted or prohibited firearms. They really seem intent on pushing that.

Robbery
.
344 (1) Every person who commits robbery is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
.
(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
.
(i) in the case of a first offence, five years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;
.
(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and
(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

Robbery with a firearm (that’s not restricted or prohibited) currently carries a 4 year minimum jail sentence. That would be removed under this Bill, leaving open the possibility of a convict receiving a conditional sentence.

Extortion
.
s.346.(1.1) Every person who commits extortion is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
.
(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used [non restricted or prohibited] in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

Bill C-5 would remove a provision that imposes a mandatory 4 year prison term for extortion using a non-restricted firearm by repealing s.346(1.1)(a.1). However, there is a separate section dealing with restricted and prohibited firearms, that appears to be left intact.

The criminal would still be exposed to a potential life sentence, but the minimum term would be eliminated.

Imposing of conditional sentence
.
742.1 If a person is convicted of an offence and the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years, the court may, for the purpose of supervising the offender’s behaviour in the community, order that the offender serve the sentence in the community, subject to the conditions imposed under section 742.3, if
.
(c) the offence is not an offence, prosecuted by way of indictment, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 14 years or life;

Offenses which were ineligible for house arrest (conditional sentencing) include:

  • s.268 aggravated assault
  • s.272.(1)(a) sexual assault with a weapon
  • s.272.(1)(b) sexual assault with threats to cause bodily harm
  • s.272.(1)(c) sexual assault causing bodily harm
  • s.272.(1)(c.1) sexual assault involving choking, suffocation or strangulation
  • s.273 aggravated sexual assault

Now, should this Bill pass in its current form, people convicted of the above would once again be eligible for house arrest as an alternative to prison. Instead, 3 specific offences will be listed.

  • s.239 (attempted murder)
  • s.269.1 (torture)
  • s.318 (advocating genocide)

Strange that a “feminist” administration claims to care so much about women, while trying pass legislation to make it easier for violent and sexual predators to avoid prison time.

In fairness, just because conditional sentencing is back on the table, it doesn’t mean that convicts would be getting it in large numbers. It just means that the option has been restored.

It’s also illogical that this Government would be putting the screws to legal gun owners, while watering down the criminal punishments for offences involving guns. Then again, perhaps causing chaos or instability is what’s really at play here.

Consider the earlier coverage of Bill C-75, which was introduced in Trudeau’s first term. This monster included: (a) reduced penalties for terrorism offences; (b) reduced penalties for child sex offences; (c) influence from groups pushing alternative lifestyles; and (d) decriminalizing misinformation.

It’s quite amazing what can be inserted into legislation, and the effects it will have. However, far too few people actually read into these things.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-5
(2) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-5/third-reading
(3) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/index.html
(4) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-11.6/FullText.html#h-224023

Posted on

Private Member’s Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws In Canada For Hate Speech?

Bill C-261 is a piece of legislation that will allow individual members of the public to get Court orders against other people. This can be done if they have “reasonable grounds for fearing” that someone is, or will engage in hate speech, promote hate or violence, or commit an offence that is motivated by hate.

Hate motivated crimes are already illegal, and subject to serious consequences. That being said, this Bill would permit people to seek Court orders based on what someone might do. There’s no requirement that an offense have already been committed.

And what is “hate propaganda” for these purposes? It’s unclear. Would saying that men are men and that women are women qualify?

To address the obvious: yes, this is a Private Member’s Bill. They rarely become law.

However, it’s worth covering as it gives an insight into the kinds of activities our elected officials are talking about. Moreover, the content of a Private Bill may one day be slipped into a larger Bill, receiving little to no scrutiny.

Appearances
(2) The provincial court judge who receives an information under subsection (1) may cause the parties to appear before a provincial court judge.

Adjudication
(3) If the provincial court judge before whom the parties appear is satisfied by the evidence adduced that the informant has reasonable grounds for the fear, the judge may order that the defendant enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of not more than 12 months.

Duration extended
(4) However, if the provincial court judge is also satisfied that the defendant was convicted previously of any offence referred to in subsection (1), the judge may order that the defendant enter into the recognizance for a period of not more than two years.

Refusal to enter into recognizance
(5) The provincial court judge may commit the defendant to prison for a term of not more than 12 months if the defendant fails or refuses to enter into the recognizance.

Here’s where the enforcement comes in. If the person refuses to enter into the recognizance (court order) that person can be incarcerated for a year.

It’s unclear what threshold would be required for the Judge to conclude that someone has a reasonable fear. This comes across as being entirely subjective.

Conditions in recognizance
Start of inserted block
(6) The provincial court judge may add any reasonable conditions to the recognizance that the judge considers desirable to secure the good conduct of the defendant, including conditions that
.
(a) require the defendant to wear an electronic monitoring device, if the Attorney General makes that request;
.
(b) require the defendant to return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times;
.
(c) require the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, except in accordance with a medical prescription, of alcohol or of any other intoxicating substance;
.
(d) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation on the demand of a peace officer, a probation officer or someone designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(a) to make a demand, at the place and time and on the day specified by the person making the demand, if that person has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant has breached a condition of the recognizance that requires them to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance;
.
(e) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation at regular intervals that are specified, in a notice in Form 51 served on the defendant, by a probation officer or a person designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(b) to specify them, if a condition of the recognizance requires the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance; or
.
(f) prohibit the defendant from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any person identified in the recognizance, or refrain from going to any place specified in the recognizance, except in accordance with the conditions specified in the recognizance that the judge considers necessary.

Without having been charged or convicted of any offence, a Judge has the power to impose:
(a) electronic monitoring
(b) house arrest or a curfew
(c) an alcohol prohibition
(d) demands to provide samples for testing
(e) no contact orders, or orders to stay away from places

And it doesn’t stop there.

Conditions — firearms
(7) The provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the defendant’s safety or that of any other person, to prohibit the defendant from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all of those things. If the judge decides that it is desirable to do so, the judge shall add that condition to the recognizance and specify the period during which it applies.

Surrender, etc.
(8) If the provincial court judge adds a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall specify in the recognizance how the things referred to in that subsection that are in the defendant’s possession shall be surrendered, disposed of, detained, stored or dealt with and how the authorizations, licences and registration certificates that are held by the defendant shall be surrendered.

Reasons
(9) If the provincial court judge does not add a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall include in the record a statement of the reasons for not adding it.

A Judge can also order that a person be prohibited from possessing any weapons, and be ordered to surrender any that they do have. Again, a person doesn’t have to be criminally charged for any of this to take place.

Interestingly, the Judge would be required to provide an explanation if there is no provision to prohibit that person from owning or using firearms or other weapons.

The language here is quite similar to Bill C-21, which would allow private citizens to have guns removed if a Judge viewed someone as a threat. There was a lot wrong with that Bill, but C-261 would water down the requirement so that the target didn’t even have to be a threat.

There is the safeguard that the Attorney General has to approve such an application. But that raises the question of to what degree this process will be open to political interference. Worse, the vague wording on what qualifies leaves a lot open to interpretation.

While this particular piece may not go anywhere, it’s entirely possible that the content will be stuffed into another Bill at some point in the future. Vigilance is needed.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-261/first-reading
(2) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-21/first-reading
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/bill-c-21-reintroduced-legislation-to-whittle-away-gun-rights/

Posted on

Bill C-75: Removing Prohibition On “Misinformation” From Criminal Code (Reminder)

Bill C-75 has been covered a few times before. There was the watering down of penalties for terrorism offences, child sex offences, and the NGOs who were pushing this degeneracy. That said, this piece of work isn’t finished revealing all of its dirty secrets.

Supposedly, this was in response to a 1992 Supreme Court of Canada ruling. Seems pretty strange to deal with it nearly 30 years later.

At the time of this Bill, Jody Wilson-Raybould was the Minister of Justice. Absurdly, she hailed as a “hero” for standing up to Trudeau on SNC Lavalin, despite advancing all kinds of horrible legislation he was responsible for. Seems that her entire profile didn’t matter.

But thanks to a provision slipped into that Bill, it will no longer be a criminal offence to knowingly spread lies with the intent of causing harm or mischief. While this “appears” to be a win for free speech advocates, the timing is suspicious, considering what would come in 2020.

This is what Section 181 of the criminal code used to say. It has since been repealed, and taken off the books, at least for the time being.

Spreading false news
181 Every one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 177

While Bill C-75 did go through Parliamentary study, it doesn’t appear as if this single line was examined at all. Perhaps people were more concerned with reduced penalties for terrorists.

This is not the only time this sort of thing has been buried in larger Bills. Another recent example was pulling Government oversight with the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, Quarantine Act. This was done by embedding it into a budget.

Of course, in early 2020, Ottawa proposed its own version of “misinformation” laws. Thankfully, those seem to have gone nowhere.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/42-1/c-75
(2) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-75/royal-assent
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/jody-wilson-raybould(89494)
(4) https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/cuol-mgnl/c-39.html
(5) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-25.html#h-118691
(6) http://www.criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/List_of_Criminal_Code_Amendments_
(7) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10210275
(8) https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/904/index.do?