https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/canadian-dies-ukraine-medic-1.6716143
They're literally posting pictures of him armed (one where he looks like he's sleeping with his rifle) and then claiming he was a medic.
The law itself is written in typically stupid Canadian fashion where terms are poorly defined, i.e. foreign state is defined but then used as friendly foreign state in the relevant section.
As per the letter of the law, CBC is violating it as well. They're obviously misrepresenting this guy as a medic which may induce others to go be "medics".
"Any person who induces any other person to leave Canada or to go on board any conveyance within Canada under a misrepresentation or false representation of the service in which such person is to be engaged, with the intent or in order that such person may accept or agree to accept any commission or engagement in the armed forces of any foreign state at war with any friendly foreign state, is guilty of an offence."
You've got the wrong section. That's sections 5 (tricking someone into going aboard under false pretense and then putting them into military service with a hostile power when they get there).
You want section 4:
Key language in there is: "engagement in the armed forces of any foreign state at war with any friendly foreign state"
In plain English: It's ok as long as you're not joining the armed forces of Canada's enemies, or the enemies of Canada's allies. Ukraine is Canada's ally, so you're legally ok to join their army.
I meant that section as to CBC misrepresenting the guy as a medic, which may incite other Canadians to also go and be "medics" in Ukraine. Seems like they're mincing their words here for a reason. It's very dishonest.
While I understand the purpose of such a law in a real nation that is unified (Canada is neither of those at this point), this seems like a very illiberal law for current year Canada as it's basically saying that Canadian citizens are obliged to agree with who the Canadian government has declared to be an enemy. The Canadian government had no problem watching Russian-Ukrainians getting killed by their own government from 2014 to present, so I find their moral claims lacking with respect to this conflict.
Regarding who the Canadian government has declared to be an enemy, with the current firearms confiscation, climate change nonsense, mass immigration extremism, and various other agenda items of the federal government, they've literally declared an assortment of Canadian citizens to be their enemy as well, they just haven't resorted to military action (yet) and have kept it within the realm of cowardly lawfare.
Thank you for explaining section 5. I would think that friendly foreign state should be defined instead of being left out like that.
Another article states he was a dual citizen. From what I understand Ukraine requires people who become citizens to renounce their previous citizenship within two years. He may have become a citizen in order to serve in the military so therefore would eventually have renounced his Canadian citizenship.
Not sure that he's being misrepresented as a medic. You're basing this on the fact his holding a gun in some pictures?
Yes. He's basically sleeping with his rifle in one picture. Through their manipulative use of language, CBC is trying to portray him as a medic and not a soldier/combatant as those images suggest.
This is likely being done to portray this as if it was some sort of a war crime, although they don't use explicitly say that, but it is implied given that combat medics are not supposed to be shot at.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_medic#Geneva_Convention_protection
So by not calling him a soldier which he apparently was, CBC is misleading the public as to what he was doing there. Sure he might have been performing the duties of a medic, but if he was also performing the duties of a soldier, then he doesn't have the stated protections that are afforded to combat medics.
Language matters.
Since you know what a combat medic is, then you can google the term to see for yourself that they do carry weapons.
Here's an example (from the US military):
"Corpsmen and medics with combat troops carry a double burden. They do everything that Army soldiers and Marines do – although officially noncombatants, they are authorized to carry weapons to protect themselves and their patients – until a soldier or Marine gets hurt, and then they have to become lifesavers, sometimes under fire." https://www.ocregister.com/2006/08/04/medics-carry-a-double-burden/
Okay, good to know, I stand corrected.
However, that seems kind of nonsensical to have them do dual duties and then have rules about them being non-combatants while also being armed and allowed to engage. If situations like in this story are to be prevented (which is apparently desired since there's rules about it), it doesn't make sense to have them be armed and also off-limits, that just creates confusion. Strategically, a military might as well just throw red crosses on everyone's arms and then complain about war crimes every time they get shot.
Yes, they could put red crosses all over, but for some enemies this means nothing, just makes them a more desirable target. I guess they're allowed to engage if their patients or their own lives are in danger, but not engage in combat. It would make sense for them to stay out of the fight because they're the ones who have to deal with everyone else getting wounded.