Just to add some more, the entire ruling is scathing of the government. Subsection F, asks whether or not if the government directly intend to change CEA s.91(1) by removing the word "knowingly" and the AG responds that yes, through committee and parliament the government wanted to change it.
[44] The Attorney General acknowledges that Parliament made a deliberate decision to remove the word knowingly from s. 91(1) of the CEA but argues that Parliament did not intend to substantively change the mens rea of the offence by doing so. The Attorney General argues that the removal of the word knowingly was a housekeeping measure to remove redundancy and avoid confusion. In support of its position, the Attorney General relies on statements made by politicians and government officials during the legislative process. The Attorney General also relies on evidence adduced on this application from the Director of Investigations at the Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections about the intent and meaning of the amendments to s. 91(1) in Bill C-76
Fuck me. We have absolute idiots writing and changing the law, they knew that changing that single word would be substantive enough to fundamentally change s.91(1) but are trying to argue that "we didn't really 'mean' for it to remove the mens rea(guilty mind), of the law."
Very simply put, removing that word means that if you or someone else said "bad things about politician" in any state like in anger, or disgust. You'd be guilty of contravening s.91(1) and they fucking well knew it.
edit: Even fuck me more.
[50] Both amendments proposed by the Conservatives that would have retained the word knowingly in s. 91(1) or 486(3)(c) of the CEA were defeated.
51] Bill C-76 passed third reading on October 30, 2018 and was sent to the Senate for its consideration. The Commissioner of Canada Elections, Yves Côté, appeared before the Senate when it was considering Bill C-76. Commissioner Côté repeated the same concerns that Mr. Chénier raised before the Standing Committee. Commissioner Côté took the position that the enumerated categories of false statement that would be prohibited by s. 91(1) leave out “some very hurtful or injurious statements that someone can make about somebody else.” While the Commissioner urged the Senate to pass Bill C-76, he suggested that further amendments to expand the scope of the prohibited false statements under s. 91(1) should be considered at a later point. Commissioner Côté did not make any comment about the removal of the word knowingly from the prohibition.
They actually tried to legislate thought crimes for election noise.
edit: Also, the feds tried to get the judge to delay the ruling for 1 year. Which means the ruling wouldn't have taken effect until Feb. 2022. An election was really coming before this by how hard they pressed the court for it, now? I dunno.
Just to add some more, the entire ruling is scathing of the government. Subsection F, asks whether or not if the government directly intend to change CEA s.91(1) by removing the word "knowingly" and the AG responds that yes, through committee and parliament the government wanted to change it.
[44] The Attorney General acknowledges that Parliament made a deliberate decision to remove the word knowingly from s. 91(1) of the CEA but argues that Parliament did not intend to substantively change the mens rea of the offence by doing so. The Attorney General argues that the removal of the word knowingly was a housekeeping measure to remove redundancy and avoid confusion. In support of its position, the Attorney General relies on statements made by politicians and government officials during the legislative process. The Attorney General also relies on evidence adduced on this application from the Director of Investigations at the Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections about the intent and meaning of the amendments to s. 91(1) in Bill C-76
Fuck me. We have absolute idiots writing and changing the law, they knew that changing that single word would be substantive enough to fundamentally change s.91(1) but are trying to argue that "we didn't really 'mean' for it to remove the mens rea(guilty mind), of the law."
Very simply put, removing that word means that if you or someone else said "bad things about politician" in any state like in anger, or disgust. You'd be guilty of contravening s.91(1) and they fucking well knew it.
edit: Even fuck me more.
[50] Both amendments proposed by the Conservatives that would have retained the word knowingly in s. 91(1) or 486(3)(c) of the CEA were defeated.
51] Bill C-76 passed third reading on October 30, 2018 and was sent to the Senate for its consideration. The Commissioner of Canada Elections, Yves Côté, appeared before the Senate when it was considering Bill C-76. Commissioner Côté repeated the same concerns that Mr. Chénier raised before the Standing Committee. Commissioner Côté took the position that the enumerated categories of false statement that would be prohibited by s. 91(1) leave out “some very hurtful or injurious statements that someone can make about somebody else.” While the Commissioner urged the Senate to pass Bill C-76, he suggested that further amendments to expand the scope of the prohibited false statements under s. 91(1) should be considered at a later point. Commissioner Côté did not make any comment about the removal of the word knowingly from the prohibition.
They actually tried to legislate thought crimes for election noise.
Just to add some more, the entire ruling is scathing of the government. Subsection F, asks whether or not if the government directly intend to change CEA s.91(1) by removing the word "knowingly" and the AG responds that yes, through committee and parliament the government wanted to change it.
[44] The Attorney General acknowledges that Parliament made a deliberate decision to remove the word knowingly from s. 91(1) of the CEA but argues that Parliament did not intend to substantively change the mens rea of the offence by doing so. The Attorney General argues that the removal of the word knowingly was a housekeeping measure to remove redundancy and avoid confusion. In support of its position, the Attorney General relies on statements made by politicians and government officials during the legislative process. The Attorney General also relies on evidence adduced on this application from the Director of Investigations at the Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections about the intent and meaning of the amendments to s. 91(1) in Bill C-76
Fuck me. We have absolute idiots writing and changing the law, they knew that changing that single word would be substantive enough to fundamentally change s.91(1) but are trying to argue that "we didn't really 'mean' for it to remove the mens rea(guilty mind), of the law."
Very simply put, removing that word means that if you or someone else said "bad things about politician" in any state like in anger, or disgust. You'd be guilty of contravening s.91(1) and they fucking well knew it.