Vallee had previously indicated she wanted to go to trial to argue the Reopening Ontario Act charge violated her rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
She said that strategy changed when her charter challenge was dismissed, leaving her with no real defence.
So the judge dismissed the idea that being fined for holding a charter-protected protest (ie doing the same thing BLM did without being fined ) wasn't a violation of her Charter rights to protest...
I believe the rationale is to prevent spurious arguments that serve to distract the jury. The problem is that it's at the sole discretion of the judge.
So, you could have evidence that another person committed the crime and the judge can prevent you from presenting the evidence and the argument.
PPCer: Section 2 of the Charter states "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association."
By outlawing and fining me for using my freedom of expression via a peaceful assembly, they're violating my (b) freedom of expression & (c) freedom of peaceful assembly.
JUDGE: Naw, dawg.
PPCer: Ok, guess I have to plead guilty since I can barely afford a $2k fine and don't want to set a precedent that can be used against others...
So the judge dismissed the idea that being fined for holding a charter-protected protest (ie doing the same thing BLM did without being fined ) wasn't a violation of her Charter rights to protest...
Defendant: "I'm not guilty because X."
Government: "Sorry, we won't let you argue X."
Outstanding legal system you've got there.
It's no different in the US. Judges frequently prohibit defendents from using certain defenses and exclude evidence.
Yeah I just like to give Canada a hard time eh.
Don't worry, us Leafs do the same.
how the fuck is that even legal?
Because no one that puts that bullshit out there pays for it with their life.
Probably not the answer you want to hear, but it's the truth.
I believe the rationale is to prevent spurious arguments that serve to distract the jury. The problem is that it's at the sole discretion of the judge.
So, you could have evidence that another person committed the crime and the judge can prevent you from presenting the evidence and the argument.
PPCer: Section 2 of the Charter states "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association."
By outlawing and fining me for using my freedom of expression via a peaceful assembly, they're violating my (b) freedom of expression & (c) freedom of peaceful assembly.
JUDGE: Naw, dawg.
PPCer: Ok, guess I have to plead guilty since I can barely afford a $2k fine and don't want to set a precedent that can be used against others...
CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES GROUPS: This is fine.