"Bilingual Defence" - Where it can be used

Bamelin wrote:

Oh noes,

I'm wondering if I have grounds to request a Stay under 11b of the Charter ? The new court date will place me at 16 months when I go to trial again. Seems unreasonable ...

You can always request an 11b it's just whether or not the JP accepts your argument. 16 months puts you in a pretty good position unless you have caused a delay in the trial process already (which it doesn't sound like you have). Good luck.

Does anyone think that this process is abusive?

You clearly speak English as you've noted by your near flawless command of the language...so you would have understood the sign and for some other reason didn't obey it.

Isn't that the real issue here?

What would you say if a fluently English person disobeyed a stop sign and ran over a child, your child?

I understand, it's ok, the sign wasn't in French for this Anglophone?

I understand and respect rights, but not as a charade to play games. Those rights were established so that Francophones could have a trial in a language they understand, so they had a right to fair comprehension and defence...not to be abused as a stalling tactic to let people avoid answering for their behaviour, right or wrong, this abuse of the law is disgusting and if the authorities played those kinds of games there would be an uproar about fair play...

Sad that people play these games rather than take responsibility for their actions...

FyreStorm wrote:

Does anyone think that this process is abusive?

You clearly speak English as you've noted by your near flawless command of the language...so you would have understood the sign and for some other reason didn't obey it.

Isn't that the real issue here?

What would you say if a fluently English person disobeyed a stop sign and ran over a child, your child?

I understand, it's ok, the sign wasn't in French for this Anglophone?

I understand and respect rights, but not as a charade to play games. Those rights were established so that Francophones could have a trial in a language they understand, so they had a right to fair comprehension and defence...not to be abused as a stalling tactic to let people avoid answering for their behaviour, right or wrong, this abuse of the law is disgusting and if the authorities played those kinds of games there would be an uproar about fair play...

Sad that people play these games rather than take responsibility for their actions...

It's not about me trying to "beat the system" it's about me defending myself in court to the best of my ability which is a very important right, one I take seriously. The bottom line is that if bilingual defence argument is accepted in court then no law has been broken.

The reason courts follow the "letter of the law" is to ensure everyone is treated fairly under the law. Once you start trying to argue "oh the law only needs to be "close enough" that is a slippery slope my friend to being tried unfairly. Personally I believe it is the DUTY of citizens to use the law to defend themselves and the law itself is impartial to "right or wrong" ... it is simply the law.

People died to give us the freedom to exercise these rights.

I do understand what you are saying Fyre but I don't agree with you at all. Among other things, the system exists to give everyone a chance to challenge the "legality" of what they are being accused of.

I understand and respect rights, but not as a charade to play games. Those rights were established so that Francophones could have a trial in a language they understand, so they had a right to fair comprehension and defence...not to be abused as a stalling tactic to let people avoid answering for their behaviour, right or wrong, this abuse of the law is disgusting and if the authorities played those kinds of games there would be an uproar about fair play...

Respectfully disagree. 1) That is a very small portion of why the FLSA was enacted. Read the Constitution and some history books for a more complete and thorough perspective. 2) Arguing that upholding the law is abusing the law, is, well, bizarre, and a little frightening coming from a police officer; 3) some police officers and some prosecutors have been known to play the odd game, believe it or not 3) The law works both ways. You do not always choose to disobey the law, and yet, the law says that if you commit an absolute liability offence, no mens rea is required. Is that fair play? Doesn't matter. That's the law.