In His Own Defence

Here are two provisions of the incoherent self-defence laws currently in use in Canada, which I have to somehow try to, um, cohere for my final Drafting assignment.

Self-Defence
34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
34. (2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

1. he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
   
2. he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

Say what, you ask? OK, picture this: Peter Provocateur walks up to Victor Victim and says something unkind about Victor's mother. Victor raises his fist and says "I'ma smasha yer face in." Peter takes out a knife and stabs Victor, and Victor becomes very dead. Peter uses the defence in section 34(2), and gets off because the judge believes that Victor, being very large, could be reasonably thought to have been threatening Pete with death.

Peter's brother Paul Provocateur walks up to Vonny Victim and says something unkind about Vonny's brother, the late Victor Victim. Vonny raises his fist and says, "I'ma smasha yer face in," because the Victim brothers are not a highly imaginative crew. Paul takes out a knife and hits Vonny on the face with it, because the Provocateur brothers are violent but creative, and Vonny becomes very bruised. Paul cannot use section 34(1) because that is intended only for those who have been "unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault", and he cannot use section 34(2) because he did not cause "death or grievous bodily harm". He gets convicted of assault.

Conclusion: Victor is dead, Peter is free, Vonny is bruised, Paul is in jail. Make sense?


Here's what our chief justice had to say on part of the problem in R. v. McIntosh, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 686, ( Lamer C.J: )

My Drafting prof, BTW, has rather harsh words for Lamer's wussing out of this one.

***
Here's my quirkylink of the day:

http://www.wftv.com/newsofthestrange/index.html

In the upper right hand side, under the heading "Strange News Photos," there's a small picture of a shark leaping out of the water accompanied by a description of a slideshow. Click on the link that says"Take A Look!"

just stuff

Linkslinkslinkslinks

• First, a disturbing one, from linaelyn: Voting irregularities. And here's another story on the same topic: Group Cites Electronic Voting Problems.
  
  
• Then, a couple of unbelievable ones from bear, and oh my, heathers, your profession was going through an ugly phase in the 1970s: Weight Watchers recipe cards from 1974.
  
  Actually, speaking of the seventies, would anybody mind if we just sort of... erased that decade? I know it brought us Jimmy Carter and the Montreal Olympics, but try as I might I can't really think of anything else I'd miss. Bell-bottoms, disco, Watergate, universal supersized afros, the Munich Olympics... help me out here. What's worth keeping?
  
  
• Certainly not this: Man Food, also from bear.
  
  ... thanks?
  
  
• On the other hand, the current decade has given us this: I Drew This, which, though funny, hits a little too close to home.

On a lighter note, we just finished watching The Princess Bride.

( Everything Old Is New Again )

And now I'm going to bed.