Canada: Supreme Court rules mandatory sex offender registry is unconstitutional

Source: nationalpost.com 10/28/22

Mandatory listing on Canada’s sex offender registry is, for some offenders, an unjustified infringement on their liberty that is not rationally connected to the goal of investigating or preventing sexual crimes, the Supreme Court ruled Friday.

Automatic lifetime listing in the case of multiple sexual offences is similarly “overbroad,” the court decided in striking down both laws to permit discretion by sentencing judges.

Imposing those automatically, with no regard to an offender’s circumstances or risk of re-offending, is not justified by any rational connection to the goal of investigating and preventing offences, the court ruled. The legislative purpose of the lifetime listing in the case of multiple offences was to target offenders with greater risk to re-offend, but it catches people, like Ndhlovu, “who are not at an increased risk of committing a future sex offence,” the Supreme Court decided.

Read the full article

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

57 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Score one for Canada?

Let’s just set aside the whole unconstitutionality of the entire scheme for a moment. Mandatory lifetime has always been a glaring, undeniable disregard of rights and reality. Offence based mandatory lifetime just makes it even more of an insult to the very concept of justice. Mandatory lifetime for nonviolent offences, especially ones that did not directly involve another person in any way, are just urinating on anything remotely resembling justice, or even a rational response to ensuring safety for communities… children in general.

The Justice that pointed out how the discretionary aspect will result in, “Rampant misuse” is on to something I think. Politicians have engaged in, ” Rampant misuse” of this scheme since day one. Now, all of a sudden, they will use it responsibly? Judges have been all too willing to go along with this “Rampant misuse”, but will now also use this discretionary ability only when strictly needed? Uh huh..sure they will.

Once again, something that should be meaningful, will be blown off as meaningless.

Yup. I absolutely believe giving a “judge” the authority to order “discretionary” registration will result in “rampant misuse.” Discretionary registration is just as bad as mandatory registration.

I say this from experience BTW. I was subject of a 2-1 judicial opinion involving so-called discretionary registration.

The crazy thing is a “justice” in the majority, Tricia Bigelow, ended up being involved in the Tom Girardi client-embezzlement scandal—and Bigelow was a recipient of some of what was stolen. Bigelow ended up “retiring” about the time a Hulu documentary was released about the Girardi scandal. IDK how she’s even able to practice law, given her close relationship to Girardi.

Anyway, at least Canada has the courage to call out “sex offender” registration as unconstitutional. Here in the United States, not so much.

It’s interesting to read the comment section of the Canadian newspaper. At lot of people aren’t happy with the verdict. All I can say is Boo-Hoo!

Most interesting to me is that in the decision they said “A law cannot deprive the life, liberty, or security of the person…” in relation to mandatory lifetime registration. This implies that they consider the registry a deprivation of these things, which is a huge step.

If only we could get our SCOTUS to understand the same, that the registry scheme is not merely an administrative task akin to sending in an annual discount club card.

I’m pleased to note Canada SC has dumped the automatic. Maybe the US will follow but I highly doubt it for several reasons. The thing is Canada’s political class participants aren’t like ours here in the states. Candada elects a Prime minister, but they still utilize a Sovereign as ruler and while the sovereign doesn’t legislate nevertheless leads by a more permanent perspective. This is unlike the US which changes that position by democratic vote every four or eight years.That equates to less political friction at the top of the food chain- for lacking of a better term. Canadians are still beholden to the Sovereign seated in the UK, even the Prime Minister (Trudeau currently) serves the Sovereign in a role more like our US Attorney General- essentially a Top Cop. It is no different in the other British colonies like Australia, who also have their own Prime Minister and legislative bodies, each however still serves, albeit technically, at the pleasure of the UK Sovereign. Does the UK assign their registration obligation automatically upon conviction? I do not know, but I suspect they do not. Each of our elected Presidents gets to bring along their own ( hand picked) AG- top cop. That fact in a sense describes why America is so bipolar in so many of our policies like energy and borders.

Ah, but in America, we are the “Land of the Free.”

This is heartening to see.

Does it apply to US registrants? Of course not.

Will the discretion be abused in many cases? Probably.

Should it have gone further? Yes, although I’m insufficiently familiar with Canadian legal procedure to know if that could even be on the table in this case.

All that being said, it’s a step in the right direction. For those in Canada, it’s still a big improvement over mandatory.

And for us Americans, it’s significant to see another Anglosphere/Five Eyes (US/UK/AUS/NZ/CA) do this. To the extent that US officials etc. have some anemic modicum of open-mindedness in terms of looking at other countries’ laws and policies on the topic of sexuality and the law, it’s almost entirely said countries they look at (Austria or Germany, say, might as well not exist to them). This is yet one more straw accumulating on the camel’s back.

Finally, even if it weren’t about this issue, I’m always happy to see courts anywhere doing one of the things they are supposed to do in a liberal democracy – defending individual rights even when unpopular.

I wonder how this will affect immigration if upheld. Also the dreaded Angel watch notices. Will a person be able to claim asylum based on Human rights violations as Steve did in Germany against Florida. It opens the door for good possibilities.

What if a child of an SO sued here in the US for being deprived of their SO parent at events and pain and suffering due to the registry and it’s unfair laws. Just an idea

I have to wonder if they arguments the court presented in their opinion would work in Amerika. It would be interesting and possibly eye opening. The other part here is the court was more worried about the rampant abuse by the justice system and not the person the case was about in the first place.

So, why does it not apply retroactively? Everything else does. If mandatory registration is deemed unconstitutional, shouldn’t it apply to all on the registry in Canada?

Because I wish to tie this ruling by Canada’s SC’s main point to the law suit filed by (PLF) Pacific Legal Foundation; I’d like to point out that for many registrants it was in fact state governments who created the first online identities. They did it automatically upon the enactment of a necessary database driven regime.
IMO, PLF missed that important point in their complaints filing.
Just saying.

At what point should “sex offenders” move out of America? Serious question.

We all know how corrupt our “courts” and “judges” are. The courts and judges generally don’t do their jobs correctly/constitutionally. The VERY FEW ones that do are quickly retiring. Why stay on what seems like a sinking ship? There seems to be less benefit to being an “American citizen” as time goes by. Why stay in a country where as American citizens, we are treated as second-class citizens? What country/countries are the best to move to?

If the three-judge panel, of a German court, compared America’s sex offender registration scheme to “no different” than how Jewish people in the 1930’s were treated in Germany, would it send a message if even a quarter to half of America’s one million “Registered Sex Offenders” renounced citizenship and sought new homelands? We could use our energies finding new jobs, starting new/fresh lives, and being law-abiding, productive, citizens in our new countries. Prove the so-called “justice system” wrong! Also, spread the word that America IS NOT ALL THAT!

Kanye West’s comments blaming Jewish people also has got me thinking: What are the chances of a civil war? The COVID outbreak started almost exactly 100 years after the Spanish Flu outbreak, so who is to say what Hitler did in the 1920’s to 1940’s won’t repeat in 2020’s to 2040’s? Kanye has literally praised Hitler. He’s blamed Jewish people. Kanye has said he hates Asian people. He’s put down the Black Lives Matter movement, in a seeming attempt to align himself with Trump conservatives, including Herschel Walker, something that has been successful thus far. Kanye has expressed his desire to run for President. In the same fashion Hitler was rejected from art school, an admitted motivation for his Holocaust, will Kanye use the fact that he has been “cancelled” as a catalyst for what may happen in the future? Are the battle lines being drawn?

I know the prospects of Kanye becoming president may be farfetched to most. However, I think people tend to run to false prophets during tumultuous times. For the exception of those who are fortunate at the moment, I think most would agree the economy is not doing so hot, despite the stock market’s recent rally. The future doesn’t look too good, either, from micro, macro, and inflationary measures. We know “GDP” and “unemployment” figures have been rigged, likely since about 2008. Young people today are generally not optimistic about the future. Kanye fits the popularist, false prophet, mold, in the same way Donald Trump, who has also praised Hitler, became president. Donald and Kanye will eventually team up, which may even delight some of you. Just a few days ago, there were people giving the Hitler salute, on the freeway overpass in Los Angeles, with signs praising Kanye, blaming Jewish people. Again, pretty troubling.

Anyway, am I being paranoid?

It seems like there is increasingly more divide in recent months. In Los Angeles, there seems to be more tension between Blacks and Latinos, especially after the city councilmembers’ comments about Blacks. You can literally feel it. The mainstream media portrays the two groups in “solidarity,” but the reality on the ground is A LOT different. Blacks are protesting, in an attempt to fill those three Latino seats with Blacks, something many Latinos do not want to see, given than Los Angeles is majority Latino.

Even in nicer neighborhoods, it’s becoming more common to see homeless people camped-out on the streets, with tents blocking sidewalks, with human feces on the grass and concrete. In what were crime-less stores, in “peaceful” communities, I now see one to two armed security guards in each store, because of shoplifting and looting. That’s not just in the local stores though, but I also see it on social media, like TikTok. Probably much worse in other parts of the country. Even though I’m not a big fan of police, they are more afraid to do their jobs nowadays, which is actually pretty troubling. Cops are like double-edged swords; they violate rights, a la sex offender “compliance checks,” but I believe they also (generally) try their best to keep the peace in society. In reality, I think the courts, judges, politicians, and top-level police “leadership” are much more to blame than the average middle-to-low level policewoman or policeman.

On social media, I see a lot more hate against Jewish people. It’s almost unthinkable. Violence against Asian people. Hardliners not just speaking out against illegal immigration, but also immigration in general. Just look at Austin, Texas, for example. About last week, the armed Black militants protesting against immigration in Austin. Crazy people robbing and destroying taco stands, with food stand vendors just trying their best to make a living.

So, am I being paranoid? Are the battle lines being drawn? What happens to “Registered Sex Offenders” IF there is a next civil war? Is it time to start thinking about leaving this God-forsaken “country?”

Even though Canada and America are sister and brother countries, Canadians never liked the way America treated their people, I’m pretty sure we’ve all learned about the trail of tears in school.
As for Mexico 🇲🇽 are crazy cousins, they never stand up to America, they pretty much go along with whatever America says because America has the ability to cut them off from a lot of resources and also slow down the major drug distribution along the border which would cause civil wars throughout Mexico.
Honestly I could care less about what’s going on in Canada 🍁 I’m here in the US, I’m here in California suffering, until PFR here in America are free I don’t wanna read about greener pastures in Canada or in Germany that’s just my opinion.
In the early 1900s the Jews, the Italians, and the Irish immigrants were very poor and were fighting for survival and that’s how gangs were invented.
after decades of fighting and much blood shed the jews decided to take their money and invested into Hollywood show business, movies and entertainment, The Irish eventually wised up and decided to invest their money into politics that way they can get the laws they wanted passed.
The Italians they loved being gangster they loved the streets that’s all they wanted and they made good money off the streets too.
The blacks in this Country never stood a chance they’re barely slowly getting the recognition they deserve and I mean slowly and they’re only getting that out of fear of rioting and looting and destroying the country.
I wonder how much longer will 147,000 people in California take this kind of abuse from Law Enforcement agencies, forcing these 290 Punishment laws upon them.

Just when you thought they made the right decision they didn’t. “Individual circumstances” is just another way of saying the law doesn’t apply to everyone equally. And if that’s the case they don’t believe in the rule of law at all. It’s just a guideline at best.