The Stolen Valor Act

[Malthus]

I infringe that law part a) on a, mostly, weekly basis.

What you do with other consenting adults in the privacy of your own bedroom doesn't count.

[Ed Anger]

My guess was "paratrooper and Somali prisoner" with his girlfriend.

Your ideas intrigue me. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.

[Martinus]

We have a similar law:

419. Every one who without lawful authority, the proof of which lies on him,
(a) wears a uniform of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force or a uniform that is so similar to the uniform of any of those forces that it is likely to be mistaken therefor,
(b) wears a distinctive mark relating to wounds received or service performed in war, or a military medal, ribbon, badge, chevron or any decoration or order that is awarded for war services, or any imitation thereof, or any mark or device or thing that is likely to be mistaken for any such mark, medal, ribbon, badge, chevron, decoration or order,
(c) has in his possession a certificate of discharge, certificate of release, statement of service or identity card from the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force that has not been issued to and does not belong to him, or
(d) has in his possession a commission or warrant or a certificate of discharge, certificate of release, statement of service or identity card, issued to an officer or a person in or who has been in the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force, that contains any alteration that is not verified by the initials of the officer who issued it, or by the initials of an officer thereto lawfully authorized,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wow, this law is pretty broad, especially considering the bolded part and the apparent lack of a requirement that this is done with an intent of misleading other people. This appears to cover reenactment, stage performances and film acting, as well as fancy dress parties. Not to mention, the law does not seem to be limited to the Canadian military, nor to uniforms and medals of any military still existing and in use".

So I guess someone dressing up in a Napoleonic era French uniform replica to a Halloween party or sporting his great-grandfather Iron Cross is guilty of an offense.

[sbr]

We have a similar law:

419. Every one who without lawful authority, the proof of which lies on him,
(a) wears a uniform of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force or a uniform that is so similar to the uniform of any of those forces that it is likely to be mistaken therefor,
(b) wears a distinctive mark relating to wounds received or service performed in war, or a military medal, ribbon, badge, chevron or any decoration or order that is awarded for war services, or any imitation thereof, or any mark or device or thing that is likely to be mistaken for any such mark, medal, ribbon, badge, chevron, decoration or order,
(c) has in his possession a certificate of discharge, certificate of release, statement of service or identity card from the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force that has not been issued to and does not belong to him, or
(d) has in his possession a commission or warrant or a certificate of discharge, certificate of release, statement of service or identity card, issued to an officer or a person in or who has been in the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force, that contains any alteration that is not verified by the initials of the officer who issued it, or by the initials of an officer thereto lawfully authorized,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wow, this law is pretty broad, especially considering the bolded part and the apparent lack of a requirement that this is done with an intent of misleading other people. This appears to cover reenactment, stage performances and film acting, as well as fancy dress parties. Not to mention, the law does not seem to be limited to the Canadian military, nor to uniforms and medals of any military still existing and in use".

So I guess someone dressing up in a Napoleonic era French uniform replica to a Halloween party or sporting his great-grandfather Iron Cross is guilty of an offense.

The Canadians are too busy prosecuting pot-smokers to worry about that.

[Barrister]

The Canadians are too busy prosecuting pot-smokers to worry about that.

I *wish* we were busy prosecuting pot smokers. 

[Barrister]

Wow, this law is pretty broad, especially considering the bolded part and the apparent lack of a requirement that this is done with an intent of misleading other people. This appears to cover reenactment, stage performances and film acting, as well as fancy dress parties. Not to mention, the law does not seem to be limited to the Canadian military, nor to uniforms and medals of any military still existing and in use".

So I guess someone dressing up in a Napoleonic era French uniform replica to a Halloween party or sporting his great-grandfather Iron Cross is guilty of an offense.

I would think that nobody could possibly be "mistaken" by someone wearing the unfirom of a Napoleonic replica uniform.  That being said I can't see any reason why it should be limited to the Canadian Forces uniforms - we certainly get soldiers from any number of countries visiting in Canada in uniform.

And it's a summary conviction offence, which is our lowest standard for criminal matters, so as a result it puts the onus on the accused, rather than the prosecution, to justify it.

[Martinus]

The Canadians are too busy prosecuting pot-smokers to worry about that.

I *wish* we were busy prosecuting pot smokers. 

you make me sick.

[Barrister]

The Canadians are too busy prosecuting pot-smokers to worry about that.

I *wish* we were busy prosecuting pot smokers. 

you make me sick.

Good.

[grumbler]

I would think that nobody could possibly be "mistaken" by someone wearing the unfirom of a Napoleonic replica uniform.  That being said I can't see any reason why it should be limited to the Canadian Forces uniforms - we certainly get soldiers from any number of countries visiting in Canada in uniform.

And it's a summary conviction offence, which is our lowest standard for criminal matters, so as a result it puts the onus on the accused, rather than the prosecution, to justify it.

Since the whole purpose of re-enactment uniforms is that they be "so similar to the uniform of" the original uniforms as to be "likely to be mistaken therefor," I cannot imagine that this law would actually stand up to judicial scrutiny.  Particularly as the law
(1) does not require any intent to brealk the law, and
(2) places the onus on the defendant to prove that he didn't intend the uniform to resemble that of, say, Wolfe's troops at the Plains of Abraham
I would imagine that the law has simply never been subjkect to judicial scrutiny.

For the American law-talkers:  is it possible, given the "presumed innocent until proven guilty" concept, to even have laws that require the defendant to prove innocence or else be found guilty?  I guess I am not surprised that Canada has such laws, given that what Horace Rumpole (i.e. John Mortimer, a barrister himself) called the "golden thread of justice" of the common law does not apply there, but I am curious as to whether this is also possible in the US.  I have always been under the assumption that it is not, but am willing to be enlightened.

[Agelastus]

(a) wears a uniform of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force or a uniform that is so similar to the uniform of any of those forces that it is likely to be mistaken therefor,

Before we all continue frothing about "re-enactors" getting arrested, I would like to point out that this is in the present tense.* As no army in the world wears Napoleonic uniforms these days, the re-enactors do not have a problem. I doubt you'd get into trouble with uniforms from a vast chunk of the twentieth century either, the way this is worded.

However, I am also somewhat disturbed that the defendant needs to prove innocence rather than the prosecution guilt. Is this from the Franco-Canadian tradition of jurisprudence?

*The "Canadian Forces", for example, did not exist under this name until relatively late last century. Before that they had the standard separate army, navy and airforce.

[Martinus]

What are you talking about? What "present tense"? Do you mean the word "wears"? 

[Barrister]

I would think that nobody could possibly be "mistaken" by someone wearing the unfirom of a Napoleonic replica uniform.  That being said I can't see any reason why it should be limited to the Canadian Forces uniforms - we certainly get soldiers from any number of countries visiting in Canada in uniform.

And it's a summary conviction offence, which is our lowest standard for criminal matters, so as a result it puts the onus on the accused, rather than the prosecution, to justify it.

Since the whole purpose of re-enactment uniforms is that they be "so similar to the uniform of" the original uniforms as to be "likely to be mistaken therefor," I cannot imagine that this law would actually stand up to judicial scrutiny.  Particularly as the law
(1) does not require any intent to brealk the law, and
(2) places the onus on the defendant to prove that he didn't intend the uniform to resemble that of, say, Wolfe's troops at the Plains of Abraham
I would imagine that the law has simply never been subjkect to judicial scrutiny.

For the American law-talkers:  is it possible, given the "presumed innocent until proven guilty" concept, to even have laws that require the defendant to prove innocence or else be found guilty?  I guess I am not surprised that Canada has such laws, given that what Horace Rumpole (i.e. John Mortimer, a barrister himself) called the "golden thread of justice" of the common law does not apply there, but I am curious as to whether this is also possible in the US.  I have always been under the assumption that it is not, but am willing to be enlightened.

First a disclaimer - I've never, ever seen this section charged.  I didn't even know it existed until a week ago, where a cop in a "the strangest charge you ever laid" discussion mentioned laying a charge under 419(c) where some kid had a fake military ID trying to use it to buy alcohol while underage.  So this is obscure.

I'm pretty certain that the language wears a uniform of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force or a uniform that is so similar to the uniform of any of those forces that it is likely to be mistaken therefor" deals with situations where you are attempting to pass yourself off as a military member.  Since the Napoleonic armed forces no longer exist, it is almost impossible (arguably) that anyone could ever mistake the wearer for being a member of the military.

There could be an interesting argument if one wore a, say, Vietnam-era US Army uniform.  But not blatantly historic uniforms.

It is not a part of the common law in any country (including I believe the USA) to prove any "intent to brealk(sic) the law".  It goes back to everyone is presumed to know the law.  What is required is intent to do the thing alleged.

And I never said that the presumption of innocence is reversed.   What the law does is once wearing the uniform is proven, the onus shifts to the wearer to prove that they wore it with "lawful authority".  And it's just a matter of common sense.  If someone is walking down the street in the uniform of the Canadian Forces, it would be almost impossible for the police to prove or disprove whether that person was actually a meber of the Canadian Forces, but it would be trivially easy for the subject to prove that they were.  As such there are a number of such cases in law where the onus shifts regarding information that is in the possession of the accused.

[Agelastus]

What are you talking about? What "present tense"? Do you mean the word "wears"? 

As no army wears Napoleonic uniforms (and, in fact, the Napoleonic Empire does not exist) a reenactor wearing it cannot be mistaken for a uniform used by any Canadian Forces unit or any other army, navy or airforce. The law is clearly written in a way that means existing armed forces. I do not understand where this business of reenactors being charged has arisen from.

[grumbler]

Before we all continue frothing about "re-enactors" getting arrested, I would like to point out that this is in the present tense.*

If you are frothing about this, I suggest you stop.  That cannot be healthy. 

As no army in the world wears Napoleonic uniforms these days, the re-enactors do not have a problem. I doubt you'd get into trouble with uniforms from a vast chunk of the twentieth century either, the way this is worded.

The way it is worded, it seems you certainly could.  In practice, I reckon you could not, as there are presumably laws against impersonating a service member.   I am thinking this particular law has never been invoked, so never subjected to scrutiny.  Maybe our esteemed Canadian Crown Counsel can correct my misapprehension, if that is what it is.

[Barrister]

However, I am also somewhat disturbed that the defendant needs to prove innocence rather than the prosecution guilt. Is this from the Franco-Canadian tradition of jurisprudence?

See my response to grumbler.  The defendant doesn't need to prove their innocence.  But, once the Crown has proven the person was wearing the uniform, the defendant must prove they wore it with lawful authority.