The Stolen Valor Act

[Barrister]

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.

I don't know about never invoked, but it is certainly very obscure.

I am unaware of any law that prohibits impersonating a CF member, other than the section quoted.  There are generic laws against fraud, personation, etc. that could presumably apply.

[grumbler]

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.

The Napoleonic Armies of all countries would be one of the "other... arm[ies]..." mentioned in the law.  There is nothing there I can see about time limits or current militaries.

Again, I am willing to be enlightened on whether a military under this law refers only to a currently-existing military, and it just isn't in the fragment of the statutes presented by Beeb.

[grumbler]

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. 

The way the law reads to me, what is "likely to be mistaken therefor" is "a uniform of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force."  Not a member, but a uniform.

Is there somewhere that it is made plain that it is a service member one is "likely to be mistaken therefor"?  Certainly, everything else then falls into place.

[Agelastus]

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.

The bit about "Canadian Forces" is the key, in my opinion - since they were not founded until 1968, then the way the law is written suggests to me that any uniforms from before that period are not covered (except possibly where their use continued in the unified command structure for a while after 1968.) Since the part of the law that refers to Canadian uniforms specifies a command that did not exist until 1968, and the sentence carries on without any further qualifier for date, then the rest of the line refers to current armed forces as well (or at least, 1968 or later.)

Thus a Napoleonic reenactor is perfectly safe - as is a WWI and WWII reenactor in all probability due to the many uniform changes over the century.

I do bear in mind of course that my reading of this line is made more as a historian than as a lawyer (since I am demonstrably not a lawyer) but there seems to be no retroactive element in the language used.

[Barrister]

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. 

The way the law reads to me, what is "likely to be mistaken therefor" is "a uniform of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force."  Not a member, but a uniform.

Is there somewhere that it is made plain that it is a service member one is "likely to be mistaken therefor"?  Certainly, everything else then falls into place.

Well in the absence of compelling judicial authority, we can have differing opinions on this point.

And I hit up the legal search database: s. 419 referred to only 3 times, and each time seems to deal with 419(c), military identity cards.  So there is no caselaw on point.

While I can understand your reasoning, I would suggest that it is unlikely any prosecutor would ever charge for wearing a Napoleonic uniform based on the "public interest" test, and that even if a prosecutor did charge, I suspect a judge would read the section down to only include modern military uniforms.  However I've seen stranger things happen in court, so I can not categorically rule out your interpretation either.

[Barrister]

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.

The bit about "Canadian Forces" is the key, in my opinion - since they were not founded until 1968, then the way the law is written suggests to me that any uniforms from before that period are not covered (except possibly where their use continued in the unified command structure for a while after 1968.) Since the part of the law that refers to Canadian uniforms specifies a command that did not exist until 1968, and the sentence carries on without any further qualifier for date, then the rest of the line refers to current armed forces as well (or at least, 1968 or later.)

Thus a Napoleonic reenactor is perfectly safe - as is a WWI and WWII reenactor in all probability due to the many uniform changes over the century.

I do bear in mind of course that my reading of this line is made more as a historian than as a lawyer (since I am demonstrably not a lawyer) but there seems to be no retroactive element in the language used.

Short of doing some legal research you'd have no way of knowing this, but your analysis won't hold up.  The term "Canadian Forces" is a defined term in the Criminal Code, and it is defined as "the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada".  That would clearly include pre-1968 Canadian military units.

[Agelastus]

Short of doing some legal research you'd have no way of knowing this, but your analysis won't hold up.  The term "Canadian Forces" is a defined term in the Criminal Code, and it is defined as "the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada".  That would clearly include pre-1968 Canadian military units.

Before 1968 Canada had the RCAF, the RCN and the Canadian Army as separate corporate entities. After 1968 they were merely separate commands under the umbrella "Canadian Forces" (officially Canadian Armed Forces, but every abbreviation used in general, even in the command names that I can find use the shortened form "Canadian Forces".)

So, on the assumption the law is post 1968, then you would certainly have a justifiable argument that use of this term precluded earlier uniforms, as they are uniforms of entities that are not mentioned in the Code and that no longer exist. The actual correct definition you have given me does not actually preclude that argument. And I still argue there is no retroactive language in the statute as quoted.

But I repeat, I'm a historian, not a lawyer, and am thus reading the language of the statute "as written", without complete knowledge of the background to the terminology in question...but I find if very interesting that the statute reads "Canadian Forces" and then mentions "navy, army and airforce" when talking about other nations that still maintain three separate services.

[The Larch]

Surely that law was drafted with "The Mountie" in mind.

[garbon]

Actually, Aggie, you are reading it as a person with a screw loose.

[Barrister]

Short of doing some legal research you'd have no way of knowing this, but your analysis won't hold up.  The term "Canadian Forces" is a defined term in the Criminal Code, and it is defined as "the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada".  That would clearly include pre-1968 Canadian military units.

Before 1968 Canada had the RCAF, the RCN and the Canadian Army as separate corporate entities. After 1968 they were merely separate commands under the umbrella "Canadian Forces" (officially Canadian Armed Forces, but every abbreviation used in general, even in the command names that I can find use the shortened form "Canadian Forces".)

So, on the assumption the law is post 1968, then you would certainly have a justifiable argument that use of this term precluded earlier uniforms, as they are uniforms of entities that are not mentioned in the Code and that no longer exist. The actual correct definition you have given me does not actually preclude that argument. And I still argue there is no retroactive language in the statute as quoted.

But I repeat, I'm a historian, not a lawyer, and am thus reading the language of the statute "as written", without complete knowledge of the background to the terminology in question...but I find if very interesting that the statute reads "Canadian Forces" and then mentions "navy, army and airforce" when talking about other nations that still maintain three separate services.

Err, no, not at all.

Like I said - it was a good effort on your part, but you didn't take into account the definition section.

Canadian Forces = "armed forced of Her Majesty raised by Canada".  Thus any armed force in Canada, from the Boer War, 1885 Rebellion, WWI and WWII, would all qualify as "Canadian Forces" since they meet the definition.

[Agelastus]

Err, no, not at all.

Like I said - it was a good effort on your part, but you didn't take into account the definition section.

Canadian Forces = "armed forced of Her Majesty raised by Canada".  Thus any armed force in Canada, from the Boer War, 1885 Rebellion, WWI and WWII, would all qualify as "Canadian Forces" since they meet the definition.

Well, while I am not a lawyer, even by your no doubt legally correct argument that serves to extend the law backwards, it still cannot apply to uniforms from pre-1922, since that is when the Canadian Armed Forces gained their own separate identity. Before that the term would be raised "by her majesty in Canada", not "by Canada". Moreover, the term "Canadian Forces" is a specific term that originates at a specific time. Pre-1966 or 1968 it would be meaningless; one would talk of the RCN etc.

From your expert testimony it appears that the use of this term is immaterial, despite the apparent precision with which the law is written. From what I know of lawmaking and politicians, this would not be the first time...

The Canadian Forces (CF) (French: Forces canadiennes; FC), officially the Canadian Armed Forces (French: Forces armées canadiennes),[5] are the unified armed forces of Canada, as constituted by the National Defence Act, which states: "The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces."

Passed in 1922

On 4 November 1966, Bill C-243, "The Canadian Forces Reorganization Act," was introduced to amend the National Defence Act. The aim of the bill was to reorganize the Canadian Army, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force, previously separate and independent services, under one umbrella. Following debate in the House of Commons and further examination by the Defence Committee, the Bill was given third and final reading in April 1967, clearing the way for unification.

The Canadian Forces Reorganization Act came into effect on 1 February 1968, creating one organization responsible for the defence of Canada, the Canadian Forces, and amending the National Defence Act.

And Garbon? I'm just reading the law as quoted and presumably as written. Nothing else.

[Valdemar]

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.

Actually, alot of "Galla" uniforms, especially here in Europe are exact copies of "ordinary" everyday uniforms from various centuries. So an enacter of say a Danish Hussar uniform would actually wear the parade uniform of the today hussars and thus possibly be mistaken for one

V

[Siege]

Martinus stole my valor.

[Grey Fox]

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.

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

What, do you dress up like a sailor to cruise gay bars or something?

I play Paintball. I wear a CADPAT uniform.

[Martinus]

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.

Yeah. The burden of proof of exculpating circumstances rests on the defendant. Same goes for pretty much any defense - for example in a murder case, the burden of proof that the killing was in self-defense is on the defendant.