[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

Actually BB made a point of saying he was not accusing them of lying.  The fact you see no distinction is telling. 

This is taking a very lawyerly turn.

Someone brought up the charge of perjury.  In order to prove a perjury charge you have to prove the Accused knew what they were saying is false.  It is for this reason I've never seen a successful perjury conviction - how do you prove what is in someone's mind?

However I had brought up the concept of willful blindness, where a party deliberately doesn't ask the right questions.  Willful blindness can amount to knowledge in a variety of circumstances - in my line of work failing to inquire whether a female you're going to have sex with is underage, or failing to inquire about the provenance of certain property you're about to buy.

But willful blindness doesn't apply to perjury charges.

So, very technically, no we can't "prove" that Trudeau and the Liberals were lying.

As a more practical matter, I think the distinction matters very little.  There's very little difference between making a promise you know you can't keep, and making a promise that you haven't bothered to check whether you can keep or not.

Read my post above yours.

And frankly Malthus is a lawyer so he should understand the distinction I am making.

The other comment I would make is that Willful blindness would apply if they now said they were going to do nothing.  They are not trying suggest they wont do the thing that was promised.

[Barrister]

Read my post above yours.

And frankly Malthus is a lawyer so he should understand the distinction I am making.

I did.

I understand the distinction.  Frankly its a distinction only a lawyer could love.  But a distinction can be made here.

I just don't think it matters all that much.

[crazy canuck]

Read my post above yours.

And frankly Malthus is a lawyer so he should understand the distinction I am making.

I did.

I understand the distinction.  Frankly its a distinction only a lawyer could love.  But a distinction can be made here.

I just don't think it matters all that much.

No, its a distinction that the lawyers are missing the import of.  There is no substantial difference between bringing them in before Jan. 1 and March.  The lawyers are missing what is the essential part of the promise - to bring 25K refugees in as quickly as possible.  You and Malthus are making a semantic game (Malthus going as far as accusing them of lying) when they are in substance doing what they said they would do.

[Malthus]

Actually BB made a point of saying he was not accusing them of lying.  The fact you see not distinction is telling. 

Okay, then I'll ask you: according to you, is "willful blindness" distinct from "lying"? Yes or no?

Yes.  Certainly.  Willful blindness is being reckless as to a state of facts.  That is BB's contention.  I disagree with him for the reasons I stated but at least he has a plausible argument.

No, it isn't. Willful blindness is the equivalent of actual knowledge in most situations. It is making a deliberate choice not to know, because you wouldn't like the answer, when you have good reason to inquire.

It is sometimes called "Nelsonian Knowledge" because of the famous anecdote of Lord Nelson putting his blind eye to a telescope and saying "I can't see the signal to withdraw". According to you (but no-one else  ), Nelson "wasn't lying" - he literally could not see the signal! 

Naturally, most people recognize there is literally no significant difference between "willful blindness" and lying. It is not the same as "recklessness", certainly not in either common use or Canadian law.

You accuse them of knowing that they were saying something that was not true.  In this context I have no idea how one would ever prove that to be true.

So, according to you, not only were they not lying, it is literally impossible to accuse them of lying! 

This just gets better and better.

They were making an estimate of when they might complete the task.  They missed the estimate but an amount of time that is inconsequential given the time lines the Conservatives were talking about.  That is not lying.  They are going to do what they said they would do but in a slightly greater period of time.

Put another way, if your kid tells you he will get his homework done by bedtime if you let him watch his favourite show, and then it turns out he needs to spend some additional time finishing his homework because he was overly optimistic in his estimate, will you accuse your kid of lying.  I hope not. 

Once again, what the Cons said they would do is irrelevant to what the Libs said they would do. This isn't grade two.  The other guy is worse isn't an excuse.

[Admiral Yi]

I suspect the new deadline is a political fudge as well.

[crazy canuck]

So, according to you, not only were they not lying, it is literally impossible to accuse them of lying! 

According to me you should not being accusing them of lying when you have no idea what their true state of mind was.  You would never get away with that in your professional life.  Not sure why you pretend not to recognize the distinction here.  Especially when the promise to bring in the refugees is being kept.  You are verging on the hypocritical my friend.

Once again, what the Cons said they would do is irrelevant to what the Libs said they would do. This isn't grade two.  The other guy is worse isn't an excuse.

Not at all.  It gives a good measuring stick to judge how reasonable the extension was.  If they said they could only do it over three years - like the time period claimed by the Conservatives I would agree with BB.

[Malthus]

Is willful blindness the same as recklessness?

The Supremes say: no.

The doctrine of wilful blindness, correctly delineated, is distinct from recklessness and involves no departure from the subjective inquiry into the accused's state of mind which must be undertaken to establish an aider or abettor's knowledge.  Wilful blindness does not define the mens rea required for particular offences.  Rather, it can substitute for actual knowledge whenever knowledge is a component of the mens rea.  Wilful blindness imputes knowledge to an accused whose suspicion is aroused to the point where he or she sees the need for further inquiries, but deliberately chooses not to make those inquiries.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2010/2010scc13/2010scc13.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAhUi4gdi4gQnJpc2NvZSAmIHdpbGxmdWwgYmxpbmRuZXNzAAAAAAE&resultIndex=1

Detailed analysis:

[22] Courts and commentators have consistently emphasized that wilful blindness is distinct from recklessness.  The emphasis bears repeating.  As the Court explained in  Sansregret (at p. 584):





. . . while recklessness involves knowledge of a danger or risk and persistence in a course of conduct which creates a risk that the prohibited result will occur, wilful blindness arises where a person who has become aware of the need for some inquiry declines to make the inquiry because he does not wish to know the truth.  He would prefer to remain ignorant.  The culpability in recklessness is justified by consciousness of the risk and by proceeding in the face of it, while in wilful blindness it is justified by the accused's fault in deliberately failing to inquire when he knows there is reason for inquiry.  [Emphasis added.]



[23] It is important to keep the concepts of recklessness and wilful blindness separate.  Glanville Williams explains the key restriction on the doctrine:



The rule that wilful blindness is equivalent to knowledge is essential, and is found throughout the criminal law.  It is, at the same time, an unstable rule, because judges are apt to forget its very limited scope.  A court can properly find wilful blindness only where it can almost be said that the defendant actually knew.  He suspected the fact; he realised its probability; but he refrained from obtaining the final confirmation because he wanted in the event to be able to deny knowledge.  This, and this alone, is wilful blindness.  It requires in effect a finding that the defendant intended to cheat the administration of justice.  Any wider definition would make the doctrine of wilful blindness indistinguishable from the civil doctrine of negligence in not obtaining knowledge.  [Emphasis added.]



(Criminal Law: The General Part (2nd ed. 1961), at p. 159 (cited in Sansregret, at p. 586).) p

The "CC" analysis was tried and rebuffed.

[crazy canuck]

Is willful blindness the same as recklessness?

The Supremes say: no.

The doctrine of wilful blindness, correctly delineated, is distinct from recklessness and involves no departure from the subjective inquiry into the accused's state of mind which must be undertaken to establish an aider or abettor's knowledge.  Wilful blindness does not define the mens rea required for particular offences.  Rather, it can substitute for actual knowledge whenever knowledge is a component of the mens rea.  Wilful blindness imputes knowledge to an accused whose suspicion is aroused to the point where he or she sees the need for further inquiries, but deliberately chooses not to make those inquiries.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2010/2010scc13/2010scc13.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAhUi4gdi4gQnJpc2NvZSAmIHdpbGxmdWwgYmxpbmRuZXNzAAAAAAE&resultIndex=1

Detailed analysis:

[22] Courts and commentators have consistently emphasized that wilful blindness is distinct from recklessness.  The emphasis bears repeating.  As the Court explained in  Sansregret (at p. 584):





. . . while recklessness involves knowledge of a danger or risk and persistence in a course of conduct which creates a risk that the prohibited result will occur, wilful blindness arises where a person who has become aware of the need for some inquiry declines to make the inquiry because he does not wish to know the truth.  He would prefer to remain ignorant.  The culpability in recklessness is justified by consciousness of the risk and by proceeding in the face of it, while in wilful blindness it is justified by the accused's fault in deliberately failing to inquire when he knows there is reason for inquiry.  [Emphasis added.]



[23] It is important to keep the concepts of recklessness and wilful blindness separate.  Glanville Williams explains the key restriction on the doctrine:



The rule that wilful blindness is equivalent to knowledge is essential, and is found throughout the criminal law.  It is, at the same time, an unstable rule, because judges are apt to forget its very limited scope.  A court can properly find wilful blindness only where it can almost be said that the defendant actually knew.  He suspected the fact; he realised its probability; but he refrained from obtaining the final confirmation because he wanted in the event to be able to deny knowledge.  This, and this alone, is wilful blindness.  It requires in effect a finding that the defendant intended to cheat the administration of justice.  Any wider definition would make the doctrine of wilful blindness indistinguishable from the civil doctrine of negligence in not obtaining knowledge.  [Emphasis added.]



(Criminal Law: The General Part (2nd ed. 1961), at p. 159 (cited in Sansregret, at p. 586).) p

The "CC" analysis was tried and rebuffed.

Oh for Fuck sakes Malthus you asked me whether lying is the same as willful blindness.

I will use Berkut's tried and true. Fuck Off. 

You really should know better than this.

[Malthus]

So, according to you, not only were they not lying, it is literally impossible to accuse them of lying! 

According to me you should not being accusing them of lying when you have no idea what their true state of mind was.  You would never get away with that in your professional life.  Not sure why you pretend not to recognize the distinction here.  Especially when the promise to bring in the refugees is being kept.  You are verging on the hypocritical my friend.

"Willful blindness" is a way of determining the state of mind from objective circumstances. Namely, was there evidence actually known to the person that ought to have reasonably put them "on inquiry".

Don't see what either (1) the fact that the Libs are planning to bring in refugees or (2) "hypocrisy" have anything to do with it.   

[Jacob]

As a more practical matter, I think the distinction matters very little.

... thus making it the perfect topic for languish 

[Malthus]

Oh for Fuck sakes Malthus you asked me whether lying is the same as willful blindness.

I will use Berkut's tried and true. Fuck Off. 

You really should know better than this.

You challenged my "professional life". Don't do that unless you are willing to engage in a lawyer-off. 

In any event, the meaning isn't different in common usage. 

[Barrister]

lawyer-off

You know, we have a word for those.

It's called a trial.

[Martinus]

lawyer-off

You know, we have a word for those.

It's called a trial.

Trial by combat. 

[Jacob]

lawyer-off

You know, we have a word for those.

It's called a trial.

Those are imperfect, however, as they're sometimes determined by factual realities rather than the quality of the lawyering.

[Malthus]

lawyer-off

You know, we have a word for those.

It's called a trial.

Trial by combat. 

This is Canada, not Poland.