~/
(
INTHESUPREMECOURTOFBRITISHCOLUMBIAINTHEMATTEROF:THE
CONSTITUTIONALQUESTIONACT,
R.S.B.C.1986,c.68ANDINTHEMATTEROF:THE
CANADIANCHARTEROFRIGHTSANDFREEDOMS
ANDINTHEMATTEROF:AREFERENCEBYTHELIEUTENANTGOVERNORINCOUNCILSETOUTINORDERINCOUNCILNO.533DATEDOCTOBER22,2009CONCERNINGTHECONSTITUTIONALITYOFs.293OFTHE
CRIMINALCODE
OF
CANADA,
R.S.C.1985,c.C-46DEPARTMENTOFJUSTICEBCRegionalOffice900-840HoweStreetVancouver,B.C.V6Z2S9Telephone:(604)666-1543KEITHREIMERCounselfortheAttorneyGeneralofCanadaREPLYSUBMISSIONSOFTHEATTORNEYGENERALOFBRITISHCOLUMBIAATTORNEYGENERALOFBRITISHCOLUMBIA1301-865HornbyStreetVancouver,B.C.V6Z2G3Telephone:(604)660-5476CRAIGE.JONESCounselfortheAttorneyGeneralofBritishColumbiaFARRIS
J
VAUGHAN,WILLS
&
MURPHYLLPBarristersandSolicitors2500-700WestGeorgiaStreetVancouver,BCV7Y1B3Telephone:(604)661-9332GEORGEK.MACINTOSH,Q.C.CounselandReferenceAmicus
2
Contents
I.OverviewofTheseReplySubmissions2II."Consent"isNotaPrincipleofFundamentalJustice3III."Polygamy"isNotanAnalogousGround6A.TheAmicus'sArgument:6B.PolygamistsareNotaHistoricallyDisadvantagedGroup6C.PolygamyisNotanImmutableCharacteristic8IV.TheAmicus'sDescriptionsofEvidenceandArgument10
A.
TheMisuseofWrightandPinkerandtheNewAttackonEvolutionaryPsychology'10B.TheAttorneys'SupposedBirthday"Attack"14
I.
OverviewofTheseReplySubmissions
1.theAttorneyGeneralofBritishColumbiadisagreeswithmuchofwhatissaidintheclosingsubmissionsoftheAmicusandtheotherChallengers.Byandlarge,thesedisagreementswereanticipatedintheAttorney'smainClosingSubmissionsandwillbeexploredintheAttorney'soralsubmissionstotheCourt.2.ThesewrittenreplysubmissionsfocusontwoaspectsoftheAmicus'sargumentthatarenewinthesensethattheyareissuesnotpreviouslyidentifiedbythechallengers:First,that"consent"isaprincipleoffundamentaljusticeundersection7ofthe
Charter,
andsecond,that"polygamy"isananalogousgroundforthepurposesofsection15.3.TheAttorneywillthenreplytocertainassertionsmadebytheAmicusinordertodemonstrateseriousdifficultieswithhistreatmentofevidenceandargument.Manyexamplescouldbegiven(andwillbeexploredinoralsubmissions),butforpurposesofthiswrittenreplyjusttwomattersare
3
highlighted:theAmicus'snewcriticismoftheexpertpsychologyevidence,andhisuseof,andattackupon,asupposedpositionoftheAttorneysGeneralregardingthecelebrationofbirthdaysamongpolygamists.
II."Consent"isNotaPrincipleofFundamentalJustice
4.Thetesttoestablishanewprincipleoffundamentaljusticeforsection7purposeswasheldin
Malmo-Levine
(atpara.113)toconsistofthefollowing:theproposednewprinciplehastobea"legalprinciple"(asdistinctfromapurelymoralorethicalprinciple);theremustbe"asignificantsocietalconsensusthatitisfundamentaltothewayinwhichthelegalsystemoughtfairlytooperate";anditmustbecapableofbeing"identifiedwithsufficientprecisiontoyieldamanageablestandard."5.Evenif"consent"satisfiedtherequirementofbeinga"legalprinciple"thatwas"sufficientlyprecise",itcertainlycannotbesaidtobethesubjectof"asignificantsocietalconsensusthatitisfundamentaltothewayinwhichthelegalsystemoughtfairlytooperate".Oneortwoobliquely-relevantdecisionsandashortpassageina
textbook
fallshortofestablishing"asignificantsocietalconsensus"ofthekindrequired.6.Initsrejectionofthe"harmprinciple"asaprincipleoffundamentaljusticeforsection7purposes,themajorityin
Malmo-Levine
observedthatthereareactivitiesthatarelegitimatelyprohibitedeventhoughundertakenbyfullyconsentingadults:118Aduelfoughtbyconsentingadultsisanexampleofacrimewherethevictimisnolessculpablethantheperpetrator,andthereisnoharmthatis
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
3-25-11 AGBC Reponse to Amicus Closing Statement - Canadian Polygamy Reference Case
Attorney General Response to the Closing Statement of the Amicus Curiae for the Canadian Reference Case on Polygamy
291
Reads
3
Readcasts
1
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
