Talking in Live Theatre Performances is a Crime... or is it?

Hey, y'all.

I don't have a lot of pet peeves (okay, I do, but I'm not going to share most of them on this blog) but the one major one I can't stand is people who talk/Blackberry/text during a movie or play. What is wrong with you?? Are you that narcissistic that you have to talk all the time? Don't you know that if you're in a live theatre performance that the actors on stage - no matter how far away your crummy seats are - can hear you??

I know we can hear you, because every year I'm a part of the Lawyer Show, a charity fundraiser that benefits the performing arts in Vancouver. This year, I was the fairy 'Dandylion" in Shakespeare's Midsummer Nights' Dream as performed at the Waterfront Theatre. In 2008, I was a cigarette girl in the classic comedy "Once In a Lifetime". So yeah, I'm a pro. And you should shut up.

I was at a wonderful performance of the Royal City Musical Theatre's "A Chorus Line" - a musical I very much enjoy and a great performance of it - when the couple behind me began to talk. Loudly. They weren't older, nor did they misunderstand something. At one point, the woman said that she didn't think the "fat one" was right for the part of Maggie. Charming. The usher came over and shushed them but they continued to talk.

I started contemplating what I could ask the police to charge them with and considered these options:


1. Indecent Acts, s. 173: Nope. You have to expose your genitals, not your appalling lack of manners.

2. Disturbance, s. 175: Maybe. I was disturbed, all right. The section provides that "everyone who, not being in a dwelling house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place ... by fighting, shouting, screaming, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language ... is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction". The standard for Crown charge approval is a reasonable likelihood of conviction - I'm not sure this would meet that standard for charge approval - but it might be worth getting them hauled out of the theatre in handcuffs to teach them some manners!

3.Disturbing religious worship, s. 176(2): Damn. Even I can't argue for this section, even though I know all the words to "Wicked", "The Last Five Years", "In the Heights", "A Chorus Line", and every Rogers and Hammerstein musical.

4. Criminal Harrassment, s. 264: The section provides that "no person shall ... engage in conduct that causes another to fear for the safety or the safety of anyone known to them" - okay, so that's out, too. Although I did fear for the safety of the couple behind me.

I probably could have asked the ushers to kick them out. When you get right down to it, I was singing so loud along with the cast that I didn't even notice.

No, I didn't. I knew all the words, but that's not cool. I wouldn't do that, it's not mannerly. And besiders, it appears that I could be charged with causing a disturbance!

The Lawyer, away from Law

Sometimes, the day is entirely about the law.
Sometimes, life (happily!) intercedes.

Two events: first, the author was invited to participate in a studio visit this evening with local artist Evan Lee. Evan is well known to contemporary art circles in Vancouver, but this was my first brush with his work. His new project, soon to be seen at Monte Clark in Toronto, is an amazing collection of photographs which are homages to digital photos posted on flickr or other image sites. The work fits in with his general scope, it appears, in terms of experimenting with ways that images convey a time and place that are significant in the moment and what that moment looks like when recreated at a different time. The inadvertent flash not accounted for by the original snapshot photographer becomes a centrepiece around which the artist explores the idea of the specific to the general, that which is private being put on show, but in a way that takes the personal out of the photograph and places it firmly in public domain.

I loved them.

The centrepiece of the work - a large combining of each separate images that, as a whole, make up the refracted individual pieces - illustrates the piece as whole and parts. Exceptional! I am also a huge fan of his "40 Armoured Cars" and the illustration at the top of this piece, "Every Part From a Contaflex Camera, disassembled by the artist during winter, 1998".


The second event: my favorite Vancouver bookstore was in the National Post today at "Ask a Bookseller: Pulpfiction Books" link here:

I love their blog, and I think that if you're a reader at all, you should have some familiarity with their shop. I can't say enough good things.

Hey, it can't all be murder and mayhem. You have to sometimes take a break and see things that take your breath away. Oh, and have a really good cup of tea. I recommend the London Fog at JJ Bean, and one of their Chocolate Chip Zucchini Muffins to go with it.

I'm out for the rest of the week, working on exciting facta and generally doing appellate (appeals) odds and ends. Reach me through the office if needed!

Right to Silence - an update!

As an aside, I am very excited to be pursuing this issue at the Supreme Court of Canada on May 12, 2009 in a case called R v. Sinclair. In Sinclair, the issue will be whether an accused should have the right to a second access to counsel if they request it or whether they can have a lawyer present with them at the time of an interrogation. The law in Canada, unlike in the United States, is that an accused is permitted one access to counsel and counsel are not permitted in the interrogation room with an accused.

We want to be more like the United States in the ability to protect a client's rights and their access to counsel.

How crazy is that?? :-)

I'll keep you... posted!

You have the right to remain silent - use it!

Now that that's out of the way, constant reader (well, okay, since yesterday reader) and one of my fave family members Rob C. writes to ask:

Hey Cuz,

How about this for a blog question...

Do the police in Canada have to read me my rights like they do on the American cop shows?

R

ANSWER: Well, Rob, the short answer is yes, they do. But they won't be doing it with pithy one-liners and taking their sunglasses on and off (remember, it's still Vancouver or Toronto or Montreal or Halifax or Canada - are there really enough days to take sunglasses on and off?).

In both Canada and America, the proscribed process for an arrest is very similar. In Canada, criminal law is federal; in the United States, the criminal law is state by state but in both countries, the recommended process is the same country-wide. Both countries have a Supreme Court that makes law for the entire country.

The States has adopted a process outlined in what is now considered the landmark case of Arizona v. Miranda (hence "Miranda rights"). In that case, an immigrant named Ernesto Miranda was accused of rape and was held without his fifth and sixth amendment rights (the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present) being explained to him. He gave a confession after two hours of interrogation. At trial, he was convicted and appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the confession was admissible. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Arizona Supreme Court and held that statements obtained from defendants during interrogations in police-dominated atmosphere without full warning of right to remain silent and right to counsel violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and were inadmissible. Generally, the police read or recite a standard warning to an accused that is based on the guidelines in Miranda, and is recited to every accused at the time of arrest.

In Canada, a number of pieces of jurisprudence have developed the law in this regard. The right to silence is protected under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The accused may not be compelled as a witness against himself in criminal proceedings, and therefore only voluntary statements made to police are admissible as evidence. Prior to an accused being informed of their right to legal counsel, any statements they make to police are considered involuntarily compelled and are inadmissible as evidence. After being informed of the right to counsel, the accused may choose to voluntarily answer questions and those statements would be admissible.

Although an accused has the right to remain silent and may not be compelled to testify against himself, where an accused freely chooses to take the witness stand and testify, there is no further right to silence and no general restriction on what kinds of questions they may be required to answer. This may be contrasted with the US right to refuse to answer incriminating questions under the 5th Amendment even while on the witness stand. However section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that a witness may not have any incriminating evidence they gave as testimony used against them in separate proceedings. In effect, a person can be compelled to give involuntary self-incriminating evidence but only where that evidence is to be used against a third party.

A leading case on the right to silence was R. v. Hebert, which held that the accused cannot be tricked into divulging any information until they consult with a lawyer.

The police in Canada actually have a card that they carry, where they give the following information to an accused at the time of arrest:

1. Why the accused is being arrested;
2. Whether the accused wants to talk to a lawyer;
3. That free legal aid is available; and
4. A "secondary warning" which details that the accused is under no obligation to speak to the police.

Hope that answers your question in a lot of detail, Rob!

420 in Vancouver

It is indeed April 20, 2009 today; 420 is a universal in joke for all you blunt smokers out there. I saw about 20 people lined up waiting for the HQ of the BC Marijuana Party to open this morning. Usually, the store isn't so crowded so early!

Some myths about the origin of "420" are totally busted:

Police dispatch code for smoking pot is 420. The number 420 is not police radio code for anything, anywhere. Checks of criminal codes suggest that the origin is neither Californian nor federal. The Canadian Criminal Code s. 420 is about illegally or fraudulently buying military supplies from a member of the Canadian Armed Forces.

There are approximately 420 active chemicals in marijuana. Actually, there are approximately 315 active chemicals in marijuana. This number goes up and down depending on which plant is used. (Thank you "about.com" for this statistic!)

April 20th is National Pot Smokers Day. Well, it is now; but that wasn't the origin.

April 20th is Hitler's birthday. Yes, it is his birthday. This is a great example of a cause and effect being muddled together. The two have NOTHING to do with one another, as the term didn't come into use until the 70's.

April 20th is the date of the Columbine school shootings. This happened after the term was already in use.

4:20 is tea time for pot-smokers in Holland. FAIL! Not true. Hollandaises (or, as they're more commonly known, "the Dutch") have their tea with the rest of Europe - whenever they damn well please.

According to the editor of High Times, Steven Hager, 420 originated in 1971 with a group of a dozen students, who wanted to pass the word when they would meet to smoke without parents and teachers realizing what they were talking about. They would meet at the school's statue of Louis Pasteur at 4:20 p.m.

Who is Louis Pasteur? from wikipedia: Louis Pasteur (December 27, 1822 – September 28, 1895) was a French chemist and microbiologist born in Dole. He is best known for his remarkable breakthroughs in the causes and prevention of disease. His experiments supported the germ theory of disease, also reducing mortality from puerperal fever (childbed), and he created the first vaccine for rabies. He was best known to the general public for inventing a method to stop milk and wine from causing sickness - this process came to be called Pasteurization. He is regarded as one of the three main founders of microbiology, together with Ferdinand Cohn and Robert Koch. Pasteur also made many discoveries in the field of chemistry, most notably the molecular basis for the asymmetry of certain crystals.^[1] He is buried beneath the Institute Pasteur, a rare honor in France, where being buried in a cemetery is mandatory save for the fewer than 300 "Great Men" who are entombed in the Panthéon.

I don't think Louis Pasteur smoked marijuana, but I could be wrong.

So remember, kids: In Canada, possession of marijuana is illegal. So is dealing, and yes, technically, you can be busted for Possession for the purposes of trafficking for sharing a joint. The possibility of this happening is low; but it's still possible thast you can be charged.

If you're arrested, know your rights:

1. The police will try to ask you who owns the drugs and try to talk to you. You do not have to tell them anything! Under s. 7 of the Charter, you have the right to remain silent. If they're trying to talk to you, you probably can't make things better by talking to them. Exercise your right to silence!

2. You have the right to talk to a lawyer of your choice! If you already have a lawyer, insist that you want to speak to that lawyer, or if you've heard of a good lawyer, that you want to talk to them. Legal aid is great if you need general advice - but it's harder for the police to prove that you got all your rights if you didn't speak to your lawyer.

3. The police can't search you unless they have reasonable and probable grounds for an arrest. They can detain you for investigative reasons, but that does not mean they can do more than pat you down. Any police officer who asks to look in your car or in your backpack cannot do it unless you say it's okay - and saying no does not give them the right to arrest you! Do not let them look in your personal possessions.

I believe very strongly that each one of us has the right to be safe and free of police interference in our lives. Exercise your rights if you're stopped or arrested by the police.