Lady gets away with not filling out the Census

[Boges]

Remember when everyone got in a Tizzy because the Tories said the Long-form census was no longer mandatory.

I hope those people are equally outraged about this.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/census-protester-audrey-tobias-acquitted-of-not-filing-form-1.1930998

Audrey Tobias, who faced jail time if she had been convicted, argued she didn't file her 2011 census because it is processed using software from Lockheed Martin.

Outside the Old City Hall courthouse after the ruling, the Toronto woman thanked the judge and said her first thought was "goodness gracious" when the ruling came down.

I hope Audrey has never boarded a Boeing plane, they've partnered with Lockheed Martin.

[Wilber]

So was the verdic, not guilty because she's loopy?

[Boges]

So was the verdic, not guilty because she's loopy?

That's basically what the judge said.

But she's clearly not loopy, she refused because she doesn't like Lockeed-Martin.

I'm morally opposed to Revenue-Canada so I refuse to pay taxes.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Boges

[Wilber]

I'm morally opposed to Revenue-Canada so I refuse to pay taxes.

Ya, but that's not loopy.

[Boges]

Ya, but that's not loopy.

Don't tell THEM that.

[Black Dog]

Yeah I'd be fine if this nutter had, if nothing else, had to pay a fine. And fill out her frigging census.

[cybercoma]

I hope those people are equally outraged about this.

I am upset by this and I would like to see the judge's reasoning for the decision.

[Moonlight Graham]

I am upset by this and I would like to see the judge's reasoning for the decision.

Read the article, LOL.

[Moonlight Graham]

The article doesn't really give the whole story. On what basis did the judge rule this woman was loopy at the time? What evidence?

The judge also described the Justice Department's decision to prosecute Tobias, a Second World War veteran, as a "PR disaster."

Maybe the judge wanted to avoid this "PR disaster", and instead of setting a hugely significant precedent like ruling that " forcing her to complete the census would violate her freedoms of conscience and free expression", the judge just went with the "she was loopy at the time" ruling as a way out?

Edited October 9, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[Boges]

The article doesn't really give the whole story. On what basis did the judge rule this woman was loopy at the time? What evidence?

He has none, he just doesn't want to throw an 89-year-old in jail. He's probably sympathetic to the reason she gave.

[Moonlight Graham]

He has none, he just doesn't want to throw an 89-year-old in jail. He's probably sympathetic to the reason she gave.

Ya that too. Again, the mentioned "PR disaster". "89-year-old WWII veteran and peace activist thrown in jail for not filing out a form" is a pretty bad headline.

[cybercoma]

Read the article, LOL.

I read an earlier article from CBC that didn't give the judge's statements. I'll take a look at this one.

[cybercoma]

I need to see a better transcript of the judge's words than what is in this article. The journalist writes, "The judge rejected the charter arguments, but said that Tobias's memory and some conflicting testimony left him with reasonable doubt as to her intent at the time of the refusal." I'm not sure where the judge finds reasonable doubt when she has articulated clearly that she refuses to fill out it.

I'm going to assume that this is the section of the Statistics Act under which she was charged.

False or unlawful information

31. Every person who, without lawful excuse,

(a) refuses or neglects to answer, or wilfully answers falsely, any question requisite for obtaining any information sought in respect of the objects of this Act or pertinent thereto that has been asked of him by any person employed or deemed to be employed under this Act, or

( refuses or neglects to furnish any information or to fill in to the best of his knowledge and belief any schedule or form that the person has been required to fill in, and to return the same when and as required of him pursuant to this Act, or knowingly gives false or misleading information or practises any other deception thereunder

is, for every refusal or neglect, or false answer or deception, guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both. 1970-71-72, c. 15, s. 29.

Now if the judge wants to say she had a lawful reason for refusing to answer, that's one thing. However, it seems pretty clear from all of her interviews and public statements that she not only knew what she was doing is illegal, but willfully refused to answer based on her personal experiences in war.

I'm not sure what information the judge was privy to that we didn't see, but given her public statements, she evidently knew that what she was doing was illegal. The judge appears to have made his decision based solely on the optics of the case, demonstrated by the PR nightmare statement.

What then does this open the door for? 89-year-old War Vet refuses to pay taxes because government revenues fund war and she's a pacifist?

I really don't agree with this decision and would like to see a lot more details. There must be something I'm not seeing here, but the stuff in the news certainly isn't convincing me.

[Moonlight Graham]

Now if the judge wants to say she had a lawful reason for refusing to answer, that's one thing. However, it seems pretty clear from all of her interviews and public statements that she not only knew what she was doing is illegal, but willfully refused to answer based on her personal experiences in war.

Ya the judgement looks like crap. I mean, how about the judge simply ask "would you fill out the census right now if given the chance?", and she still said no, it's clear he stance is consistent. Maybe she has a bit of dementia so the judge let her off, I don't know.

[cybercoma]

The judge let her off because it looks bad convicting an 89 year old of not filling out the census. That's why. He did it because he didn't want the heat from the media, despite it being the wrong judgment according to the Statistics Act.

[Boges]

The judge let her off because it looks bad convicting an 89 year old of not filling out the census. That's why. He did it because he didn't want the heat from the media, despite it being the wrong judgment according to the Statistics Act.

Gotta wonder what Audrey would find more offensive: Indirectly supporting Lockheed Martin by filling out a Census they assisted in or being acquitted on the subsequent charge because the judge found her "loopy".

[Wilber]

I wonder if this will be appealed. The judges logic makes no sense at all and I wonder if he makes all his decisions based on optics. Either she is not guilty because she is loopy or she is guilty as sin.

[Peter F]

Remember when everyone got in a Tizzy because the Tories said the Long-form census was no longer mandatory.

I hope those people are equally outraged about this.

Whats to be outraged about? She didn't fill out her census so got charged (a good thing) and the judge let her off the charge because he had reasonable doubt about her intent. (also a good thing).

Nothing to see here folks

[Big Guy]

Problem here was charging her in the first place. Common sense on the part of the crown prosecutor would have dictated that this whole process was a waste of time and taxpayer money.

[Wilber]

Problem here was charging her in the first place. Common sense on the part of the crown prosecutor would have dictated that this whole process was a waste of time and taxpayer money.

So are you saying this is a bad law or that the courts should make arbitrary judgements as to who is allowed to break a law based on how it might look?

Edited October 10, 2013 by Wilber

[AlienB]

This is a bunch of nonsense. there is something called a birth certificate and a death certificate, as well as, as a SIN and employment records. What a waste of time.The fact the government tracks this stuff every 10 years is a joke, when the national security folks can probably tell you how many bugs are living in your eyebrows.

Total waste of resource and talented people.

Likewise with free health care I'm guessing every non paranoid person, who would hide from the numerator anyway, will have a health card or membership from their province with their address included.

the government needs to wake the hell up, start making only required laws and stop playing with and wasting peoples time.

The government needs to gtfo of placing legal obligations on people that are total bollocks already stop treating us like cattle this isn't the day of the dooms no more..

Edited October 10, 2013 by AlienB

[Bryan]

I don't see what the big deal is. I've never filled out a census form either. I always just throw it in the trash. There has never even been a threat of consequences. Why did they pick this woman to go after?

[cybercoma]

This is a bunch of nonsense. there is something called a birth certificate and a death certificate, as well as, as a SIN and employment records. What a waste of time.The fact the government tracks this stuff every 10 years is a joke, when the national security folks can probably tell you how many bugs are living in your eyebrows.

I don't see what the big deal is. I've never filled out a census form either. I always just throw it in the trash. There has never even been a threat of consequences. Why did they pick this woman to go after?

You guys obviously have no idea the amount of research that is done with the census and subsequent public policy suggestions that are made on that research. Your complete disregard for the society that you live in is sad and pathetic.

[Boges]

I'll be clear, I'm not outraged.

But for those that thought the long-form census should have been mandatory, this should really grind their gears because this sets a precedent that filling out the normal census is no longer mandatory at all.

I filled out the census online. It took less than 5 minutes. No big deal.

[Black Dog]

You guys obviously have no idea the amount of research that is done with the census and subsequent public policy suggestions that are made on that research. Your complete disregard for the society that you live in is sad and pathetic.

No no the government should limit itself to making "required laws" based on gut feelings, best guesses and ideology. For example, it's clear to me from reading teh Sun that crime is a major problem so I'd like to see the government do more about what is surely a rising crime rate.