[wredue]

I don’t know why Canada gets so many weird AF legal claims on HN and Reddit (in particular that we supposedly don’t have the right to self defence), but we do, in fact, have the right to remain silent and to not be compelled to testify against oneself.

There are circumstances where you can be interviewed without a lawyer present, but you cannot be compelled to answer those questions, and you can still consult a lawyer for all interview questions.

[naasking]

I'm not sure if you're claiming that what I wrote is "weird", but nothing I said was incorrect and the link I provided provides extensive information on case law here. Suffice it to say, most people have a very hard time refusing to answer while being grilled for hours, and the article cites numerous such examples.

> and you can still consult a lawyer for all interview questions.

This is simply not as straightforward as you're implying. Per the article, R v Sinclair established that in most cases, a detainee may be permitted to consult a lawyer only once.

[smcin]

R v Sinclair (2010 SCC 35) is a leading case from the Supreme Court of Canada on a detainee's right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Specifically, the case addresses two issues regarding the police's implementation duty under the right to counsel: 1) does a detainee have the right to have a lawyer present during police questioning, and 2) does a detainee have the right to make multiple phone calls to their lawyer. A majority of the Court answered the first question in the negative, and answered the second question in the negative, subject to a change of circumstances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Sinclair

[mthoms]

You seem to be in agreement. Perhaps you responded to the wrong person? That's the same case law the parent cited (albeit indirectly - see their link up thread).

[itsnotafight]

You can reply to someone and agree with them, even provide additional bolstering evidence — like a direct quote. It turns out not everything on the internet is a fight you have to win.

[mthoms]

It wasn’t “additional boistering evidence”. It was the exact same case law that very same person had already cited.

Hence… I politely asked if they meant to reply to someone else.

I don’t know why you’re talking about fighting.

[smcin]

I responded to naasking with supplementary details supporting their answer. Like itsnotafight says, we don't always have to disagree with a poster.

[mthoms]

Got it. Maybe your post should be more substantial then? Then people don’t have to guess what you’re trying to say.

You literally just echoed back something to someone that they already said. That’s more than a little confusing to a reader.

[smcin]

I didn't "just echo back the same case law". They only provided an (incomplete) citation, and no link.

I provided the full link to Wikipedia, the summary of what R v Sinclair actually established (from which readers can immediately see that Canadian right to a lawyer during questioning differs sharply from the US right), and then the Wikipedia link which discusses the history and background of the case, the ruling, and further links to the text of the decision on CanLII, etc.

That's genuinely useful missing information, which many HN readers will not bother to search for, but if you provide the links some of them may actually click through, then we collectively get a less-misinformed discussion. If instead of suggesting I intended to respond to the wrong person, you had directly asked me why I thought it useful to post this, I'd have told you that it was so other posters would inform their discussion better; it's very tiring constantly seeing discussions where posters assume any legal question is asked about US law and only US law, or worse still, simply assume that US legal principles or rule of law apply all over the world (such as anything on Canadian law, or all the discussions on privacy law).

And one extra thing: you might be assuming that merely saying "R v Sinclair" is unambiguous without including the "(2010 SCC 35)" part of the citation, but when I personally google "R v Sinclair", most hits are relevant, but #7 hit is "People v. Sinclair, 131 A.D.3d 492" and #10 hit is "Sinclair v. Sinclair :: 1969 :: Kansas Supreme Court Decisions". As we've commented ongoing in HN, google search relevance is degrading these days, so don't assume incomplete citations lead users to the right article.

Posting a link (or archive reference) is a substantial contribution to a discussion, esp. when many of the posters haven't read the topic they're discussing.

[wredue]

It’s weird because you chose wording that isn’t entirely correct, and also chose to ignore that whether a lawyer is present or not, you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself, which is what a lawyer is going to tell you during your phone call.

[naasking]

> It’s weird because you chose wording that isn’t entirely correct

My wording was entirely correct.

> and also chose to ignore that whether a lawyer is present or not, you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself

Irrelevant to the point I was making, which was specifically about how our right to counsel differs from the US.

[mardifoufs]

No, we don't. This is a misconception. There's no equivalent to the pleading the fifth. The supreme Court has been pretty clear about that.

>In the United States, the Fifth Amendment permits a witness to refuse to answer any question that may incriminate them (a.k.a. “taking the fifth” or “pleading the fifth”). This is not how the law works in Canada. In Canada, a witness can be forced to answer incriminating questions.

https://www.aclrc.com/section-13#:~:text=In%20the%20United%2....

[pyth0]

Not sure why you didn't include the remainder of that section:

> As part of the bargain, however, the Crown cannot use that evidence to incriminate the witness in another proceeding.

It seems important since it still prevents one from self-incrimination in the context of the courts. Maybe there are other legal ramifications caused by this distinction but it sounds functionally equivalent.

[mardifoufs]

Well, it leads to situations like these:

>The Supreme Court discussed the relationship between the section 7 pre-trial right to silence and the confessions rule in Singh.90 That case involved a detained murder suspect who was interrogated by individuals he knew were police. In the course of the interrogation, Singh asserted his right to remain silent 18 times before ultimately responding to police questions with some self-incriminating statements. The defence objected to the admissibility of Singh’s statements on the basis that they were obtained in violation of his section 7 right to silence, but a slim majority of the Supreme Court rejected this argument. The majority held that, where a detainee is interrogated by known police, the section 7 right to silence is subsumed into the voluntariness inquiry.91 Since the trial judge had considered all the circumstances and determined that the statements were made voluntarily, the question whether the accused’s free will was overborne had already been answered and the section 7 right to silence could provide no further protection.92

Source(pdf): The Patchwork Principle against Self-Incrimination under the Charter https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?...

[twisteriffic]

There's a huge cottage industry of YouTube rage farmers who spread that kind of misinformation for clicks. It's particularly popular in the prairies right now.

[mardifoufs]

That's funny because no, they are wrong. We can be compelled to answer questions that incriminate ourselves and our right to speak to a lawyer isn't as strong as it is in the US. You can be interrogated even after asking for a lawyer.

[twisteriffic]

No, you are wrong, though you provide a humorous example of how effective that form of brainwashing is.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/chec...

[mardifoufs]

They can keep interrogating you after you ask for a lawyer even if your lawyer isn't present. It amounts to the exact same considering how vulnerable a person is during interrogation. Your link agrees with me. How is this not "not as strong as the US", which is what I said in my comment?

>There is no constitutional right to have a lawyer present throughout a police interview (Sinclair, supra at paragraphs 34-38). Rather, in most cases an initial warning, coupled with a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel when the detainee invokes the right to counsel, satisfies section 10(b) (Sinclair, supra at paragraph 2).

Edit: This is what I mean

>Unlike the U.S. Constitution’s right to counsel under the fifth amendment, neither section 10(b) of the Charter nor the right to counsel allowed by Supreme Court cases allows for your lawyer to be present with you during an interrogation. That means that after you’ve spoken to your lawyer it could be hours or days before you speak to them again and the police will take every opportunity they can to get a statement from you that seals your conviction.

>https://www.jeffreismanlaw.ca/understanding-your-right-to-co...

[wredue]

No, you are wrong:

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/chec...

I don’t even know how you could force someone to testify against themselves. Seems like an unreliable witness…

[mardifoufs]

What? How does that prove me wrong? You can still be forced to be a witness and answer questions even if they do incriminate yourself.

>In Canada a person has the right not to have any incriminating evidence that the person was compelled to give in one proceeding used against him or her in another proceeding except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence. Thus, in Canada, a witness cannot refuse to answer a question on the grounds of self-incrimination, but receives full evidentiary immunity in return. https://www.mpllp.com/no-right-to-remain-silent