Title: RESEARCH AND DOCUMENTAL ANALYSIS REPORT (35%)
1. Objectives of the Work
The student will, through a comparative analysis of three documents from three different sources discussing the same crime, achieve the following objectives…
– Share a reflection on law as a discipline by qualifying and contextualizing documents from different sources, then observing and recognizing the relevant differences between them, such as how the crime is presented, handled, and problematized.
– Share a reflection on the limitations and omissions inherent in legal discipline and the potential contributions of other disciplines than law in addressing social problems that law aims to tackle.
This exercise is primarily a critical observation exercise that allows the student to discover the diversity of perspectives on a criminal offense and to practice recognizing the various interests, structures, contexts, and formal and substantive constraints that guide and limit these perspectives.
2. Fundamental Instructions
– Firstly, the student must choose a criminal offense from the following list:
– Crimes related to child pornography – this one is chosen
– Secondly, they must choose 3 documents relating to this criminal offense that will help them meet the mentioned objectives. These documents must necessarily originate from each of the following three categories of sources:
1. First category of sources: documents produced during parliamentary activities, such as:
– The speech of the MP sponsoring the bill creating the offense
– Speeches of MPs supporting or opposing, in part or entirely, the bill
– A comprehensive report from the Justice Committee of the House of Commons on the offense
– A comprehensive report from the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the Senate on the offense
– The speech of an external stakeholder supporting or opposing, in part or entirely, the adoption of the offense
– The memorandum submitted by this stakeholder to the Committee (not always available)
2. Second category of sources: documents produced by the judicial system, such as:
– A judicial decision from an appeal court dealing with the offense
– A first-instance court decision dealing with the offense
– The reasons of the majority in a judicial decision dealing with the offense
– The reasons of the dissent in the same judicial decision dealing with the offense
– A memorandum of appeal to the Supreme Court dealing with the offense, such as the appellant’s memorandum, the respondent’s memorandum, or a memorandum from an external stakeholder
3. Third category of sources: documents produced by the doctrinal system, such as:
– A criminal law treatise
– A criminal law textbook
– An article in a legal journal – whether the author relies on other disciplines than law or not
– A chapter in a criminal law monograph – whether the author relies on other disciplines than law or not
– An article or chapter in a discipline other than law that deals with the offense.
– Thirdly, they must demonstrate their understanding of each chosen document by “qualifying the source.” The student is invited, among other things, to summarize its content, identify and present the specific, relevant part of the document that they will use for their comparative analysis, correctly and as precisely as possible qualify the source of the document, identify the issues it raises, and place the document in its production context, if relevant. (See Annex 3 for reflection aid)
– Finally, they must proceed with a “comparative analysis” of the documents. They must compare how the offense is presented, handled, and analyzed in the 3 chosen documents. The student is invited to keep in mind the mentioned objectives of the work. (See Annexes 2 and 4 for reflection aid)
3. Formatting Instructions
– Times New Roman
– Font size: 12 points
– Line spacing: 1.5
– Maximum 5 pages
– A title page is required. It does not count towards the required number of pages.
– A general introduction to the work is not necessary.
– The comparative analysis of the documents should be longer than the exercise of qualifying the documents. It is therefore recommended to dedicate max. 2 pages to qualifying your sources and 3 pages to documental analysis.
– Margin: 2.50 cm on all sides
– Bibliography is not required, footnotes are sufficient.
– It is recommended to limit lengthy quotations in the main text.
– Excluding footnotes or annex quotations, text in footnotes will not be read.
– The course instructor reserves the right to format the document according to the mentioned formatting instructions if the formatting obligations are not met. Anything beyond the 5th page will not be read.
Remember to provide the complete references of the sources used in footnotes following the Lluelles Guide, whether you are simply taking their ideas or quoting them verbatim.
ANNEXES
ANNEX 1
To facilitate the task of the student, we suggest paying attention to the minutes attached to the following bills. We do not expect the student to read all the minutes, but rather to find a document that allows them to meet the mentioned objectives.
– Crimes related to child pornography
– Bill C-13, 2002, amending the Criminal Code and other laws (Project Bill C-15, then Project Bill C-15A)
– See the initial debates surrounding Project Bill C-15 before its split: https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/37-1/C-15
– Bill C-32, 2005, amending the Criminal Code (Protection of Children and Other Vulnerable Persons) and the Canada Evidence Act
– Crimes related to human trafficking
– Bill C-49, 2005, amending the Criminal Code (Trafficking in Persons)
– Bill C-310, 2012, amending the Criminal Code (Trafficking in Persons)
– Crimes of sexual exploitation
– Bill C-36, 2014, amending the Criminal Code and other Acts in light of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v. Bedford
– Hate crimes based on sexual orientation, expression, or gender identity
– Bill C-250, 2004, amending the Criminal Code (Hate Propaganda)
– Bill C-16, 2017, amending the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code
– Crimes related to conversion therapy
– Bill C-4, 2021, amending the Criminal Code (Conversion Therapy)
– The crime of promoting antisemitism
– Bill C-250, 2022, amending the Criminal Code (Prohibiting the Promotion of Antisemitism) – abandoned due to Bill C-19
– Bill C-19, 2022, Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and to enact other measures
– For Bill C-19, only Sessions 53 and 58 of the Senate are relevant! You will soon understand why…
ANNEX 2
Here are some personal thoughts on law as a discipline to help stimulate your own reflection…
Law is a discipline that has its own logic and language. Criminal law constructs a field of knowledge, including principles and concepts, that serve its own purposes. Legal knowledge claims to be consistent: only an internal coherence would favor the stability of relationships in society.
When we dissect law, we realize that what we understand by “criminal law” is, in fact, the product of various sources, each of which mobilizes different actors who come from different backgrounds, who have different interests and who have different perspectives on what is just. It is through collaboration, deliberation, interaction, power games between these actors and within certain institutional constraints that the knowledge field specific to criminal law is constructed. Each author of the law – a judge, a minister or a doctrinal author – is called upon to make choices that will have an impact on what the law is. Authors validate certain types of arguments, certain sources and certain authorities and exclude others. In this sense, law is a discipline as it seeks to impose “order” within the complexity, diffusion and contradictory information to which it is confronted. Every statement about criminal law that you can find in one source or another can therefore benefit from a contextualization exercise. By placing it in its context, one can understand it better.
ANNEX 3
To properly qualify the document, the student can, for each document, and depending on the type of document, ask themselves, for example…
– What information does the reader need to know to properly understand the particular way in which the offense is presented in this document? What are the important contextual elements for understanding the issues and my analysis?
– What type of document is chosen? What are its intrinsic and particular characteristics?
– When was the document produced? Does this have an influence on the way the offense is presented?
– What disciplines are used by the author or decision-maker?
– What interests – economic, political, personal or collective – can be identified?
– Are there any relevant biographical details about the author or decision-maker? What is their position? What role does this position play? What is their expertise? Who do they represent? How do these data influence the way the offense is presented and problematized?
– What roles and functions does this type of document usually have? What is the author’s goal?
– Who are the actors involved in the production of the document and who participates in the reflection shown in the document?
– What are the relevant details for understanding the organization or entity responsible for the production of the document or involved in the reflection shown in the document?
– What is the problematic identified in the document?
– At which stage of the procedure was the document produced? How does this procedural stage influence the way the subject relating to the offense is handled and presented?
– What are the formal or substantive constraints imposed on the author or decision-maker?
– Etc.
ANNEX 4
To properly highlight the differences between the documents, the student can, for each document, ask themselves…
– What questions are raised? What fears and concerns are expressed?
– What elements are highlighted and what elements are overlooked, ignored or rejected?
– Which voices are represented? Which voices are ignored?
– What arguments are put forward? What other disciplines are mobilized by the actor and what is their contribution to their argument? Are they purely legal arguments or based on another discipline? What are the values, principle or purely moral arguments that are raised?
– Are these purely legal arguments (e.g. reference to a precedent; reference to a decision)? Are these arguments of another discipline in support of a legal argument?
– What concepts are raised? Are they legal concepts or from other disciplines?
– What authorities are referred to in order to support their arguments? What types of sources are most often referred to in this type of document?
– What functions do the sources quoted by the author producing the document or participating in the reflection shown in the document play?
– What space does the document or source leave for the voice of non-initiates (Mr./Mrs. Everyday)?
– What space does the document or source leave for “profane” knowledge (disciplines other than legal)?
– What are the interests, personal or not, of the person who argues?
– What conception of the function of criminal law does the studied discourse reflect? Is criminal law seen as a viable solution to achieve the desired progress or is it seen as inherently degrading?
– What vision of the just can be identified from the author’s or decision-maker’s speech? Is this vision of the just common in this type of document?
– Under what angle is the offense analyzed, problematized and discussed?
– What structures and limits the reflection and deliberation of the actors in this document? Where do these constraints come from? Are they institutional or imposed by the actors themselves? Do they come from legal culture?
– What are the normative or ideological choices that underpin the choices in the representation of the norm?
– What are the intrinsic limitations of the document with respect to other documents from the same source?
– What distinguishes and is distinctive about the way the offense is presented in this document compared to the others?
– What distinguishes the legal discipline from other disciplines? How does each document chosen testify to the specificity of the legal – of law as a discipline?
– Etc.