You might find this a difficult concept to grasp, but common sense is used in making decisions by judges. Not everything in a minor case like this needs detailing and defined to the nth degree. He knows what he's not meant to do. You and I know it. His attorney knows it (and has probably explained it yet again in terms that the guy will be able to follow).The court knows it. And the police know it. This isn't a complex legal matter. He's been a naughty boy and he's been told to stop.
He's not going to get banged up because he asked a gay barista for a flat white. Let's keep a grip on reality here.
I assure you my concerns about vagueness in court and judicial proceedings aren't rooted in comprehension difficulty.
You're implying that's it's a common-sense unspoken agreement of "we all know what they meant by that". In a normal societal environment, you may be right. But, it's not a judge's job to employ "common sense", legal specificity is key to that profession.
If someone's cussing, and someone else says "hey watch your mouth!"...in most societal interactions, we know what's meant by that and it's common sense. However, if the terms of a person's jail release is simply "watch your mouth", it's understandable that they'd want some specifics on what exactly are the list of words they shouldn't be saying. The implications are different. In a normal societal interaction, if I use the R-rated word for something, and someone tells me to watch my mouth, if I switch to the PG version of the word and they still don't like it, worst thing that happens is they say "hey, I thought I said watch your mouth". If it's a condition of your jail release, it means you go back to jail.
Also, saying "a minor case like this" is a tad misleading. If it's "minor", and if the judge viewed this as "minor", then he wouldn't be sitting in jail with a bail amount of $3,000 and release conditions. (for violation of a law that in and of itself, was written very vaguely)
But if the release conditions are simple common sense and non-complex concepts (and "everyone knows what they are") then it shouldn't be that hard craft the verbiage to reflect that instead of the vague statement, right? If everything's on the up & up and the Calgary administration isn't planning on trying to use ambiguity in their favor, then it shouldn't be a problem.
I can do it now.
Instead of "
not permitted to have contact in person or over social media with any identified LGBTQ2S+ community member"
Go with "
not permitted initiate contact with anyone they know to be in the LGBTQ2S+ community on any matter relating to sex, gender, orientation, or religion"
Took a grand total of 4 extra seconds to type the latter. It satisfies the "common sense understanding", and provides legal protection to the accused to prevent legal abuses going in the other direction.
The entire law itself is symptomatic of a deeper societal issue that appears to be happening. Where, instead of earnest debate over issues, it's easier just to criminalize the speech that offends the voter bloc a politician is trying to suck up to and pretend as if people in the opposing ideological camp aren't legitimate participants in their democracy. It's the legal equivalent of blocking someone on a message board (or reaching for the report button) because it's easier just to ignore criticisms (or punish someone for making them) than provide a solid rebuttal against them.
