Activists’ anger over intoxication ruling viewed as overblown

TORONTO — A court ruling allowing people accused of sexual assault or other violent crimes to argue they were so intoxicated they didn’t know what they were doing has angered women’srights activists, but civil libertarians call the criticism unwarranted.

A decades-old law had banned such a defence, but Ontario’s top court this week declared it unconstitutional for trampling on key rights of the accused.

The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, which intervened in the case, called the decision a setback for victims, particularly of sexual assault.

“We are dismayed that women’s rights to equality and dignity are not given more adequate treatment,” the organization said on Thursday. “It also risks sending a dangerous message that men can avoid accountability for their acts of violence against women and children through intoxication.”

Cara Zwibel, a director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said the decision clarified the legal situation around use of the intoxication defence. While she sympathized with concerns the ruling would undermine protections for sexual-assault victims, she said they were overblown.

At issue was a law the federal government enacted in 1995 amid a backlash over a court ruling that recognized drunkenness could be raised to defend against a sexual assault charge.

The Appeal Court decision setting aside the law came in a pair of cases in which two men, both high on drugs, either killed or injured close relatives.

Their defence ran afoul of the ban on arguing extreme intoxication. In overturning their convictions, the court said a person must act voluntarily to commit a crime.