# Stolen Valour: Another Scumbag **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 13, 2014, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stolen-valour-another-scumbag/704531 "2014-11-13T15:38:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 59
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stolen-valour-another-scumbag/704531/59 "2014-11-14T19:03:11Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > Well I understand that they are separate, I’m confused as to why it sits inside the section that deals with fraud. My guess is that I’m assuming a relationship that isn’t there. The headings for the different Parts of the Criminal Code are just intended to be general descriptors; they don’t dictate the content of the particular offences. This Part seems to contain offences with a common element of deceptive conducts of different types. Actually benefitting from the deceptive conduct doesn’t appear to be required for this particular offence, but this offence does fit with the theme of deceptive conduct. > [@](#): > > But as I said before I don’t understand the rational for the law outside from “don’t do that”. As read the person doesn’t even have to act in a manner of the service he or she is dressed up as. I think that the key here is that the section is aimed at the misuse of government uniforms, medals and documents. The uniform is not the personal property of any individual, it’s an indicator that the wearer is a member of the Canadian Armed Forces and is thus a representative/agent/soldier for the Government of Canada. The Government has the right to control the use of uniforms and so on which mark the wearer as a government agent, and to prevent anyone else from holding themselves out as a government agent. Note that the section only applies to Canadian Armed Forces uniforms. If the guy had dressed up as a US Navy Seal or a UK SAS, he would not have committed any offence. Nor would he have committed any offence if he just said that he was a vet, or just bragged about his “service” in different areas. It’s the wearing of a government uniform in a manner that suggests he’s a member of the Canadian Armed Forces that is targetted by the offence. The offence controls the use of Government of Canada insignia, but is not concerned with military wannabes who use any other country’s insignia, or with liars. > [@](#): > > It would be like a law preventing people dressing up in those gowns used by lawyers and judges. There actually are laws along those lines. It is an offence under provincial law to falsely hold oneself out as a lawyer, even if the person doesn’t take any financial benefit from it. So a person who is in a court house, wearing the lawyer garb, and allowing people to think that he’s a lawyer, could be committing that offence. See the [Ontario Law Society Act](http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90l08_e.htm#BK35): [QUOTE=Legislature of Ontario] **Non-licensee holding out, etc. 26.1**(2) Subject to subsections (6) and (7), no person, other than a licensee whose licence is not suspended, shall hold themself out as, or represent themself to be, a person who may practise law in Ontario or a person who may provide legal services in Ontario. [/QUOTE] There is a common theme there with the prohibition on the false wearing of a Canadian Armed Forces uniform: all lawyers are officers of the court and have legal authorities which other people do not have. It is not appropriate for someone who is not a lawyer to hold oneself out as a lawyer. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stolen-valour-another-scumbag/704531)._