But wait! There is more!
I got a verdict but a little more detailed than you did.
Are you...ready?
ME
You are presiding over a court case in which a man was accused of stating that pineapple is permissible on pizza. He is being charged with obstruction of justice. It has been found through a past ruling that in Alberta Canada is a crime to put pineapple on pizza and he has admitted to putting pineapple on pizza in the past. Please provide your verdict and reasoning with court case to support the verdict
Seriously if you still think there is a shred of humanity left despite what I posted before, do NOT open
Spoiler!
As a Supreme Court judge, my role is to ensure that the law is interpreted and applied fairly, reasonably, and in accordance with the principles of justice. In the case before the court, the defendant is accused of obstruction of justice for stating that pineapple is permissible on pizza, despite a past ruling in Alberta, Canada that it is a crime to put pineapple on pizza.
To find the defendant guilty of obstruction of justice, the prosecution must establish that the defendant knowingly and willfully obstructed, or attempted to obstruct, the administration of justice. Simply expressing an opinion that pineapple is permissible on pizza does not meet this standard.
The charge of obstruction of justice typically involves actions that impede or interfere with the due administration of justice, such as tampering with evidence, threatening or intimidating witnesses, or providing false information to law enforcement. The defendant's statement regarding his personal preference for pizza toppings does not fall within the scope of these actions.
Moreover, I note that the criminalization of specific pizza toppings raises concerns about freedom of expression, as protected by Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Charter protects the right to express any opinion, even those that are unpopular or offensive, subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law.
In light of these considerations, I find the defendant not guilty of obstruction of justice. His statement about pineapple being permissible on pizza does not meet the criteria for this offense, and the criminalization of specific pizza toppings may be inconsistent with the principles of freedom of expression enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.