Archive for the ‘Bill S-209’ Category

And The Yeas Have It! MMA Given Legal Framework in Canada

Posted: June 5, 2013 in Bill S-209, Federal MMA Law, Uncategorized
1

photo s209

Canadians have embraced Mixed Martial Arts since the Sport’s inception.  Despite this MMA has always been illegal in Canada.  The long road to legalization is nearing an end with Bill S-209 now passing Third Reading in Parliament with a vote of 267-9 allowing for a legal framework for both professional and amateur MMA along with other combat sports.

What does Bill S-209 do?

Section 83 of the Criminal Code makes prize fighting illegal except in limited circumstances.  Since 1934 the exceptions were limited to “boxing”.  Bill S-209 has expanded the circumstances for legal prizefights to include MMA and other sports.

The default is that Prize fights will remain illegal in Canada.  Bill S-209 permits Provinces to regulate Professional MMA in addition to boxing.  This clears the way for Provinces to have the power to create Athletic Commissions to regulate and sanction professional MMA Bouts.  This will give Provincial posts such as the Athletic Commissioner of Ontario and the BC Athletic Commissioner actual authority to use their powers to sanction legal MMA.  This will also remove the need for Provinces such as Quebec to invent sports such as “mixed boxing” to get around the old Criminal Code prohibition.  Lastly, it will hopefully provide motivation for Provinces that have been too gun-shy to regulate MMA to date to create athletic commissions and bring the sport above ground.

What About Combat Sports Other than MMA?

One of the shortcomings of Bill S-209′s language is that it limits Provincial authority to sanction professional “boxing contests or mixed martial arts contests” .

It can be argued that given this specific language other professional combat sports such as kickboxing cannot be regulated, therefore they will remain illegal.  BC appears to have taken this stance.

Perhaps the more sensible interpretation of the Provinces powers is that if they can regulate professional MMA they can regulated any subset martial art so long as the contest’s rules do not allow techniques outlawed by MMA.  For example, all techniques that are legal in a professional kickboxing match are also legal in MMA and it could be argued that a Province is well within their rights to regulate and sanction such sports.

What About Amateur MMA and Other Combat Sports?

Some Amateur combat sports will be legal by default and others will remain illegal by default, this includes amateur MMA.

Amateur combat sports that will be legal by default will include those  ”in the programme of the International Olympic Committee”.    These include  Boxing, Wrestling, Judo and Tae Kwon Do.

Other Amateur combat sports, such as MMA, Kickboxing and Karate, remain illegal by default.  However, Bill S-209 allows this to be fixed by permitting Provinces to make them legal by specifically designating them. This is a useful tool and one that each Province should quickly use to give all Canadians a list of permitted amateur combat sports.

In short, Bill S-209 is a welcome change to the Canadian combat sports legal landscape.  I encourage all stakeholders in the combat sports community to now contact your Provincial authorities and encourage them to pass legislation addressing the amateur gap.

Here is video of the actual vote

Pat Reid Voices Concerns that Bill S-209 Leaves Other Martial Arts in the Dark

Posted: May 24, 2013 in Bill S-209, Uncategorized
0

I have been vocal in my support that while amending the Criminal Code to allow a legal framework for MMA in Canada is a good thing, Bill S-209 is not without its flaws.  Specifically it will make many amateur martial arts contests such as Karate and potentially even wrestling illegal by default unless Provinces act.

I am not the only supporter of legal MMA that has concerns about Bill S-209′s language.  Pat Reid, the Executive Director of the ECSC, is being vocal about a further shortcoming of Bill S-209 as it relates to “professional” contests.  Mr. Reid has recently written to all MP’s telling them in essence that they should get this overhaul right and not leave other marital arts in the dark.  Pat has provided me with a copy of his letter and allowed me to republish it here.  Below is its full text:

To the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights:

The Edmonton Combative Sports Commission (ECSC) would like to raise a significant issue with the wording of Bill S-209 as it relates to professional combat sports.  It is the ECSC’s understanding that the policy intent of the Bill, as it relates to professional combat sports is that it means to modernize the Criminal Code of Canada’s approach to “prizefighting” by expressly permitting the types of professional combat sports that take place in Canada today, when regulated by a commission or athletic board created under provincial law.  These types of sports include the sport of boxing, the sport of mixed martial arts (MMA), and also the sport of kick boxing, the sport of Muay Thai kickboxing and the sport of Tae-kwon-do. 

As currently drafted, paragraph (2) (d) in the Bill, (which deals with professional combat sports) specifically adds the one sport of MMA to boxing as a sport that can be regulated by a commission or board and which would not be contrary to the Criminal Code.  

In the past, there has been uncertainty about whether the meaning of boxing is broad enough to include MMA, kick boxing, Muay Thai and Tae-kwon-do.  It appears the policy intent of the Bill in relation to professional combat sports was to remedy this uncertainty by specifically providing that other combat sports regulated by a commission were not contrary to the Criminal Code.

This broad approach is apparent in sections (2) (a) through (c) in the Bill in relation to amateur combat sports where a broad descriptive approach describing combat with fists, hands or feet is used to define permissible amateur combat sports.

In paragraph (2) (d), by specifically naming only the sport of boxing and the sport of MMA, we are concerned that the specific list excludes other combat sports, namely the sport of kick boxing, the sport of Muay Thai and the sport of Tae-kwon-do that are happening at the professional level, regulated by Canadian commissions today. 

This argument is strengthened by comparison with the broad approach to defining combat sorts in relation to amateur events in paragraphs (2) (a) through (c).

The ECSC is concerned that this result is not the intended result of the amendment to the Criminal Code and will result in professional combat sports other than boxing and MMA being driven underground and professional events being dressed up as amateur and operated without regulation by the Athletic Commissions.  This puts the safety of fighters at risk.  The question we ask is simply: “what is the policy intent?”

It is important to understand that the one particular sport that has been recommended to be added – mixed martial arts- is not a “collection” of combative sports – it is ONE specific sport.  It is one specific sport with its own set of rules.  It is a relatively new and very popular sport, but it still is only ONE sport.  It does not serve as an umbrella description that would include the other professional combat sports currently regulated today.

Other professional combative martial arts sports have been occurring with regularity long before the new sport of mixed martial arts arrived on the scene – sports including full contact karate, kickboxing, Muay Thai and Tae-kwon-do (which is not only recognized by the Canadian Ministry of Sport in Heritage Canada, it is an Olympic sport with men’s and women’s events contested by Canadians presently.)  Each of those professional combative sports also has its own rules.

The best analogy I can offer to illustrate the problem with the proposed amendment as it currently is written – is that it is presumed to be a solution to provide regulation for all ball sports (the analogy that “all sports that utilize a ball” are equal to “all combative sports”). But by adding only one sport (say football, to use the ball sport analogy) you exclude softball, baseball, soccer – in other words the other ball sports.) Football has its own rules and you can’t pretend that football rules can somehow be stretched to cover baseball, soccer, softball, etc. (the other ball sports).

Mixed martial arts, even though it sounds plural because of the “s”, actually is only ONE sport (like football) with specific rules. So, to continue with the analogy, when someone approaches a provincial Commission with a request to hold a softball (kick boxing) event, and only football  (MMA) has been allowed as a result of the current wording in the amendment – the Commission can’t pretend to permit the softball (kick boxing) event can occur as though it were football (MMA) and apply the rules from football (MMA) to cover it.  

Instead, the Commission must advise the softball (kick boxing) promoter that they cannot hold softball events any longer — the government has decided this by adding only the singular sport of mixed martial arts (football) (and its specific rules) and none of these other ball sports (combat sports) with their specific rules are included in the legislation.

I would ask that you reconsider the current recommendation of just adding this one new (and latest) sport of professional mixed martial arts.  Other professional combative sports that have a much longer history that are already being held across the country, would suddenly be left unregulated because this legislation does not contemplate or allow for their regulation.

As Bill S-209 is drafted, a provincial or municipal Athletic Commission would not be able to regulate any professional combat sport other than the singular sport of boxing and the singular sport of MMA.  If a Commission were to interpret MMA to include Muay Thai, and apply Muay Thai rules, regulation by that Commission would be contrary to the Criminal Code.  If a fighter were to suffer a severe injury such as a brain injury in a Muay Thai event, the Commission would likely be negligent.  

So the question remains – what is the policy intent of the proposed amendment?  If you were to ask Commissions in this country that regulate these combative sports events you would hear us say (as we advised in the Senate Hearings on this Bill) that we need to ensure we can regulate in accordance with the Criminal Code of Canada and that we are seeking clarity.  We need to be able to regulate for the safety of the fighters in all of the disciplines of combative sport that are being regulated today. 

We hope we can all take a step back and allow the government policy writers to find the right wording to cover “all the combative sports disciplines that involve striking and grappling”. These are the combative sports that are recognized, and currently regulated, by the respective provincial combative sports commission” jurisdictions – sports that need to be captured in the legislation for the safety of the fighters. 

We advocate a broader approach, rather than just amending the Criminal Code by specifically adding one additional sport and in the process excluding all the other combative sports.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission on behalf of the Edmonton Combative Sports Commission, with support from other combative sports commissions in Canada.  I hope this explanation assists a fuller understanding of our view of the regulatory and safety implications of this important issue with Bill S-209.

 Respectfully submitted, 

Pat Reid, Executive Director

Edmonton Combative Sports Commission

Canadian MP’s Calls Out CMA’s Thin Opposition to Bill S-209

Posted: May 22, 2013 in Bill S-209
0

Last month I highlighted the Canadian Medical Association’s vocal opposition to Bill S-209.  This, despite the organization admitting “we don’t have a lot of research available yet as to the rate and severity of the injuries” and further that “we don’t know the rates of the injuries …but my argument is any injury is too much”. 

The lack of substance behind this opposition was called out by Canadian Member of Parliament Francouse Boivin who provided the following critical comments to the CMA’s opposition -

In your presentation, Dr. Reid, you made it clear that you weren’t a lawyer. But what the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is trying to determine is whether it is still appropriate for the Criminal Code to qualify the practice of a certain sport as a crime when, in reality, it is not treated as such. The criminal aspect has been completely overlooked for some time now…

We may be dealing with some hypocrisy here. And I’m not referring to your position but to the fact that the practice is criminalized in the Criminal Code. In your opening remarks, you made a statement that also appears in the notes you provided:

For parliamentarians, and for society, the question of whether to legalize MMA under the Criminal Code therefore comes down to a choice: A choice between money and health.

That comment bothered me a bit, for the simple reason that the issue has nothing to do with that in my opinion. Nor is it a matter of legalizing something. You talk about legalizing MMA, but we’re actually talking about decriminalizing an activity, not legalizing it. The provinces and territories can put certain rules in place, but that doesn’t mean the passage of Bill S-209 would legalize the practice. All it would do is decriminalize an activity that, in actual fact, has not been treated as a crime for quite some time.

That is the reality of Bill S-209. As my colleague Mr. Seeback pointed out, your opposition is based on the intent of the sport. In other words, the foot and elbow strikes dealt directly to a participant’s head during mixed martial arts, or MMA, matches make this activity different from other sports. My understanding, then, is whether it happens in boxing or MMA, you’re against it as a matter of policy, as doctors.

However, when two hockey players decide to fight during a game, taking off their helmets and gloves so they can punch each other freely in the face, it is clear to me there’s an intent there as well. Therefore, I imagine you would like to go as far as to ban fighting in hockey, adding it to your policy on boxing and MMA.

Unless I am mistaken, you’re position applies to all cases where an individual uses a body part to strike another person’s head on purpose. The head is the main issue for you, is it not?

MP Massimo Pacetti also provided the following feedback -

The Canadian Medical Association told us that it thinks we should ban mixed martial arts and boxing, but it did not have a problem with other combative sports, such as karate or tae kwon do, which also involve hits to the head.

However, with the exception of boxing, these sports are all officially illegal, but tolerated. Doing nothing would not change anything. People would continue to participate in these sports, even though they could technically wind up in court for doing so.

Other sports, for example skiing and hockey, cause many serious injuries such as fractures and concussions. If we had to ban every sport involving risks, only sports such as curling and badminton would be left.

During the same meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, another doctor who works in the world of combative sport, told us that he supports the bill. He explained that the health risks for participants can be reduced considerably by implementing safety regulations and measures. This particular doctor believes that by decriminalizing these sports we will foster regulated rather than underground competitions, which occur more frequently than we might imagine.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins University faculty of medicine published an article in the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine in 2006. They studied injuries sustained in mixed martial arts, which they found were similar to those in boxing and other combative sports. What is more surprising is that they believe fewer brain injuries are sustained in mixed martial arts than in boxing, because fewer mixed martial arts competitions end in knockouts compared to boxing.

As members probably know, a knockout usually occurs when the brain hits hard against the skull. However, mixed martial arts fights frequently end as a result of an armlock or choke. The competitors are often less inclined to punch because they want to avoid being pinned to the ground. In short, given that boxing is legal, we really do not have any good reasons to ban mixed martial arts.

This bill will decriminalize these sports and allow the provinces to regulate them.

A province could pass much stricter regulations for amateur mixed martial arts contests, such as not allowing a competitor to hit an opponent who is down. The bill does not aim to dictate rules for the sport; it aims to give tools to the provinces. The situation is ambiguous right now. If we do not amend the Criminal Code, there will be a threat hanging over the heads of the organizations involved in these disciplines because someone could contest their legality in court.

The Canadian Medical Association Takes a Swipe at Bill S-209

Posted: April 15, 2013 in Bill S-209, Safety Studies, Uncategorized
6

Update: April 19, 2013 -

_____________________________________________________________________________________

As Yogi Berra said, it ain’t over till it’s over.  While Bill S-209 is expected to pass into law giving professional MMA a legal framework in Canada, the Canadian Medical Association is doing what it can to derail this result.

In a press release issued today it is reported that the president of the Canadian Medical Association is warning MPs about the dangers of legitimizing mixed martial arts bouts.  While this is of  little surprise given the CMA’s official position that “all boxing be banned in Canada” it is a hypocritical position to take.   Although MMA / Boxing clearly come with risk of participant injury the overall risk is “lower than football, hockey, wrestling and soccer”.  It is a slippery slope to get into the issue of the prohibition of one sport without addressing others.  If we go down that route even popular activities such as cheerleading could be scrutinized due to high traumatic injury risk.  The CMA is not taking any public stance on other sports with higher injury rates making it hard to understand the driving force behind their position if it is not grounded in injury risk.

The CMA would better serve the community by informing the public of real risks of injury in any given contact sport, including long term health consequences from the realities of traumatic brain injury, instead of playing politics.  The public is best served with good information so participants can make informed decisions about whether they wish to engage in any given activity and the medical community can play an important role in educating the public of these risks.  Running away from regulation, on the other hand, does not serve the public interest.  One need look no further than the progress MMA has made over the past twenty years to realize that regulation has proven beneficial to the development of this sport and the safety of its participants.

The text of the full press release reads as follows:

OTTAWA – The president of the Canadian Medical Association is warning MPs about the dangers of legitimizing mixed martial arts bouts.

Dr. Anna Reid is appearing before the Commons justice committee which is studying legislation that would bring combat sports, including mixed martial arts, under supervision and regulation.

The bill would update the 80-year-old Criminal Code section dealing with prize fights.

Combat sports are currently in a sort of legal limbo in that they technically may be illegal under the law, but are condoned.

Supporters of the bill say it will promote safer practices in mixed martial arts, a popular — if often bloody — contest.

Reid says this kind of combat fighting is dangerous and often produces serious head injuries.

The association’s general council voted in 2010 for a ban on mixed martial arts prize fighting matches.

The present legislation passed the Senate with broad support and a similar bill had strong support on the Commons before it died due to prorogation.

Reid says the doctors don’t oppose combat sports such as judo and karate.

“However, cage fighting, like boxing, is distinct from many other sports, in that the basic intent of the fighter is to cause harm in order to incapacitate his or her opponent,” she said.

“And an activity in which the overriding goal is to pummel one’s opponent into submission does not promote good health.”

She said there is little evidence about the long-term risks from this kind of fighting, but noted studies show boxing poses risks of head trauma and subsequent neurological problems.

“For parliamentarians, and for society, the question of whether to legalize MMA under the Criminal Code therefore comes down to a choice: a choice between money and health.”

She said it is her duty to protect the health of patients and to promote non-harmful activities and it is the mandate of the CMA to advocate for the highest standards of health and health care.

“For me, as a physician, it is about putting health first. I cannot condone punches to the head.”

Here is a screenshot of their contemporaneous tweet stream:

CMA Bill S 209 Tweet Stream

Will The IOC’s Olympic Wrestling Exclusion Make Amateur Wrestling “Encounters” Illegal in Canada?

Posted: February 18, 2013 in Bill S-209, Uncategorized
2

canadian mma law blog wrestling trophy photo

The short answer is arguably yes if Bill S-209 passes in its current form and if Provinces don’t act accordingly to fill in the soon to be created gap.

As previously highlighted, the Canadian Government’s ongoing effort to amend the Criminal Code to make MMA legal in Canada is not without it’s shortcomings.  One of the biggest flaws in this draft legislation is that exempted amateur contests are limited to those that are “in the programme of the International Olympic Committee” or to sports that are held with the permission or have been designated “by the Province’s lieutenant governor in council”.  

This means that individual Provinces need to fill the gap to address which amateur contests are legal and if Provincial powers are silent on the point then the only ” encounters or fights with fists, hands or feet” that will remain legal will be those that have the IOC’s blessing.

As previously discussed, this leaves a gap with many amateur Martial Arts contests such as Karate which is not presently an Olympic Sport and is not designated on the Provincial side of things.

Surely when Bill S-209 was drafted it was assumed that longstanding Olympic sports such as wrestling were untouchable.  With the IOC’s recent announcement removing wrestling as an an Olympic Sport this long honored staple will become legally threatened should Bill S-209 pass in its current wording.   As Canadians, tying the legality of amateur sport to the IOC’s collective wisdom surely needs to be rethought.

Canada’s MMA Law Passes First Reading in the House of Commons

Posted: October 25, 2012 in Bill S-209, Federal MMA Law, Uncategorized
0

Further to my efforts to keep track of Canada’s progress in formally legalizing MMA, Bill S-209 has now passed first reading in the House of Commons.  Below is the official Hansard transcript:

    He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Bill S-209, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prize fights).
    This legislation seeks to amend the Criminal Code by expanding the list of permitted sports under the prize fighting provisions. This change to Canada’s prize fighting laws is long overdue.

     Mixed martial arts have come a long way as a sport in the past 20 years. Their safety record is admirable, their product is popular throughout Canada and worldwide, and the list of Canadians like Georges St-Pierre who excel at this sport is constantly growing.

    I am proud to do my part as a member of Parliament to modernize our laws, since this particular part of the Criminal Code has not been updated since 1934.

  + -(1005)  

[English]

    Currently, close to 100,000 Canadians who practice combat sports, some of these sports are recognized by the International Olympic committee, such as judo and tae kwon do, can be considered to doing so illegally under the current provisions of the Criminal Code. Bill S-209would merely correct this oversight so that Canada can effectively regulate acceptable combat sports openly.
    Seeing as how this bill is non-controversial and is a sensible piece of legislation that clearly addresses a blind spot in the Criminal Code, I look forward to seeing the bill passed expeditiously with the support and co-operation of all members.

 

     (Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Minister of Justice’s Office to Review Concerns Regarding Bill S-209 and Amateur Martial Arts/MMA

Posted: August 20, 2012 in Bill S-209, Federal MMA Law, Uncategorized
Tags:
0

A brief update for those of you who have been following my concerns regarding Bill S-209 potentially criminalizing currently lawful amateur martial arts contests.

As previously reported, BC’s Minister of Sport has responded to my concerns and is aware that appropriate Provincial legislation will need to be introduced if/when Bill S-209 passes.  I am pleased to report that the Federal Minister of Justice’ s office will also review my concerns.  Below is my exchange with the Honourable Senator Bob Runciman’s office.  I will write a further update once I have the reply of the Federal Minster of Justice’s office.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mr. Raison, thank you for your reply.  I look forward to hearing from you once the Minister of Justice’s office has a chance to review this.

 My concern is that amateur contests (such as Karate and other non-Olympic martial arts) become outlawed with the proposed amendment unless Province’s specifically intervene and designate such contests as being appropriate.  This can leave many martial arts contests behind.  I can appreciate that this is not the goal of the Bill but such an interpretation appears correct.  As Minister Chong’s letter indicates, there would be a gap on the Provincial side in BC which would need intervention if Bill S-209 passes in its current form and I imagine the same would be true for other Provinces.

 Thanks again for looking at this concern.

 Yours truly,

Erik Magraken

 _______________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Raison, Barry [mailto:raisob@SEN.PARL.GC.CA]
Sent: August-20-12 6:55 AM
To: Erik Magraken
Subject: RE: Bill S-209 and Provincial Implications

 

Mr. Magraken,

 

It is not our view that the bill does what you believe it does. The province can delegate the authority for oversight under the bill, as they do now. You should also note that this bill, although not a government bill, is nearly identical to the former Bill C-31, a government bill from the 2nd session of the 40th Parliament.

 

Nonetheless, I am forwarding your concerns to our contact in the Minister of Justice’s office.

 Barry Raison, Policy Advisor,

Office of the Honourable Senator Bob Runciman,

351 East Block, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0A4

613-943-4020 (phone)

613-943-4022 (fax)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

 From: Erik Magraken 

Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 5:15 PM

To: Raison, Barry
Subject: Bill S-209 and Provincial Implications

 Senator I wrote last month but have not had a reply, I thought it would be prudent to follow up.

 First off, thank you for your work on Bill S-209.  I welcome this legislation.

 I write to raise a concern with respect to Provincial implications on the amateur level.  The legislation, in its present wording, will work to criminalize amateur provincial contests by default unless each Province enacts an appropriate regulatory body.  Many Provinces, including my home Province of BC, don’t have such a body.

 I have raised this concern with BC’s Ministry of Sport and they advise they are aware of the issue.  You can see the Minster’s response here:

 http://canadianmmalawblog.com/2012/07/20/provinces-must-make-sure-your-karate-kid-does-not-become-a-criminal-under-bill-s-209/

 I write to suggest that other Provinces be made aware of this issue so they can take appropriate steps to regulate Amateur contests given that your Bill appears well on its way to becoming law.  Any steps your office can take to achieve this would be appreciated.

 Yours truly,

Erik Magraken 

 

 

 

Does Bill S-209 Criminlize Amateur MMA / Martial Arts Bouts in BC?

Posted: May 15, 2012 in BC MMA Law, Bill S-209, Federal MMA Law, Uncategorized
Tags: ,
8

I’ve recently written about the Federal Government’s effort to modernize the Criminal Code to permit MMA and other Striking Sports to become lawful.

While this amendment will allow the sport to be properly regulated on a Professional level, review of the legislation appears to create a potential gap on the amateur side. The reason being that “prize fights”, including MMA and other martial arts contests, will become illegal on the amateur side unless one of the following 3 exceptions apply:

(a) if the sport is on the programme of the International Olympic Committee (Note many martial arts, including MMA, are not)

(b) if the sport has been designated by the Province’s lieutenant governor in council or by any other person or body specified by him or her, or

(c) if the contest is held “in a province with the permission of the Province’s lieutenant governor in council or any other person or body specified by him or her.

Currently I am not aware of any BC legislation setting out a list of designated or permitted amateur contests.  Under the current Criminal Code language this is not needed as amateur contests are exempt from criminalization where “the contestants wear boxing gloves of not less than one hundred and forty grams each in mass”.  However, given the proposed re-wording it appears amateur bouts without a specific designation may unintentionally become outlawed.

The passage of the proposed federal legislation may unintentionally criminalize otherwise lawful amateur contests on a Province by Province basis.  The solution will be for the various Provinces to be aware of this and make appropriate designations on the Provincial level.