Mr. of which he used for personal. Which

Mr. Sharp was caught with child pornography and the crown also, charged with distrusting of child pornography, under
the Criminal Code s.163.1(4). Also, he was charged
with one count
of possession for the purposes of distribution or sale under s. 163.1(3)
Criminal Code of Child pornography. Mr. Sharpe, challenge the Courts, as he
felt that the crown and government has infringed
s. 2(b) Under the Canadian Charter Right And Freedom on his right. Also, Mr.Sharpe
felt it was justified, under 1(a) of the charter. Mr.Sharpe, he said the
Criminal Code s.163.1(4) under s. 7 of the Charter, by arguing that he felt exposure
to potential imprisonment terms as a result, of an excessively sweeping law, is
contrary to the principles of fundamental justice. Mr.Sharpe said, he has the
right to freedom of expression, that the pornography he had, an art form
expression. That under the Criminal code Of Canada S.163.1(4). Mr. Sharpe did
not hurt anyone, in reality, to make the pictures, as this is just an art form,
of which he used for personal.  

Which the government, has broken the
Charter Right And Freedom 2(b). That protect anyone, that want to express
themselves without being judge and judgment, against them. Also, Mr. Sharpe
said that the law has broken the law, under the charter (7), security and
liberty of anyone that are Canadian.  As
a result, the government, had broken his right and should be tossed out the
court.

Remedy

            The of
British Columbia of Appeal, said that the court has confronted with a law that
is substantially constitutional and peripherally problematic, the Court may
consider a number of alternatives. Until the Government of Canada, can find
another way to target evil people. Another alternative way is, might be to hold
that the law as it only applies to the case at bar is valid, declining to find
it unconstitutional on the basis of a hypothetical scenario that has not yet
arisen. In, the United State the law had court had