It does, but it’s not the only POV worth considering. Arguing on #Team33.1, the Crown made the case that in those instances where a person gets intoxicated to the point that they cannot control their conduct, the criminal fault (the mens rea) can be found in their decision to get that drunk. And also that while the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is there to protect the individual rights of an accused, it is also there to protect the rights of all Canadians, including women and girls. If you want to go full legal nerd *brushes off text book, adjusts powdered wig,* much of the debate around 33.1 focuses on Section 7 of the Charter , which says, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” The court focused its decision on the “right to liberty” part, but Stephens says they should have given equal consideration to the “security of person” rights in relation to women and children, along with their equality rights, laid out in Section 15. Recent StatsCan data that shows that 63% of women and children killed between 2007 and 2017 died at the hands of an intoxicated assailant . “When men aren’t held accountable for that risky behaviour, we know that it is women and children who bear the brunt of that risk,” says Stephens. Being intoxicated akin to automatism, “is not morally blameless behaviour.”