I did not want to take too much time. I will say it slowly.
I'll start over again, very slowly, because it is truly a magnificent statement. In my humble opinion, it deserves your support.
An individual charged with a criminal offence faces grave social and personal consequences, including potential loss of physical liberty, subjection to social stigma and ostracism from the community, as well as other social, psychological and economic harms. In light of the gravity of these consequences, the presumption of innocence is crucial. It ensures that, until the State proves an accused' guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, he or she is innocent. This is essential in a society committed to fairness and social justice. The presumption of innocence confirms our faith in humankind; it reflects our belief that individuals are decent and law-abiding members of the community, until proven otherwise [beyond a reasonable doubt].
That applies analogously to a situation which is certainly much more likely to result in disastrous consequences for an individual who is to be branded a danger to national security when, in fact, even for the most minor offence of shoplifting, the presumption of innocence, which flows directly from our conception of human dignity, requires that this be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. As lawyers, we are deeply convinced that this government, this legislative assembly, could find a way to ensure that the burden of proof be raised to reflect principles which are at least as evocative as those associated with the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.