I am saying that the law as presented is allowing for the punishment of offenders for crimes that the Crown has not proved.

Lets say that a Crown Attorney has the mentality of Sarah Palin and wants to persecute her brother in law for alleged wrongs to her sister.

Lets say that she can prove that he ran the office super bowl pool. Under this law, as presented in the article she can use the provision that gambling funds organized crime and she can prosecute him as an organized criminal.

In an ideal world, ie current Canadian law, she would have to prove his association with specific criminals and moreover prove that he actually funded specific illegal activities to convict him.

I am a firm believer of punishing people for what we can prove they are guilty of, no more, no less.