It is nauseating but tolerable, I suppose, when politicians do their little politically uber-correct, inane song and dance with non-binding motions, wasted tax dollars, etc.

But here, they are messing with an accused person's right and ability to make full answer and defence to a very serious criminal charge with their liberty (not to mention reputation) at stake.

Of course blind, open-ended fishing expeditions by defence counsel should not be permitted but politicians should NOT be pre-determining what is or is not appropriate and admissible evidence.  What would have been the outcome in the Ghomeshi case if this law had been in place?

And if politicians can mess with the evidence in this type of case, why not in others?