It's not bad. Judges are not crazy and they'll require a reason for this. It could mean 'fraying at the edges' of the law but this is not bad at all.

You can tell where things will land with this generally it's not bad.

If it were Texas or the South where the justice dept. leans a different way it could be a problem.

Canada is a bit like Europe where they have statist mentality, kind of hints of lawful, bureaucratic authoritarianism - not arbitrary or political or regime driven, but kind of an inherent orientation towards 'rules' etc. where the system can tilt wayward, but that's completely different than regime, or 'deep institutional' issues and state actors that do wild things.

▲

R_D_Olivaw 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

While this might be true and we'll and good (for now) isn't it still a worry and a threat that the law is written as such?

That is to say, though the "vibe" may be as you say, the law now permits, if not now, at some future instance people with different perspectives or vibes can use the law as written, to other ends.

In short, yeah it may not be Texas now, but a "Texas-like" vibe could germinate and use the laws in the books later.

	▲	bluegatty 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"though the "vibe" may be as you say, " it's not a vibe so much as a real characteriztion of the law in the context of the system in which it operates. There is no such thing as a set of 'hard fast rules' like 'software' which governs us. It's always going to depend on the quality, characteristic and legitimacy of institutions, among other things. 'The Slippery Slope' can be applied in almost anything and I don't think that it is a reasonable rhetorical posture without more context. 'Written Laws' is not going to really stop anywhere from 'becoming like Texas'

▲

markdown 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Canada is a bit like Europe where they have statist mentality

If the last decade and a half has taught us anything, it's that you can't rely on the state and arms of the state to remain consistent permanently.

In the absence of a free media, as in the US where it's controlled by a handful of billionaires, the people can be manipulated to vote in a government that will run roughshod over precedent and norms.

▲

bluegatty 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I totally agree, but that's a question aside from the institutional authoritarianism of statist countries.

Canada and European nations are not very 'liberal' in the sense a lot of people would like - they are communitarian.

We lament Trump breaking norms ... the office of the Canadian PM is almost only bounded by norms, he has crazy amounts of power - on paper.

A Trump-like actor in Canada (maybe UK as well) could do way more damage.

I think that the quality of the judiciary is subjective but real, it can be characterized.

I don't have a problem with this law as it is written, to the extent it's used judiciously, which I generally expect in Canada - but that's only because of an understanding of the system as a whole, not as it is written.

▲

ghssds 5 hours ago | parent [-]

On paper, there is no Canadian PM. The Constitution reads: "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen." The existence of a Prime Minister and the fact executive powers are delegated to them are customary.

A Trump-like actor in Canada would do far less damage than in USA. There is no position they could held that would give them the power to do lot of damage. The Queen (nowaday King) has no power. If they tried to use it's constitutional powers as written they would be laughed out. The Governor General, who may act on behalf of the Queen would be laughed out too if they tried to take any decision. The Prime Minister seems all powerful but they are one motion from the House of Common from being overthrown. When one's become POTUS, they are basically POTUS until the end of their term. The exception is impeachment which is a very complicated process that never worked. In Canada, the House of Common can simply vote the Prime Minister out. The Prime Minister is very powerful, I agree, but only as long as they behave.

▲

bluegatty 4 hours ago | parent [-]

"are one motion from the House of Common from being overthrown." - so this is a form of political constraint, which we can see in the US doesn't work very well if the ruling party wants to ignore concerns and acts at the behest of the Executive.

If the PM holds enough popular support and has even a narrow majority that he can effectively whip, he's almost above reproach.

Everything at the top in Canada is 'convention' even the Constitution and there's barely any real constraint at someone driving a truck through all of it.

	▲	XorNot 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes but that's marginal because support is entirely contingent on whether the legislative branch members believe that support won't get them voted out. The US executive is very different because it's an independent election: it's almost impossible to get rid of a President, and relatively easy to deflect blame. Australia's round of axing prime ministers had some essential logic to it despite the move being relatively unpopular with the electorate: it wasn't about whether the party would lose power, it was about whether replacing the prime minister would let them retain seats they faced otherwise losing. It's a mammoth difference when the election for executive power and legislative power are linked and it shows.

▲

JohnnyLarue 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]