[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

But Jacob's point (and mine) was precisely that people don't think about municipal bylaws when they urinate outdoors. They think about their companions, about the environment, about the time, about who is liable to see them, about what their mother would think, etc, etc, etc. And people also expect policemen to do the same, so that they do not indiscriminately arrest anyone who is urinating outside.

Exactly.

[Oexmelin]

Perhaps it just boils down to our professions - you're the ivory tower humanities intellectual, I'm the practical-minded trial Crown.   

I hope it doesn't - and the ivory tower has nothing to do with it. You also work under a number of philosophical/political asumptions - which you usually lay bare - and I also have a practice, if only because my work shows everyday 1) the constant mingling of philosophical asumptions and daily practices amongst people in past times and 2) because teaching is nothing if a constant reminder that whatever I am saying in a classroom needs to be in conversation with our present or else be totally irrelevant

Sure, I have a different practice than you do - but it turns out it is not so different, because it involves creating a narrative out of various elements - there are tons of wonderful writings about the intellectual and practical proximities (and differences, of course) of judges and historians.

That being said, my point is precisely that we need to think about what we are doing - not that we need to do nothing while thinking. And that requires people to allow for historians to have something relevant to say about prosecutors, and prosecutors to have something relevant to say about history, and fellow citizens to have something to say by virtue of being thinking and doing citizens and not technical, legal, or historical experts.

[Jacob]

Those of us living in large urban centres are effectively anonymous in large crowds or public spaces.  You're very unlikely to meet anyone you know, or to have anyone remember what you did.

That happens to me all the time, and I regularly interact with people I remember and know. Whether it's the old lady who rummages through the recycling in the alley, the bus driver, the lady who seems to buy groceries the same time as I do, the server at a place I frequent regularly, the drug dealer on the corner near my work; and that's leaving out the people I interact with because they are friends or friends of friends, colleagues or staff at places I do business.

Maybe that proves that Vancouver is more of a village than a big city, but I don't think that was your point.

[Barrister]

Perhaps it just boils down to our professions - you're the ivory tower humanities intellectual, I'm the practical-minded trial Crown.   

I hope it doesn't - and the ivory tower has nothing to do with it. You also work under a number of philosophical/political asumptions - which you usually lay bare - and I also have a practice, if only because my work shows everyday 1) the constant mingling of philosophical asumptions and daily practices amongst people in past times and 2) because teaching is nothing if a constant reminder that whatever I am saying in a classroom needs to be in conversation with our present or else be totally irrelevant

Sure, I have a different practice than you do - but it turns out it is not so different, because it involves creating a narrative out of various elements - there are tons of wonderful writings about the intellectual and practical proximities (and differences, of course) of judges and historians.

That being said, my point is precisely that we need to think about what we are doing - not that we need to do nothing while thinking. And that requires people to allow for historians to have something relevant to say about prosecutors, and prosecutors to have something relevant to say about history, and fellow citizens to have something to say by virtue of being thinking and doing citizens and not technical, legal, or historical experts.

I dunno man - I think this almost reinforces my point.  I've read this a couple times, and beyond "we need to think about what we are doing" I'm not sure how it's a response to what I said.

As I said - a discussion of grand principles frequently runs the risk of obscuring the actual topic of conversation.  In fact in my line of work that's practically a defence lawyer's stock-in-trade - to change the terms of the argument over the horrible violation of rights perpetrated on the accused to the point where the fact someone is dead gets lost completely.

So - what are your thoughts of activists recording police officers?

[garbon]

Those of us living in large urban centres are effectively anonymous in large crowds or public spaces.  You're very unlikely to meet anyone you know, or to have anyone remember what you did.

That happens to me all the time, and I regularly interact with people I remember and know. Whether it's the old lady who rummages through the recycling in the alley, the bus driver, the lady who seems to buy groceries the same time as I do, the server at a place I frequent regularly, the drug dealer on the corner near my work; and that's leaving out the people I interact with because they are friends or friends of friends, colleagues or staff at places I do business.

Maybe that proves that Vancouver is more of a village than a big city, but I don't think that was your point.

Yep even here in New York it happens often. People I recognize from the subway or various events around town. I'll even run into friends while walking the streets who live in very different boroughs. I'd have to purposefully structure my day to try not and run into people I know/know of.

[garbon]

But Jacob's point (and mine) was precisely that people don't think about municipal bylaws when they urinate outdoors. They think about their companions, about the environment, about the time, about who is liable to see them, about what their mother would think, etc, etc, etc. And people also expect policemen to do the same, so that they do not indiscriminately arrest anyone who is urinating outside.

Exactly.

Yeah there may be laws that don't allow me to physically assault the bus driver but that's not why I don't.

[Jacob]

Jacob unwittingly provided an excellent examples of a number of areas where the law impacts behaviour but take the most intimate behaviour we have - sexual relations.  The law has had a profound impact in this area, from the recognition of same sex relationships (which were once illegal) to governing the right of a woman to be able to say no and the ability of workers, particularly women, to have a right to work in a harrassment free enviornment.

It was not unwitting. It was very deliberate, to illustrate the point.

Yes, there exists copious amounts of legislation that governs sexual communication (and public urination). The original point of discussion was Oex's claim that "law doesn't empty nor replace, nor even frame society and social relations" and you countered with the claim that it governs it.

When you are talking to a stranger at on the street and chose to look them in the eye and smile and use a certain tone of voice with one person, while not looking directly at another while using a different tone of voice and body language with another that decision is made without reference to the law. When you're halfway up the Grouse Grind and you really have to urinate, the decision to step off the trail a few paces and go behind a tree to do your business rather than just stopping on the trail and peeing off to the side is made without reference to the law. Yet both are these are expression of how society is framed and social relations govern our behaviour.

Yes, the law sets some outer limits for behaviour in the realms of communication, flirting and public urination (amongst others), but the bulk of our interactions and decisions - what Oex calls "framing society and social relations" happen with no reference to the law at all.

The fact that the law does have something to say about extreme cases doesn't mean it governs the bulk of our behaviour, and when we're discussing how the law is asserting control over areas where it previously did not govern behaviour, and whether that's a good thing or not, to claim that law governs all social behaviour is a bit beside the point.

[Barrister]

Those of us living in large urban centres are effectively anonymous in large crowds or public spaces.  You're very unlikely to meet anyone you know, or to have anyone remember what you did.

That happens to me all the time, and I regularly interact with people I remember and know. Whether it's the old lady who rummages through the recycling in the alley, the bus driver, the lady who seems to buy groceries the same time as I do, the server at a place I frequent regularly, the drug dealer on the corner near my work; and that's leaving out the people I interact with because they are friends or friends of friends, colleagues or staff at places I do business.

Maybe that proves that Vancouver is more of a village than a big city, but I don't think that was your point.

Yep even here in New York it happens often. People I recognize from the subway or various events around town. I'll even run into friends while walking the streets who live in very different boroughs. I'd have to purposefully structure my day to try not and run into people I know/know of.

I've had the same experience - someone I recognize from the LRT, or a cashier where I buy coffee.  Or rarely running into a colleague when walking the streets or at the grocery store.

But that doesn't take away from my point - it's an entirely different experience in a small community.  You're mostly anonymous in an urban centre.  You aren't anonymous at all in a small town.

[Jacob]

Fair enough, BB.

Oex's point however is that the lack of anonymity in a small time is a very different kind of lack of anonymity than the one that comes with constant surveillance.

The point is, I think, that in a small town you are not anonymous, but the people who are judging you are known to you as well.

Conversely, with constant surveillance - government or otherwise - you are not anonymous, but the people who judge you are anonymous to you.

[Malthus]

Jacob unwittingly provided an excellent examples of a number of areas where the law impacts behaviour but take the most intimate behaviour we have - sexual relations.  The law has had a profound impact in this area, from the recognition of same sex relationships (which were once illegal) to governing the right of a woman to be able to say no and the ability of workers, particularly women, to have a right to work in a harrassment free enviornment.

It was not unwitting. It was very deliberate, to illustrate the point.

Yes, there exists copious amounts of legislation that governs sexual communication (and public urination). The original point of discussion was Oex's claim that "law doesn't empty nor replace, nor even frame society and social relations" and you countered with the claim that it governs it.

When you are talking to a stranger at on the street and chose to look them in the eye and smile and use a certain tone of voice with one person, while not looking directly at another while using a different tone of voice and body language with another that decision is made without reference to the law. When you're halfway up the Grouse Grind and you really have to urinate, the decision to step off the trail a few paces and go behind a tree to do your business rather than just stopping on the trail and peeing off to the side is made without reference to the law. Yet both are these are expression of how society is framed and social relations govern our behaviour.

Yes, the law sets some outer limits for behaviour in the realms of communication, flirting and public urination (amongst others), but the bulk of our interactions and decisions - what Oex calls "framing society and social relations" happen with no reference to the law at all.

The fact that the law does have something to say about extreme cases doesn't mean it governs the bulk of our behaviour, and when we're discussing how the law is asserting control over areas where it previously did not govern behaviour, and whether that's a good thing or not, to claim that law governs all social behaviour is a bit beside the point.

Rarely does the law directly motivate day-to-day behaviour. What it does, is establish the norms of behaviour, as an official expression of what is or is not acceptable. 

Those are two different things; the argument here is that imposing controls over the Internet that did not exist previously falls into the second category, not the first. That is, such controls, or monitoring for controls, represent the establishment of norms of behaviour. It will not impact motivations of day-to-day behaviour, any more than a law prohibiting jaywalking actually prevents jaywalking, or a law prohibiting public urination actually prevents public urination.

Myself, I'm not convinced of the necessity of the proposed law, because I'm not convinced that the harms allegedly prevented will be worth the impact on privacy. But then, I haven't studied the matter in detail, either. I doubt that anything like "constant surveillance" is proposed (or practical, if proposed).   

[Barrister]

Fair enough, BB.

Oex's point however is that the lack of anonymity in a small time is a very different kind of lack of anonymity than the one that comes with constant surveillance.

The point is, I think, that in a small town you are not anonymous, but the people who are judging you are known to you as well.

Conversely, with constant surveillance - government or otherwise - you are not anonymous, but the people who judge you are anonymous to you.

Well this is where I would point out that this is an issue of what do you then "do" with that kind of recording - who can access it, how long is it stored, who is it shared with.  And I'd then have Oex come back with his very elegant and verbose "I don't want to talk about technical details".

I watched some CCTV footage a few months ago from the parking lot of a casino (private property).  The camera operator observed someone hanging around the entrance, and then quickly followed after one patron.  The camera panned and then observed the patron being robbed.

Due to the miracle of technology within 30 seconds the would-be robber was swarmed by security, the victim was unharmed, and his winnings recovered.  Without cctv the crime likely would never have been detected or solved.

This is gritty details, but I want to know why this cctv camera is perfectly acceptable and unremarkable (and incredibly useful in terms of public safety) yet if we were to install another camera 100m away over the intersection (public property) it would mean sending out "a message of mistrust".

[Oexmelin]

And I'd then have Oex come back with his very elegant and verbose "I don't want to talk about technical details".

OK, I'll make it short. I don't want to talk about technical details if the only thing they do is allow us to avoid thinking and discussing about the external rationale behind them.

[Grey Fox]

Fair enough, BB.

Oex's point however is that the lack of anonymity in a small time is a very different kind of lack of anonymity than the one that comes with constant surveillance.

The point is, I think, that in a small town you are not anonymous, but the people who are judging you are known to you as well.

Conversely, with constant surveillance - government or otherwise - you are not anonymous, but the people who judge you are anonymous to you.

Well this is where I would point out that this is an issue of what do you then "do" with that kind of recording - who can access it, how long is it stored, who is it shared with.  And I'd then have Oex come back with his very elegant and verbose "I don't want to talk about technical details".

I watched some CCTV footage a few months ago from the parking lot of a casino (private property).  The camera operator observed someone hanging around the entrance, and then quickly followed after one patron.  The camera panned and then observed the patron being robbed.

Due to the miracle of technology within 30 seconds the would-be robber was swarmed by security, the victim was unharmed, and his winnings recovered.  Without cctv the crime likely would never have been detected or solved.

This is gritty details, but I want to know why this cctv camera is perfectly acceptable and unremarkable (and incredibly useful in terms of public safety) yet if we were to install another camera 100m away over the intersection (public property) it would mean sending out "a message of mistrust".

Because the state can go from watching you stop to crime from watching you to stop dissention of the government's opinion in an heartbeat.

Altho, I don't think that's how Oex would pull it.

[Maximus]

Perhaps it just boils down to our professions - you're the ivory tower humanities intellectual, I'm the practical-minded trial Crown.   

I haven't had time to read the whole thread, but I want to address this. If you study laws and work with laws, you will see the entire world as it relates to laws. You may argue that all social norms are governed by laws. Someone who studies social behavior might argue that all laws are, or should be, governed by social norms. 

The legal profession is every bit as "ivory tower" as academia. I would not hold it up as an example of practicality.

[Barrister]

Perhaps it just boils down to our professions - you're the ivory tower humanities intellectual, I'm the practical-minded trial Crown.   

I haven't had time to read the whole thread, but I want to address this. If you study laws and work with laws, you will see the entire world as it relates to laws. You may argue that all social norms are governed by laws. Someone who studies social behavior might argue that all laws are, or should be, governed by social norms. 

The legal profession is every bit as "ivory tower" as academia. I would not hold it up as an example of practicality.

Hey - I'm not involved in that other discussion.

And that's why I specified I'm a trial Crown.  I know plenty of lawyers that can be as esoteric as any academic.

But when you're slogging in the legal trenches you have a ery different point of view.