[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

You might not consciously do so.  But the law preventing you form doing so has become normative and so even if you are ignorant of the law it has nontheless governed your behaviour.

Or perhaps the law reflects the normative behaviour of our society. After all, "community standards" are not infrequently used in law to determine whether something is acceptable or not.

In any case, your suggestion fails to address my primary point, namely that social behaviour involves all sorts of choices between perfectly legal (or not permitted yet never enforced) behaviours, and the law does not govern those by definition.

[crazy canuck]

You might not consciously do so.  But the law preventing you form doing so has become normative and so even if you are ignorant of the law it has nontheless governed your behaviour.

Or perhaps the law reflects the normative behaviour of our society. After all, "community standards" are not infrequently used in law to determine whether something is acceptable or not.

In any case, your suggestion fails to address my primary point, namely that social behaviour involves all sorts of choices between perfectly legal (or not permitted yet never enforced) behaviours, and the law does not govern those by definition.

The better example isnt pissing where you want but your example of sexual relations.  Its pretty hard to argue that people's behaviour has not been affected by changes in the law, both the criminal and human rights variety.  I noticed that neither you nor oex addressed that point but instead have championed pissing where you want as the expression of human endeavor.

As to your second point give me an example so I can see what it is you have in mind and while we are at it let me give you a counter example.  This discussion we are having now is perfectly legal.  You and I are choosing what words we are using.  But our discussion also takes place within a complex web of rights, freedoms and laws which permit us to do this very thing.  It is easy to forget the the freedom we have to do such things is protected by law and without such protection we wouldnt be able to do it.

[Malthus]

Having done both, nothing is as bad as family law.

Yeah, seems to be the general consensus among those that have.

Absent a real calling to do it, or severe financial incentive, I can't imagine why anyone would.

[garbon]

Its pretty hard to argue that people's behaviour has not been affected by changes in the law, both the criminal and human rights variety.

But Oex has expressly pointed out that people are affected by law. The argument though is that it doesn't inform all social interactions.

[crazy canuck]

Its pretty hard to argue that people's behaviour has not been affected by changes in the law, both the criminal and human rights variety.

But Oex has expressly pointed out that people are affected by law. The argument though is that it doesn't inform all social interactions.

And I havent argued it "informs" all interactions either.  But law does govern them.

If Oex, doesnt like the word govern then perhaps regulate.

[Jacob]

Its pretty hard to argue that people's behaviour has not been affected by changes in the law, both the criminal and human rights variety.

But Oex has expressly pointed out that people are affected by law. The argument though is that it doesn't inform all social interactions.

Exactly.

The law does shape the outer edges of social interactions, but the bulk of what happens occurs without reference to the law. This includes what CC claims is a good example for the purpose of this discussion: interactions with sexual implications.

Generally, forcible rape has been considered socially unacceptable for a while in most places, and this it has been illegal. Nonetheless, there has been exceptions - the laws against rape have not always been as strictly enforced against rich white men raping poor women of marginalized social groups for example. Similarly, enforcement of the law on homosexual rape has not been particular rigorously enforced due to the other social factors involved. As community standards have evolved (homosexuality is less stigmatized, more forms of sexual advances or suggestions are considered inappropriate even if coming from someone in a position of power towards someone with less power), the law has changed to reflect those community standards.

Even as this change has occurred, however, the bulk of social behaviour related to sex exists untouched by the law. How do you break up with someone in ways that are acceptable or unacceptable? If you have several prospective partners interested in a one night stand, how do you deal with them in ways that are acceptable or not? How did you get to the point that you know you're about to get laid if you want to in the first place? How do you shoot someone down without ruining your chances with her friend? What are the accepted norms for dating or marrying someone who's already been with someone in your circle of friends? How do you successfully gauge if someone is interested in a relationship vs casual sex?

Yes, there are laws (and HR regulations that flow from) that limit your courses of action when at your place of work. But most such interactions happen outside of work, and are thus not governed by law to anywhere near the extent they are governed by the social non-legal standards of various communities.

[Jacob]

And I havent argued it "informs" all interactions either.  But law does govern them.

If Oex, doesnt like the word govern then perhaps regulate.

Ah, well then perhaps we don't have a disagreement.

If govern means "reflects community standards in setting the outside paramaters for acceptable behaviour (when social standards don't preclude enforcement)" then we are in accord.

[Oexmelin]

And I havent argued it "informs" all interactions either.  But law does govern them.

If Oex, doesnt like the word govern then perhaps regulate.

But even regulate to me reads - in conjunction to your other posts - like "authorizes" or "enables". I.e., we do things in a way because the law allows us so, even when, under the spell of collective amnesia or ignorance, we do not know we have been thus enabled in the more distant, or more recent, past. To me, this reflects the thinking that absent law, people would not know how to behave, or that only the threat of the legal sanction keeps them in check.

As a historically minded person, this feels deeply wrong. First, because law is only *one* method of regulation and control amongst many others (coercion/strength, shame, conformism, belief). Second, because law arrives somewhat late at the party of social interactions amongst humans - well after many other forms of regulation and control. Third, because there are entire realms where the law is, or at least should be, powerless - or perhaps simply reduced to an "observant" status. Does the law, for instance, govern oaths taken in court? Or is it simply evoked to sanction oath-breaking? The parameters of the oath, for instance, can be dictated. The crime of perjury can be explicited. But what actually governs the oath is much more complex - notions of honor, society, etc. 

Now, one can argue that our society posits that law should rule, or trump, any other form of regulation and control. That oaths taken in court should be simply a mechanism by which we understand the notions of truth and lie. That bargaining between people should be done within the parameters covered by law.  That every possible human interaction should be governed or even regulated by law. But that doesn't strike me as desirable.

[crazy canuck]

Oex, the Freedom of expression you enjoy does "enable" you to write on a great many topics, including the ability to tell me just how wrong I am.  I feel like two ships passing in the night.

[Barrister]

Anyone have any thougths about this "robo-call" scandal?

I'm still trying to figure out what to think...

[HVC]

Looks like we're looking at the internet thing all wrong. Now with the latest scandal it seems more likely that the conservatives want access to your computer so that they can more effeciently feed you the wrong voting locations... unless you vote conservative, then they'll make sure you get the right location

[crazy canuck]

 


In all seriousness though if the Conservatives did this, as alleged, we will have nobody worthy of governing.

[Oexmelin]

Is this really surprising?

When Harper & Co. (i.e., the New Conservatives) emerged as a viable option on the political scene, I applauded their transparency and the fact that they both had principles and consistent promises. I might have strongly disagreed with every thing they stood for, but they were (or seemed) pretty honest, which meant that the political game would be to oppose what they stood for.

The minority governments and this majority government has showed that one of the things they were not principled about, however, was the nature of Canadian democracy. The parliamentary system has been consistently undermined by base tactics which display that for them, opposition is not something that enhances democracy, it is something that hinders it; that whatever relied in our system on tacit rules can be safely trampled on; that Parliament is there only to rubber-stamp bills; that transparency in the mechanics of government is something that comes from their political enemies and therefore must be fought; that administrative procedures must be trumped by arbitrariness of ministers; that their political culture is so immersed in American republicanism (apart from the bizarre cult of the monarchy) that they bring in wholesale references, and practices without bothering to understand their repercussions. 

[crazy canuck]

In other news, it seems the Premier of Ontario is blaming a prosperous Alberta for the ills that Ontario is facing.  The logic goes that high oil prices = a high Canadian dollar = loss of manufacturing in Ontario.

He of course igores entirely that the high Canadian dollar has much to do with a weak American economy which is perhaps the single largest reason why Ontario manufacturing isnt doing so well these days.

We all love to bash Edmonton.  I mean just look at the place.  But is it so wise for a Premier of Ontario to pick this particular fight?

Edit:  It looks like Oex has already decided the allegations are true.  I will wait to see if they are indeed true before looking for reasons why they did it.

[Jacob]

Edit:  It looks like Oex has already decided the allegations are true.  I will wait to see if they are indeed true before looking for reasons why they did it.

I think Oex is basing his analysis on more than this one incident.