I don’t often pass along my work at TheCourt.ca here, but now that I am Managing Editor of the site and therefore incredibly important it seems only proper to pass along my commentary on that case where the young Jehovah’s Witness sued the government for not being allowed to die and that case where the SCC found that advertising on public transit must be considered protected speech and that case where a Hutterite enclave requested drivers’ licenses that didn’t have photographs on them.
Related Articles
9 users responded in this post
People are stupid, ignorant creatures. I’m glad I’m no one of them.
I had almost forgotten all about these. I’m not usually one to read legal things, being a normal human being completely adverse to this strange language Lawyers use. But these were often interesting insights into this alien territory.
Klytus: I’m not sure if I should make a joke about human error or a joke about aliens not having good grammar. (I know, I know, I’m not really one to talk, still.)
Crap one thing I forgot: “…Managing Editor of the site…”
Well, la dee da, look who’s the Mr. Big all of a sudden.
Three posts in a row huh, I thought these were more popular, anyway:
First I’d like to say I think it’s funny that you have a Supreme Court Justice named Fish. Mainly for the mental picture I got from that. (I also didn’t get a word from that article, it’s something about censorship, but I couldn’t figure out what.)
I can see why the Court didn’t want to get into the nitty gritty that is A.C. v. Manitoba, as no matter how you slice it it really boils down to a religious rights case. Because while this case may be about the right to die, what happens when you’ve got some nut who says that it’s within his religious rights to have sex with a 14 year old because his religion says its ok. Now I realize that’s taking it to a bit of an extreme, but it also wouldn’t be the first time a religious sect, out on their own, decided that something was ok because of their religion until the FBI came knocking at their door. And I agree completely with the parents who filed the suit, unfortunately a case which may be judged one way for them becomes precedent for someone who intends to abuse that ruling; as my example is there to illustrate. Its a judicial quagmire which you could write reams of opinions on. So, its unfortunate that the government has to get involved in a situation like this though I personally don’t see a way it could end any better.
I like to think of Justice Fish to be the older, more accomplished brother of the Luke Cage Villain, Mr. Fish.
But that latter example isn’t one of a legal challenge based on religious rights but of someone flaunting existing law because of their religion, which isn’t the same thing. Canadian law simply doesn’t recognize religious rights where they obviously and massively conflict with existing concepts of public safety or individual dignity. A.C. made it to the Supreme Court precisely because it raised a thorny legal issue: at what point do self-determinative rights “kick in” for children, and how do we determine them? And it essentially punted the question to the next case.
Managing Editor, eh? It sounds like you have a ready outlet for “Worse than Hitler” jokes.
Reminded me of Deputy Chief Judge Fish from 2000AD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minor_characters_in_Judge_Dredd#Fish
I pictured Abe Vigoda, myself.