i know that people are kind of upset that the quebec court could rule that the law is oppressing people, and then not invalidate it. but, that's a peculiar part of the canadian system in itself.

i've been clear that i think this law can withstand a legal challenge, and that the quebec government should have made better use of the expertise of the judiciary as a reference source, rather than try to cut it out of the process. i've pointed to bans on political activities by civil servants as a precedent for a valid restriction on expression, within the confines of the dress code. but, the government doesn't want the debate.

what people are forgetting is that a court in canada can, and often does, rule that a law is unconstitutional, but then save it via something called the oakes test. that is, we're allowed to have unconstitutional laws, in canada, if the balance is in the public good. and, if the quebec government won't argue the case in the way that i'm proposing, it's brandishing of the notwithstanding clause as a trump card, and somewhat frivolously given that a legal argument exists, could very well lead to exactly that decision, which it seems to be perfectly ok with. they're happy to make a mockery of the law.

but, this is a point that outside observers need to understand about our court system. in canada, it's not enough to show that a law infringes on somebody's rights, that's just the first step in the process. after you've shown that a right has been infringed upon, you have to run it through an oakes test, which questions whether the law can still be justified, despite infringing on some people's rights. and, it's not hard to come up with uncontroversial examples of laws that infringe the rights of some for the greater good; that's not that controversial of an idea at all. our legal framework explicitly forces the jurisprudence to consider the question; a judge must place the individual's rights in a social context, and must rule the individual's rights subservient to the social good, if the evidence compels it to. that is how canadian law interprets this kind of thing.

this is in contrast to american law, which has no real legal counterargument to individual rights, and which liberally grants injunctions when constitutional rights issues are raised. in the end, canadian judges wield a large amount of power to declare legislation void, but the precedent is set at a high bar in meeting the grounds of the oakes test, first.

so, in context, the democratic will is a valid argument in canada to overturn constitutionally-protected rights, in ways that wouldn't be raised in the american courts. and, americans that are following this case may find the language used by the canadian courts to be galling to the point of shocking. but, we'll see what the outcome is.

if the quebec government refuses to present an actual legal case, the court may be forced to make some pretty brutal rulings.