CFE Blog

Claims that the state has improperly or unjustifiably compelled individuals to speak, contrary to s. 2(b) of the Charter (freedom of expression), have recently been made in two cases.

The last time I actually marched in a protest was a Toronto Day of Action organized in resistance to Ontario’s “Common Sense Revolution” back in the 90s. I still have Super 8 film footage of that day, showing happy, angry, determined, crowds at the march’s gathering point near the lake. I recall huge puppet masks depicting government figures of the day. I remember a sign saying “Mike Harris Eats British Beef” – it was the days of the Mad Cow scare, you know.  

Recently, a young woman in the US found a beautiful red cheongsam or qipao in a vintage clothing store. She bought it and wore it to her high school prom -- and then things got out of hand. She was accused of cultural appropriation by some people and lauded for cultural appreciation by others. As if getting that perfect prom dress weren’t difficult enough!

Even as technology transforms the world of communication – as it has over the course of history – defamation law remains strangely impervious to change. True enough, the law has evolved over time – indeed centuries – but nonetheless seems as beholden as ever to an archaic muddle of backwater rules and concepts.

The Disciplinary Committee of the Saskatchewan Registered Nurses Association (SRNA) says that Carolyn Strom engaged in professional misconduct in her comments on Facebook and Twitter about her grandfather’s end-of-life care.  Ms.

We are seeing a rapid expansion of the use of metrics (quantitative methods) for assessing performance and directing behaviour of states and public institutions. This is not a new idea but one that has many adverse effects. Use of metrics can (1) encroach on matters (such as human values[1]) not properly assessable by quantitative means, and can (2) be misused even in traditionally quantitative matters (such as accounting fraud).