Thread by @DoubleAspect

A little thread: Corolyn Strom's has been heavily fined by her professional regulator for saying things other Canadians say all the time, but with more credibility. She was also told to write an essay confessing her wrongs! She bravely refused. cbc.ca/news/canada/sa… 1/

Ms. Strom's story is a reminder that the administrative state doesn't just consist of rainbows, unicorns, and expert labour arbitrators. It is also the meddling state, the carceral state and, as here, the censorious state. 2/

Under #SCC precedent, we ask, as @KeirVallance explains here, whether the regulator struck the right balance between its own power and a person's rights, and we are supposed to show deference to the regulator's decision on this. 3/

@KeirVallance But why would anyone believe that a regulator will be impartial as between its own prerogatives and the rights of someone subject to its power? They are human; they will not be. The balance must be struck by independent courts, not by a party with a stake in the dispute. 4/

@KeirVallance Philip Hamburger points out that deference to administrative interpretations of law means judicial bias in favour of the government. But deference to administrators' decisions as to the scope of their powers is bias in favour of biased government! 5/

@KeirVallance Last thing: as the @SRNAdialogue is finding out, the Streisand effect applies to regulators as much as to celebrities. The only reason we are still talking about Carolyn Strom's words is that they tried to censor her. Regardless of the outcome, they have failed. Dixi. 6/6