One thing I learned studying law is that a lot of what people do every day is illegal and much of our ability to live in society is predicated on the discretionary non-application of laws.
Now ask yourself: how scary would it be if people started religiously enforcing every single law against you? How quickly would your life crumble?
What if we add laws of sufficiently vague and case-by-case application that you need to go through a whole trial before the claim against you fails?
What if we add claims that are ludicrous enough to be rapidly dismissed—but not before you’ve sent tens of thousands of dollars?
If you're Black, if you're marginalized, if someone decides they have it out for you, this can become your reality from one day to the next. And the legal system won't offer any protection because discretion is built into it.
Cases so egregious that they attract protection are few and far between. For everyone who has been wrongfully convicted, how many others were targeted, selectively charged and convicted in accordance with the law?
What does it say when society can only function when our system is laws is discretionarily applied to none but an infinitesimal proportion of all cases?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Alberta’s anti-trans bills have dropped. A few observations. 🧵
The first thing I notice, and which is cause for hope, is that the bills do not invoke the notwithstanding clause. They can thus be challenged in Court, and struck down as unconstitutional.
The healthcare ban is worse than they announced, at least in its present form.
They ban all gender-affirming surgeries until 18, as expected. They also ban puberty blockers and hormones for minors. So far, the same as we expected.
However, the bill is set up so that the ban is total for all minors *unless* the Minister creates an exception for some. This means that even 16-17 year olds whose parents consent cannot receive puberty blockers or hormones.
They may plan to allow it, but it’s not in the law.
I was asked why the moral panic around Algerian boxer Imane Khelif was so centred on trans people when there’s no evidence that she’s trans. I thought I’d share my thoughts with everyone.
The reason is that, in many ways, transphobia isn’t about trans people. 🧵
Rather, it’s about what trans people mean to ideologies of race and gender. The controversy about the Olympic boxers is linked to rising anxieties about the line between men and women becoming increasingly blurred in contemporary society.
These anxieties are fuelled by right-wing movements who see rigid divisions between men and women as critical to maintaining white social, economic, and political control.
People are claiming that sending police after @UAlberta students is okay because the University grounds are private property and the students were thus trespassing.
As a law professor, let me state that this is a gross mischaracterization of the law.
University grounds are essentially considered public property for the purposes of student protests.
The Alberta Court of Appeal has ruled that the regulation of student expression on campus property is governmental in nature and subject to the Canadian Charter (2020 ABCA 1).
As the Court explained: “The ability of students to learn and to debate and to share ideas is not only a central feature of the core purpose of the University…”
With the Alberta government announcing a ban on gender-affirming care until 16 years old, let’s take a minute to correct some misinformation.
A thread.🧵
“High quality evidence doesn’t support gender-affirming care.”
‘High quality evidence’ is a technical term that essentially just means ’no randomized controlled trials.’ RCTs are not scientifically feasible for trans youth care and would be unethical:
The evidence-base for gender-affirming care is quite robust and is at least as good at the evidence base for comparable interventions like abortion and birth control.
🚨This is not a drill!🚨 After years in the making, my paper on GI is finally out in MIND, one of the most prestigious philosophy journals in the world, of all places.
⬇️Why this is the most important paper on gender you’ll read this week, a thread:🧵
The paper explains how people get a gender identity. It doesn’t explain what gender identity is per se, but it explains where it comes from and what it is built on.
So if anyone asks you to define gender identity as a gotcha’ you can send them the paper.
The level of evidence that someone requires to justify a medical practice is strongly if not directly correlated with how they intuitively feel about it. If they dislike it or are skeptical it, the threshold is higher. If they like it, the threshold is lower.
That’s why so many people criticize the evidence base for gender-affirming care but not other things. They think it unnatural, icky, or evil so they require higher quality evidence that is difficult if not impossible to muster.
If probed, they find all sorts of excuses why the medical practices they like are okay despite having worse evidence. But mostly they rely on not being probed and just coasting on double standards.