Thread by @lymanstoneky

A friend in Canada contacted her member of parliament about the bill which extends euthanasia to people with severe mental illness.

This was the response (from an MP who *opposes* the extension to mental health cases):

So, first off, I was not aware that Canada had US-style judicial review, and conducted by *provincial* courts at that. You live and you learn I guess. Imagine if a Texan court could nullify US law!

But more broadly, this is a case where I really think Canadian politeness is doing a bad thing.

The correct response here is to call the court's bluff. Let them void the law. Allow the cavalcade of horrors of totally unregulated euthanasia to occur. It will create an outcry.

In the ensuing scrum, it is hard to say what the political result will be. But when you know you're losing the game and the stakes are peoples lives, you don't just keep playing; you flip the table over.

Especially when flipping the table over really just means allowing the court to have its way and letting people get what they want and suffer the consequences.

It is not good to make yourself complicit in laws which are 5% less horrific than the worst case scenario!

That difference is not worth the stain of collaboration!

BY THE WAY, I actually am not being critical of the MP here. The MP gave a thorough and thoughtful reply, and also the MP in question did *not* vote in favor of the bill. The MP is not the issue.

The issue is that apparently there are actually enough votes to oppose the court on this matter, but they are declining to do so because they are worried the outcome will be the court just leaving euthanasia totally unregulated.

Fine! Do it! Call the bluff!

And when cases of horrible injustice occur, see how the courts untangle the knot they've tied themselves in, or watch the movement for a charter revision grow.

Maybe this is a very American sensibility; I'm just more okay with reckless legislators and don't respect the judiciary all that much.