As an avid watcher of Cdn politics, I remain amazed at how much we let provincial governments off the hook for how shitty things are. Hell, most of what Pierre Poilievre goes on about is more Doug Ford's fault than Justin Trudeau's. Yet talking about jurisdiction is 'pedantic'. Trudeau's government is out of gas, 'actively inactive' on many files, and seems oblivious. It deserves a lot of criticism, don't get me wrong. But conservative premiers across this country are active saboteurs of good governance. Media attention has been nowhere proportionate.

I read the Ontario Divisional Court decision in the Jordan Peterson case.

Eminently reasonable. We can (and should!) debate how far professional regulators should go in controlling public speech of its members. 1/nontariocourts.ca/scj/peterson-v… But in a world where *private* companies can outright fire employees for public speech acts that bring disrepute or embarrass them - even those unrelated to work - surely public bodies that regulate professions have an interest in the integrity of that profession. 2/n

Some people seem to prefer anecdote to data. I retweet a lot of covid data. Here's an anecdote: neither my wife nor I have been sick - with anything - since 2019. But our kiddo has been sick at least seven times since September during this school year. The Q is... 1/n How have we possibly avoided getting covid or a cold or whatever the kid has had even though she's been properly sick (fever, sore throat, nose running like a tap) SEVEN times? 2/n

Reading Scott Moe's White Paper. Just gonna comment
off the top that the notion of an $111B "cost" to Sask's economy from federal environmental regulation is, on its face, fatuous nonsense. Does it account for new industry or innovations, or costs of climate inaction? Saskatchewan and Alberta didn't "enter" Confederation, they were created by federal legislation. Even the decision to create two distinct provinces came out of efficiencies: a call that carving just one section out of the NWT would create an area too big to administer.

Here's @mattgurney on why we worry about this year's flu season. A good piece, overall. But I want to focus on one paragraph I disagree with, and that's the argument that gov'ts dropping covid measures were simply moving to where public opinion was. 1/n
tvo.org/article/as-we-… Matt argues that by dropping masking, distancing & isolation requirements, the gov't was *following public opinion* and he says Fords victory in the election basically proved this.

This dramatically understates the impact gov't policy and messaging has on public opinion 2/n

Canada's constitutional amending formula has 5 distinct procedures. 4 of these procedures allow amendments to the Constitution of Canada (of which the Constitution Act, 1867 is a part, per s.52 of the Constitution Act, 1982). The 5th allows amendments to provincial constitutions. Quebec purports to add new textual provisions to the 1867 Act. To the national constitution. It seeks explicit recognition - on behalf of the entirety of Canada - for its status as a nation and the supremacy of French within.

This is not a change to its provincial constitution.

I see @SSHRC_CRSH has posted the results for the 2022 Insight Grant competition.

Happy to officially announce I'm leading a new 5-year $243,737 project on the regulation of online hate speech in Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom with my friend @regjohnstone. Most of the funds for this sort of project go to support a team of research assistants, in this case comprised of Master's and PhD students.

I surveyed the academic literature a few years ago. Is gun violence, and mass shootings specifically, a product of a complex mix of culture, gun availability, mental health, etc. Yes.

But... 1/n From my survey at the time, the research is very, very clear: 1) availability of guns is a *key* predictor of gun violence, and regulation (gun control) is easily the most direct and effective method of reducing gun violence. 2) the US is a massive outlier, and this stems from 1)

Long 🧵coming. I see the medical aid in dying slippery slope brigade is back, emboldened by horror stories of the choices people are making given the full context of their irremediable medical conditions and, in some cases, lack of supports. 1/n Some of the discourse around this stuff parallels that brief 'sex selective abortion' moral panic Canada had a few years ago. The judgment of the underlying reasons people might make a decision concerning their bodily autonomy. Which, as I will explain, shouldn't matter. 2/n

The Charter is celebrated as godsent by some and vilified by others. On this 40th anniversary, let's remember it for what it is: the product of a messy political compromise, with positive and negative impacts. A THREAD. 1/n Substantively, in terms of outcomes, I think it's clear the Charter has done more good than harm. From the expansion of same-sex equality rights in the '90s to mitigating harms against personal liberty (abortion, MAiD), there are a litany of positive outcomes. 2/n

Got my hands on a copy of the NB court decision. OF COURSE the UK's Miller case rears its ugly head. If Canadian courts go down this road our Constitution will be a horrid mess. Fun typo in the decision: "Reference re Succession of Quebec"

No. That's not what 'official bilingualism' means nor what the Charter protects. The Charter protects *institutional* bilingualism - the right of citizens to access services in both official languages and the right to use them.

https://twitter.com/MKay519/status/1514662437777248259

We might think, as a matter of policy, that the LG - indeed, all politicians and senior public officials - ought to be bilingual. But no reasonable interpretation of the Constitution translates that ideal into a legal requirement.

A thread. Go into a PhD clear-eyed about what the job market looks like. Look for programs paying attention to the non-academic market, to professional development skills beyond a narrow focus on academia, and to those that might facilitate opportunities.

https://twitter.com/Alex_Blanchet/status/1514631526763409409

As @Alex_Blanchet says, doing a PhD can be a wonderful experience. It lets you pursue research you are (hopefully) passionate about. You develop great skills along the way. But there is a major financial cost, delaying real income earnings through your 20s and other trade-offs.

'Responsible government' makes cabinet ultimately responsible for final decisions. It does not magically immunize everyone else in positions of authority from criticism, especially when we are told by Doug Ford that they're who he is listening to. Either Doug Ford is listening to Moore's advice and thus Moore is absolutely incompetent or Ford is overruling good advice and Moore has a duty to tell us and resign.

One of those things is true, and either way Moore should be condemned for it.

Including from certain public health scholars. It's been amazing to see, in a bad way.

https://twitter.com/WillWJGreaves/status/1513869552236605444

Perhaps the most jarring thing about the pandemic has been how uncritical, how apathetic, how non-existent the appetite has been for accountability among even knowledgeable people has been in this country. It's embarrassing.

Before telling others to wake up, you insipid fool, you might actually look at the age breakdowns of support for Brexit and Trump. Younger voters overwhelmingly opposed both.

https://twitter.com/RodnieAllison/status/1512833399244742656

Here's the age breakdown of support for Brexit: statista.com/statistics/520…

Here's my problem with the 'mandates are divisive' frame, and why I've grown increasingly frustrated by the sort of takes I see at places like The Hub or The Line. 1/n Governments are confronted with a once-in-a-century pandemic. Wave after wave. Even bumbling incompetent governments like Doug Ford's enact at least some of the policies necessary to mitigate carnage - going so far as to close schools to protect hospitals. 2/n