Thanks for identifying the deeper democratic and civilizational issues at the root of this constitutional argument before the Supreme Court of Canada, Shawn. My view though is that the Liberals are looking to arbitrarily 'finish' a constitutional revolution, rather than start another one.
Different strands of intellectual conservatism have indeed pushed back against the perpetual mobilization that continues to rage in the name of 'freedom', and I see that dissent as being measured in centuries, rather than decades. The notwithstanding clause in Canada might actually be viewed as part of that wider picture, as legitimate twentieth century push-back.
One other matter: If we are serious about systemic change, I do think we need to also understand the Conservative Party's role, particularly on the economic side, in edging us along to this moment of 'small-l liberal' crisis.
Thanks for identifying the deeper democratic and civilizational issues at the root of this constitutional argument before the Supreme Court of Canada, Shawn. My view though is that the Liberals are looking to arbitrarily 'finish' a constitutional revolution, rather than start another one.
Different strands of intellectual conservatism have indeed pushed back against the perpetual mobilization that continues to rage in the name of 'freedom', and I see that dissent as being measured in centuries, rather than decades. The notwithstanding clause in Canada might actually be viewed as part of that wider picture, as legitimate twentieth century push-back.
One other matter: If we are serious about systemic change, I do think we need to also understand the Conservative Party's role, particularly on the economic side, in edging us along to this moment of 'small-l liberal' crisis.
Well said: “arbitrarily finish one” brilliant