03 July 2023
A Constitution without Constitutionalism
“Digital constitutionalism” has attracted a good deal of scholarly attention in recent years, much of it enthusiastic, some more sceptical. Just what constitutionalism means, and how this meaning can be transposed into a realm of private ― albeit increasingly regulated ― interactions rather than traditional public law, is part of the debate between the enthusiasts and the sceptics. All agree, however, that it is a normatively charged idea, a shorthand reference to certain values which include ― whether or not they are limited to ― respect for certain human rights. In this post, I argue that while we can indeed think of internet regulation in constitutional terms, we must first understand what I shall call the constitution of cyberspace. A descriptive effort must precede any normative projects directed at imposing values allegedly inherent in the notion of constitutionalism onto cyberspace. And further, understanding the constitution of cyberspace should at least make us wary of digital constitutionalism’s normative ambitions. Continue reading >>
0 
28 September 2022
Consensus and the Crown
The late Queen was loved by many of those who felt no allegiance to her, and respected by many who did not love her. By contrast, prior to his accession, the new King had struggled to be respected, let alone loved. Will his Canadian subjects maintain their allegiance to him? The question, however inevitable, is largely idle in light of the political difficulties that any attempt to secure constitutional change in Canada has encountered for 30 years. The monarchy will remain, by default if not by desire, just as King Charles III rather than his more popular son succeeded regardless of his subjects’ feelings on the matter. Continue reading >>
0
23 August 2022
More and Better
Tarunabh Khaitan’s editorial comment in ICON on the perils of letting activist inclinations influence one’s scholarship, resulting in an unsavoury “scholactivism” blend, is thought-provoking. Professor Khaitan calls for rigorous adherence to the ethical demands of a search for truth in our research, even as we might, he suggests, become or remain activists for causes we believe in a range of other activities. In my view, however, Professor Khaitan’s critique misses the mark. He is asking too much of individuals and not enough of institutions. Continue reading >>
0