Things have been a bit quiet here. Quiet enough to have driven away all my readers, except the loyal spambots (thanks guys!). This is a common enough tradition in blogging. At some point, the demands of family, work and healthy outdoor activities make even the most opinionated loser wonder about the value of arguing with anonymous people on the Internet about politics. There is a more active Canadian legal blogosphere than back when I started in 2006. So not much comparative value for the Pithlord. Still, and against my better judgment, I am going to try to reboot this thing. Management has decided on a niche marketing strategy. I am going to try to blog all the Canadian constitutional decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council between Confederation and the abolition of appeals to the throne in 1949. Some spambots and accidental googlers may wonder why I am narrowing the focus of the brand so much. After all, Pith & Substance once wandered over larger terrain, for example by triumpahtly predicting the victory of Fred Thompson in the 2008 Republican primary and presciently expressing optimism about the fiscal responsibility of the Ontario Liberals. Well, you are just going to have to come up with that level of analysis for yourselves from now on, spambots. I have my reasons. The good folks at BAILII have put the JCPC's decisions online. However, they are still image documents. I don't complain, but I think the relative availability of SCC cases on the Internet may give a lopsided view of the constitutional development of this country. I don't claim this is a centralist plot to subject provincial autonomy under the jackboot of Ottawa. But just in case, I would like to do my bit to make the cases more accessible to google. I also think that going through them in chronological order shows that the JCPC's jurisprudence was a lot more coherent than it is given credit for. Readers are invited to judge for themselves. If there are any.
Showing posts with label Site Administration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Site Administration. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Privy Council Blogging
Things have been a bit quiet here. Quiet enough to have driven away all my readers, except the loyal spambots (thanks guys!). This is a common enough tradition in blogging. At some point, the demands of family, work and healthy outdoor activities make even the most opinionated loser wonder about the value of arguing with anonymous people on the Internet about politics. There is a more active Canadian legal blogosphere than back when I started in 2006. So not much comparative value for the Pithlord. Still, and against my better judgment, I am going to try to reboot this thing. Management has decided on a niche marketing strategy. I am going to try to blog all the Canadian constitutional decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council between Confederation and the abolition of appeals to the throne in 1949. Some spambots and accidental googlers may wonder why I am narrowing the focus of the brand so much. After all, Pith & Substance once wandered over larger terrain, for example by triumpahtly predicting the victory of Fred Thompson in the 2008 Republican primary and presciently expressing optimism about the fiscal responsibility of the Ontario Liberals. Well, you are just going to have to come up with that level of analysis for yourselves from now on, spambots. I have my reasons. The good folks at BAILII have put the JCPC's decisions online. However, they are still image documents. I don't complain, but I think the relative availability of SCC cases on the Internet may give a lopsided view of the constitutional development of this country. I don't claim this is a centralist plot to subject provincial autonomy under the jackboot of Ottawa. But just in case, I would like to do my bit to make the cases more accessible to google. I also think that going through them in chronological order shows that the JCPC's jurisprudence was a lot more coherent than it is given credit for. Readers are invited to judge for themselves. If there are any.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Death of a feature
I recently heard from an old friend who hates blogs:
This was from an old friend, mind you, so I can't be sure whether the exemption to the general anatehma was intended to save my feelings. But, in any case, I will no longer qualify for it, since I am going to end the feature that gives this blog such focus as it has. There will be no more snarky Supreme Court of Canada reviews.
For those of you hurting at this news, I can only hint that there will be a new participant on Osgoode's The Court blog whose style may seem strangely familiar. In accordance with Osgoode's strict rules on the subject, this person will have to use his real name, and will be expected to use a spell checker and refrain from accusing the Supreme Court of treason.
Misinformed thoughts on the War and partisan politics will continue to be found here.
Blogges are the work of the Anti-Christ. Most of them, anyway, yours saves itself by having something resembling a focus that cannot actually be described as "another misinformed voter's partisan thoughts on the War and the [Insert hated party here]."
This was from an old friend, mind you, so I can't be sure whether the exemption to the general anatehma was intended to save my feelings. But, in any case, I will no longer qualify for it, since I am going to end the feature that gives this blog such focus as it has. There will be no more snarky Supreme Court of Canada reviews.
For those of you hurting at this news, I can only hint that there will be a new participant on Osgoode's The Court blog whose style may seem strangely familiar. In accordance with Osgoode's strict rules on the subject, this person will have to use his real name, and will be expected to use a spell checker and refrain from accusing the Supreme Court of treason.
Misinformed thoughts on the War and partisan politics will continue to be found here.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
You Can't Say That on Pith & Substance
OK, for the first time, I decided to censor a comment. We have a bit of a free-wheeling discussion here about race, ethnicity and culture -- all hot button issues. I felt a comment went over the line, but I guess that compels me to try to state better where the line is.
The accusation of "racism" or "anti-Semitism" has frequently been used to prevent discussion of things Candians need to discuss. At the same time, taboos exist for a reason and on a private site, even the strongest libertarian would accept I can enforce what I think are necessary taboos.
I am willing to hear arguments that some cultures have strengths and weaknesses that others do not. It is possible that various genetically-based traits are differently distributed among different human populations. Not all religions can be true.
However, I expect people not to engage in setting up their own ethnic group as morally and intrinsically superior to everyone else. I am not going to listen to tales of collective guilt. Ethnic slurs (and other incivilities) are verboten.
As I have previously indicated, this site is not a democracy and there is no right of appeal.
The accusation of "racism" or "anti-Semitism" has frequently been used to prevent discussion of things Candians need to discuss. At the same time, taboos exist for a reason and on a private site, even the strongest libertarian would accept I can enforce what I think are necessary taboos.
I am willing to hear arguments that some cultures have strengths and weaknesses that others do not. It is possible that various genetically-based traits are differently distributed among different human populations. Not all religions can be true.
However, I expect people not to engage in setting up their own ethnic group as morally and intrinsically superior to everyone else. I am not going to listen to tales of collective guilt. Ethnic slurs (and other incivilities) are verboten.
As I have previously indicated, this site is not a democracy and there is no right of appeal.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
