But lawmakers agreed to the bill late Wednesday as Justice Minister Eric Dupond-Moretti insisted the bill would affect only “dozens of cases a year.”
Precisely why it should not be passed! That’s not a good reason at all. It’s not worth eroding people’s rights if it only affects a few cases in my personal opinion. It shows that the law doesn’t need to exist in the first place.
Also… what kind of argument is that? It may be dozens a year but once it is normalized with those dozens, it will become few dozens and on and on it goes.
Not a general slippery slope argument, but rather, it’s clear how it makes future erosion easier.
Today: People named Joe who live at this address can be harassed freely and that’s perfectly legal.
Tomorrow: It’s not so extreme! Look, see, we’ve never universally respected these rights anyway. There are cases where we legally ignored them. We’re just expanding existing rules to cover more cases.
Precisely why it should not be passed! That’s not a good reason at all. It’s not worth eroding people’s rights if it only affects a few cases in my personal opinion. It shows that the law doesn’t need to exist in the first place.
Also… what kind of argument is that? It may be dozens a year but once it is normalized with those dozens, it will become few dozens and on and on it goes.
Not a general slippery slope argument, but rather, it’s clear how it makes future erosion easier.
Today: People named Joe who live at this address can be harassed freely and that’s perfectly legal. Tomorrow: It’s not so extreme! Look, see, we’ve never universally respected these rights anyway. There are cases where we legally ignored them. We’re just expanding existing rules to cover more cases.
I always love when governments ask for powers to stop only a few cases, and act like it’s justification. Maybe, just maybe, do your job.
It’s like the Apple case for building a backdoor that makes everyone less safe to catch one criminal. They ended up not needing it anyway.