May 23, 2026
Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.
HERE'S MY TAKE
It’s not only kids but sometimes also professionals who need reminding that the world is not just about them. Self-reference is understandable. We all learn to see the world through the lenses we are trained to use. But maturity requires recognizing that my own perspective is always limited and that there is something I might learn from others, whether from other people or other disciplines. Several recent stories have set me musing—Canadian law, in particular, has increasingly fallen into this trap: reasoning constrained by its own terms while losing sight of the social, political, and human realities those conclusions shape.
I acknowledge that there are legal nuances to each of these issues, which don’t make them quite as binary as the polarized social media commentary might suggest. Let me cite three examples.
Separation of powers, indigenous rights, and ensuring due legal process are all important matters, and having read (at least some relevant parts of) each of these decisions, I agree that real legal issues demand attention here. But when the legal system produces conclusions that are internally coherent while seeming indifferent to the significant social, political, and economic consequences of its decisions, there is a problem.
You don’t need to be a lawyer to appreciate that there is considerable nuance involved in these cases. But it's a mistake to let the professional consideration of discipline-specific nuance blind us to the broader context. Section 24(2) of the Charter specifically addresses evidence gathered in violation of constitutional rights, directing courts to consider whether admitting such evidence would “bring the administration of justice into disrepute.” That broader principle has long informed Canadian constitutional reasoning beyond evidentiary rules alone. Courts regularly invoke public confidence, institutional legitimacy, and the integrity of the justice system as constitutional considerations. Ironically, in the Jordan decision, those concerns about legitimacy were mobilized in support of procedural fairness, even as the ruling's practical effects have arguably weakened public confidence in the justice system itself. Regrettably, in many cases, including the examples given, the reputation of justice isn’t being protected as it should be.
The Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MLI) published an important paper last week, titled “Unseating Responsible Government: Judicial interference in Canada’s parliamentary democracy.” It goes well beyond the observation I am making here, coming as it does in the context of the Supreme Court of Canada hearing a case regarding Section 33 of the Charter (“the notwithstanding clause”). The nub of that case is whether Section 33 should be narrowly interpreted or whether it, at its core, is an assertion of Parliament’s supremacy over the courts, having the “final say” on difficult questions (for at least for five years at a time). MLI concludes that Canada has seen an evolving “individualization” of rights—which inevitably creates conflicts over which person’s rights take precedence—making the court the ultimate shaper of society. The paper argues that a more proper reading of our Westminster tradition has the court interpreting individual rights as subservient to Parliament’s consideration of a “common good” context for their application.
It all sounds wonky, in part because it is. I am all in favour of legal precision when it comes to ensuring accused Canadians are given fair process, that appropriate consultation takes place with First Nations in recognition of treaty commitments made with them by our forefathers, and that established processes regarding referendum (whether or not I’m in favour of the immediate cause) are followed.
But while each of these questions has legal dimensions, they are not just legal questions.
Legal conclusions must fit within a larger social context and cannot be indifferent to the consequences they carry for other spheres of life.
It’s not just the law that has succumbed to an overly internal and self-referential focus. Economists sometimes over-rely on supply, demand, and rational choice theory as explanations for almost every problem. Educators promise to change the world through the classroom. And sometimes theologians mistake doctrinal precision for wisdom when applying biblical principles to everyday, real-life problems, pretending difficult problems are easy. There is a caution here for all of us.
When any discipline insulates itself from the wisdom, limits, and responsibilities provided by neighbouring disciplines, we end up with problematic results. I’m not a populist who dismisses expertise or thinks that if we replaced the lawyers and the courts, all of these issues would simply disappear. However, I am confident that if those on whom we rely for legal leadership in our country (along with their peers in other disciplines) would consider their actions with more of a “we” than a “me” focus in understanding their discipline, it would be a step in the right direction. A healthy dose of humility within and by our disciplines might also help.
Be an expert in your field by all means, but understand that to be human is not just to be a lawyer or a judge, a plaintiff or a defendant. We are all simultaneously family members, neighbours, citizens, coworkers, and consumers, carrying responsibilities that extend beyond any single professional identity. Considering the outcomes of our own professional decisions in a manner that better accounts for their broader consequences is something we would all do well to remember.
WHAT I’M READING
Watching Gambling or Sports?
The Washington Post reports that in an AI analysis of 50 hours of televised coverage of football, basketball, and hockey games, a message promoting gambling appeared on average every four minutes. Gambling has emerged as a growing revenue line in sports and, in addition to the age-old concerns regarding gambling, there are increasing questions about the integrity of the game (with several athletes suspended or banned for gambling violations) and increased addiction challenges. The report cites both public opinion polling and league officials, suggesting that things may have gone too far and that increased regulation may be needed. My colleague Brian Dijkema recently presented to a Canadian Parliamentary committee on this subject.
Jevons Paradox
If we find ways to make something more efficient, is the result that we need less of it or does the reduced price actually result in finding more uses and actually end up requiring more of it? Cal Newport’s take on the implications of artificial intelligence draws on a nineteenth-century book by William Stanley Jevons on the steam engine. Among the arguments Newport brings, just as the steam engine brought with it negative challenges of soot and smoke, so current technological developments are resulting in constant interruptions and a challenge in finding space for “deep work,” suggesting that this, like previous chapters of economic history, will tell “a more complicated tale.”
Not Tolerating Tolerance
My friend Andy Bannister helpfully posted on why tolerance, as generally referenced today, isn’t quite the virtue many assume. He suggests that tolerance today is disrespectful, resulting in the reduction of standards. It often brings a sense of superiority, dismissing our differences with others rather than listening to and respectfully engaging with them. He is also concerned that it’s cheap. “Dirt cheap. It costs nothing to look down on people, to sigh with a sneer, or to walk on by and not give people a second glance. Tolerance is cheap. But by contrast, love is expensive, love is pricey, love always costs the one who gives it.”
The Understory
Trevin Wax’s essay “Denominational Health Depends on the Understory” uses next week’s Comment Understory Festival at the National Cathedral in Washington, DC, as a segue to his point that the everyday work that happens in our institutions–including in our churches–needs more attention in a world where too much online debate aggravates the divide. Full disclosure: I’m the publisher of Comment, which has organized the Understory (full credit to my colleagues, led by Editor-in-Chief Anne Snyder). I’m very excited to reflect on the important conversations that will flow from this gathering of nearly 1,000 leaders from across North America. I’m sure they will seep their way into future editions of Insights, but I thought, for now, Wax’s essay was something worth passing along.
MEANINGFUL METRICS
Canada’s inflation rate was announced at 2.8% for April, with the almost 20% increase in fuel prices a significant factor. There was some discussion in the media about how this compared with the 3.8% rate in the United States, which prompted me to look at a broader perspective. The range among similar developed Western economies is striking. The above Visual Capitalist graph of European interest rates confirms that countries with alternative sources of power, such as France’s widespread use of nuclear power, are among the factors that contribute to very uneven rates across Europe.
TAKE IT TO-GO
Regular attendance at Cardus’s staff lunch table really ought to count toward a continuing education certificate. Wednesday’s seminar topic? Science fiction: a subject in which I’ve never mastered much expertise. Back in my high school days, classmates were ready to have Scotty beam them up aboard the Enterprise, while I plodded through Asimov and Clarke in English class, trying to figure out whether the reason I didn’t really understand 2001: A Space Odyssey was because it was the eighties, we were on earth, or I was simply built for more pedestrian adventures. It’s not that I couldn’t fake it. I cheerily greeted my classmates with a “may the force be with you” every May 4th, but that was wordplay, not sci-fi. Getting into the details required me to go to a galaxy far, far away when I found plenty right around me to keep me occupied.
But that was a long, long time ago. Judging by my colleagues' insights, the genre has evolved. There was something about the strange colours of Red Side Story and the maze-like mysteries of Piranesi. It took some after-class online homework for me to make sense of the lesson, during which I concluded that while my younger peers were dreaming about what technology might accomplish, my current peers are reading literature that worries about what technology might do to us.
Neither teenage nor adult Ray can make much of a contribution to the sci-fi debate, even as I readily acknowledge that imaginative speculation about the future, at least conceptually, remains a vital and renewable resource. Next week’s Insights will come to you from Washington D.C., where I’m participating in this week’s Understory Festival. There, the metaphor is organic rather than technological, but the themes of preparing for the future will be on our collective minds. I expect to meet some Insights readers there–don’t be shy about saying hi. But wherever your week takes you, live long and prosper. Looking forward to reconnecting in the next Insights edition coming your way on Saturday morning.