Culture, Religion and the Ordinary Person: An Essay on R. v. Humaid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this essay, the author analyzes the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in R. v Humaid, a judgment which illustrates the risks associated with and religious claims in the criminal courts. Humaid offers a complex entry point into the current state of the test, a pivotal aspect of provocation doctrine. The decision raises questions about ordinariness, Canadian values, identity, expertise, and gender equality. The author argues that Humaid exposes the cultural of the ordinary person standard, in the same way that the decisions in Stone and Thibert exposed the gender politics of the defence.The essay focuses on three aspects of the Court's analysis: (1) the presentation and assessment of the evidence; (2) the substantive evaluation of the claim as an aspect of the objective test; and (3) the Court's decision to sidestep the key doctrinal question the relevance of and religious identity to the construction of the person. The author suggests that the Court's failure to take account of substantive equality values in its assessment of the person, test allows it to avoid examining the challenges inherent in attending to and religious diversity within the criminal law. This failure is especially troubling in our increasingly diverse courtrooms, where issues of religious and identity are frequently raised.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".