Bad Religion and Bad Business: The History of the Canadian Witchcraft Provision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Witchcraft is a fascinating subject on which many volumes continue to be published. But not in Canada. This article stands in contrast to earlier Canadian pieces on witchcraft whose primary goals were to prove that the witchcraft provision marginalized women and to encourage legislators to repeal it. Parliament finally repealed the Canadian witchcraft prohibition in 2018. The moment is thus ripe to ask how—and why—this legislative oddity migrated from England into Canada. The first section of the paper considers the religious origins of the witchcraft prohibition in England and how it made its way into the Canadian Criminal Code. The second section explores how the prohibition evolved from one against unwanted spiritual practices to one against unwanted economic practices. The last section of the paper considers how witchcraft morphed into a viable Charter defence based on freedom of religion and why the prohibition against it was eventually repealed. In conclusion, the article reflects on the peculiar trajectory of witchcraft in Canada and what it might suggest not only about Canadian criminal law, but also about broader Canadian society.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".