Bigamy has been a crime against morality since the earliest days of New France. Of the 385 cases identified in our study of bigamy in Quebec (1763–1960), although priests were often called on to attest to the validity of a marriage or the morality of their parishioners, very few of them played the role of informer. Rather, they turned to the criminal courts only when they were unable to quell a scandal by their own methods. It is apparent that not only did the Catholic Church prefer to handle this offence against monogamous marriage by itself, but most importantly, given the small number of cases taken before the criminal courts, it continued to exercise its monopoly over the institution of matrimony during the first half of the twentieth century, even though the civil authorities sometimes flouted canon law. At the individual level, we would note that the institution of marriage remained fundamental throughout the period studied.

Mining has been at the forefront of coloniality for hundreds of years in Brazil, representing one of the main threats to the integrity and health of Indigenous lands. The 1988 Brazilian Constitution recognized Indigenous peoples’ rights to the lands they occupy, and their natural resources, according to their traditions, uses, beliefs, and practices. Constitutional provisions, however, have not impeded governments and lawmakers from actively enabling extractive activities in Indigenous territories and their surroundings. Recently, the Bolsonaro government proposed a package of laws and policies to legalize mineral exploitation on Indigenous lands, using the economic uncertainties generated by the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification. However, this action must be explained through the paradigms (or philosophical frameworks) of the extractive economy and coloniality of power, operationalized by necropolitics. The article’s main argument is that the Constitution requires the government to engage in practices of decoloniality that express Indigenous legal traditions. Even though a newly elected government has been revoking many of Bolsonaro’s proposals, the paradigms of the extractive economy and the coloniality of power have a profound, structural influence on the Brazilian legal and political systems and must be challenged by a revival of decolonial ways of thinking and acting.

This article examines the role of internet service providers (ISPs) as guardians of personal information and protectors of privacy, with a particular focus on how telecom companies in Canada have historically negotiated these responsibilities. Communications intermediaries have long been expected to act as privacy custodians by their users, while simultaneously being subject to pressures to collect, utilize, and disclose personal information. As service providers gain custody over increasing volumes of highly-sensitive information, their importance as privacy custodians has been brought into starker relief and explicitly recognized as a core responsibility.

Some ISPs have adopted a more positive orientation to this responsibility, actively taking steps to advance it, rather that treating privacy protection as a set of limitations on conduct. However, commitments to privacy stewardship are often neutralized through contradictory legal obligations (such as mandated surveillance access) and are recurrently threatened by commercial pressures to monetize personal information.

Bail decisions are largely shaped by private, out-of-court negotiations between Crown attorneys and defence lawyers. While accused persons rely on the professional expertise of defence lawyers to navigate bail negotiations and secure them the best possible outcome, much remains unknown about how lawyers prepare for and negotiate bail. This study examines the process of bail preparations and negotiations from the defence’s perspective based on data from 18 semi-structured interviews with defence lawyers. The findings show that, while defence lawyers argue for reasonable bail terms, their ultimate goal is to obtain a release for their client. Defence lawyers also prioritize collecting and strategically using information about the case and the Crowns and justices with whom they work. They often adopt a risk-averse and cooperative approach with Crowns to avoid delaying or preventing their client’s release, even if that means agreeing to additional conditions. Our findings inform efforts to reform bail processes.