{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014986376021798364, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005449591280653951, 'mean_word_length': 5.074380165289257, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
RELIGION AND LAW IN R V NS: FINDING SPACE TO RE-THINK THE BALANCING ANALYSIS

In this article, the author argues against the balancing approach used in the recent case of the Supreme Court of Canada R v NS (2012). It is argued that this approach inhibits critical reflection on the complex philosophical issues that underlie the decision, and that it closes itself off to meaningful engagement with diverse perspectives. These arguments are developed by reflecting on the idea of incommensurability and on Alasdair MacIntyre’s theory of tradition. The author concludes that this analysis provides a starting point for developing an approach that has greater capacity for critical reflection and is more capable of embracing diversity.