By way of analogy

Following up on this morning's post about Tony Clement's dishonest attempt to pretend that a Canadian DMCA would somehow help the people whose choices would be limited by new Con legislation, let's consider briefly whether there are any other areas of public policy where the Cons might want to eventually follow Clement's approach.

So where else might there be...
...a current vacuum of federal law resulting from past court decisions...
...leading to choices being made in the absence of any enforcement of outside values on individuals...
...raising an opportunity for the Cons to argue that they need to pass new legislation to officially sanction those choices...
...and concurrently allowing the Cons to use the "need" as an excuse to impose limits on personal freedom of choice where none currently exist?

Not that I have any such areas in mind, of course. But let's just say it's worth being careful about letting Clement's form of argument go unopposed on copyright lest it turn up again.

(Edit: fixed wording.)