A decent law must be carefully designed to achieve the objective in question. They must not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations. In short, they must be rationally connected to the objective.
Second, the means, even if rationally connected to the objective in this first sense, should impair "as little as possible" the right or freedom in question.
Third, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the measures which are responsible for limiting the Charter right or freedom, and the objective which has been identified as of "sufficient importance".
That is innuendo ...if you had phrased it differently you might get away with it but you did not say "When the blue law was passed" but " when a blue law is passed."
Most people do not think of laws as colourful.
Don't be silly. I didn't give you any innuendo.
The red pill and its opposite, the blue pill, are popular culture symbols representing the choice between embracing the sometimes painful truth of reality (red pill) and the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue pill).
I suppose to you a blue pill might be a birth control pill or a sleeping pill. But you would be absolutely wrong because in the context of this thread, I had already framed a blue pill law as a Canadian gun control law that is passed after we had already achieved a wonderfully low crime rate. In other words, it is a useless law that makes ignorant people feel good.
