One might explain the decision to scrap the MLFC as a political mobilization tactic, targeting a particular voter base through an appeal to libertarian populism.
We argue that the decision to end the MLFC must be understood, in part, as a battle over the discursive construction of personal sovereignty and the nature and value of knowledge.
The axing of the MLFC was a symbolic act, removing a governmental function that, whether or not it actually was an imposition, could be represented as something that should be seen as one, and about which "your" government was prepared to do something.
In eliminating the MLFC, libertarians had "taken out the wrong target" and won the wrong fight, depriving "those who want government to do less but do it better" of indispensable information.
Aftershocks of the battle over the MLFC also continue to be felt when justifications for its elimination are perceived to clash with innovations in data gathering or monitoring in areas such as crime, security, or voter response-management.
Cancellation of the MLFC concretized several threats to the practice of sociology and the social sciences in general.
It will likely be a long time, if ever, before the process involved in the Conservative government's elimination of the MLFC is fully understood.
Beyond the MLFC issue itself, we want to conclude with some larger questions for sociological theorization that the census incident poses; questions about the practical generation of knowledge and of claims to objectivity, integrity, and truth.