So the two major examples of Cecelyne's Laws we have that I feel most illustrate their ultimate purpose are the colour blue and the clocks.
So I had a bit of a discussion with @Jon Chung about this, who disagrees with my take but offered useful examples to illustrate how our takes differ. As I see it, the philosophy of the laws is not that they're set up so you can't help but break them. That would be boring and, frankly, miss the point. No, the aim - if we take the example of Illegal Blue - is to produce a state where you can do one of two things. You can break the law by reading them and then scrupulously follow all of the laws you now know - but they change, so you need to do this fairly frequently, and this might attract the attention of a Priest who accuses you of having read the laws and thus seen the Forbidden Colour. Or you can obey the law, refrain from reading them, and consequentially live in fear you might be breaking one without knowing - and since you don't know that you're not, you can't argue against any accusations levelled against you; false or otherwise.
- Nobody is allowed to look at the colour blue. The laws are written in blue. Therefore, by admitting to knowing the law, you implicate yourself as having broken it (and the burden of proof is presumably on you, so you can't just say "I had a slave read it to me and didn't look at it myself").
- Timekeeping devices are illegal, but the powerful can claim that a room full of clocks are merely trophies while the weak can be killed for the regular drip of water through a leaky roof.
This is the philosophy Cecelyne writes her laws by. The point isn't to kill everyone, or to force everyone to be doing something illegal. The point is that everyone is terrified, all the time, because her Priests can pick out anyone at any time and go "you're breaking the law" and they can't defend themselves. To cite that you haven't broken the law is to admit to breaking it, so the only legal recourse is to be defenceless against false accusations made at the whim of anyone stronger than you.
The problem of this is that it's no longer law at that point but taboo, and thus it doesn't actually work as a commentary on what it ought to be and seems to be commenting about, which is that although the law is ostensibly the same for rich and poor and powerful and powerless alike, the rich and powerful get away with far more than the poor and powerless do. The whole thing about the ostensibly self-contradictory law is that Cecylene, as I've said to @ManusDomine and in this thread, is a critical legal theorist. She thinks law is nothing but applied politics, and politics is nothing but 'the strong do what they can, the weak suffer as they must.'
Like, for something to be law it has to be more than something that bans people from doing a certain bunch of things. That's taboo, or kapu, or whatever you call it. It's something that can't be understood, can't be put into a coherent system of law.
To be law, Cecelyne's laws have to be:
1. Generalized
2. Public and visible
3. Proscriptive
4. Understandable
5. Consistent
6. Possible
7. Stable
8. Consistently used.
Others would argue that there's a 9th quality here, that they can't be wholly discretionary, and I'd agree, but I'm ignoring that for now because it's more optional.
Now, there's room for active unfairness even with all of these. Debtors' prisons were law, and nobody would deny they were law, despite the fact that they were unfair. Banning both poor and rich from sleeping under bridges is law and unfair. But what we have with the "Laws of Cecyelene" are basically a set of half-assed taboos that fail to provide any meaningful commentary on anything they could comment on and that's a real tragedy. Cecelyne's laws should be hugely cynical, as befits her alignment with crits, and probably should exist entirely to justify the fucked-up hierarchy of the Yozi hell-realm and the bitterness, hate, and unfairness of the Yozi. But it should still be law. If it becomes nothing but mere taboo, Cecelyne's revelation loses most of its effect, because it's no longer "law only matters when imposed on people by the stronger party"-i.e. the canon revelation as well as the critical legal theorist understanding that all law is political, but something else entirely and something much lesser.