mijopo
in
canpolitik
Canada - Constitutional Superpower
An article in yesterday's NYT identifies Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms as being now more influential in the world than the US constitution, "a source of inspiration for many countries around the world". Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg (US Supreme Court justice) recently recommended it over the US constitution for anyone writing a constitution in
( Read more... )
Comments 34
Bah. What a load. If our so-called "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" were worth a damn, Quebec's language laws would have been struck down in the 1980s.
The Charter gives far too much power to unelected, unaccountable judges, who feel perfectly entitled to misinterpret it to fit their own political agendas.
What does "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" mean? Not what it sounds like, evidently. The Supreme Court has already decided that they have the right to ignore what actual democracies do. For example, the vast majority of democracies place limits on the voting rights of convicted criminals during their sentences; but the Supreme Court struck down similar restrictions in Canada.
Reply
And those silly Brits, deciding that slaveowning is unacceptable when they know perfectly well that every other country has slavery! Honestly, what's next? Women voting? Indoor plumbing? The Viennese Waltz? Where does judicial tyranny end?!
The Charter gives far too much power to unelected, unaccountable judges, who feel perfectly entitled to misinterpret it to fit their own political agendas.
The Canadian judiciary (which plays a key part in nominating and selecting Supreme Court justices and those of all Superior and most lower courts) has received international recognition for its unbiasedness and evenhandedness in making such recommendations.
Beyond that, it is liteally the job of unelected, unaccountable judges to override the ( ... )
Reply
And those silly Brits, deciding that slaveowning is unacceptable when they know perfectly well that every other country has slavery! Honestly, what's next? Women voting? Indoor plumbing? The Viennese Waltz? Where does judicial tyranny end?!
Wow. What a stunning non sequitur - you make no sense whatsoever. What are you trying to say?
The Canadian judiciary (which plays a key part in nominating and selecting Supreme Court justices and those of all Superior and most lower courts) has received international recognition for its unbiasedness and evenhandedness in making such recommendations.
Really? From whom? I'd consider the source before assuming that such praise is deserved.
Say what you like: the fact remains that our Supreme Court continues to tolerate Quebec's language laws. That isn't a sign of even-handedness; it's a sign that they're perfectly willing to ignore human rights for political reasons.
If the entire Supreme Court starts issuing batshit insane decisions, the administrative branch would probably refuse to enforce ( ... )
Reply
That the conduct of "the vast majority of democracies" holds no bearing over what any given democracy ought to do, and that if the yardstick for whether or not something is ethical or moral or legally-permissible is whether or not other countries have decided it ought to be, you've basically shut down all social change.
Say what you like: the fact remains that our Supreme Court continues to tolerate Quebec's language laws. That isn't a sign of even-handedness; it's a sign that they're perfectly willing to ignore human rights for political reasons.
I don't approve of Quebec's language laws, but I really don't like this use of human-rights language. OH MY GOD, WE HAVE TO PUT FRENCH ON THE SIGN ABOVE ENGLISH, WE ARE SO OPPRESSED! WEEP FOR US! WEEP!
Moreover, the separation of powers means that each group exercises only those powers which it exercises under the Constitution. The Supreme Court is entitled to interpret and administer the law ( ... )
Reply
Something all mindful Canadian queers know and appreciate. I thank gawd every single fucking day of my life for the Charter.
If the standard of a quality constitution is perfection...all constitutions are shite.
Reply
The Charter does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. You do realize that, right?
Reply
And that LGBT individual rights were "read in" to the Charter in the early 1990s, right?
And familial rights (marriage, parenting, adoption) were read in beginning in the late 1990s, right?
I'm guessing you don't realize these things. Right?
Reply
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
That isn't a guarantee of other rights, it's an exemption for "affirmative action" type legislation. And it still doesn't mention sexual orientation.
Reply
As jawnbc points out, people do have their rights protected by the charter. Perhaps not everyone's rights and not all the time, but it's not a perfect document and the people interpreting it aren't perfect either. We muddle through and try to improve things where and when we can. I hope the critics in this thread aren't suggesting we get rid of the charter.
As for Justice Bader Ginsburg's assertion that it's a good start when writing a new constitution, I take that as high praise. But then, I think our charter is better than their constitution because we had the US as a powerful example ourselves. We see farther only because we stand on the shoulders of giants.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment