At the Liberal Party convention in the beginning of March, members of the Young Liberals have been handing out lapel pins bearing the message "It's the Charter, stupid" arguing for the legalization of same-sex marriage. The Western Standard, in a quite controversial move, retaliated by handing out "It's the stupid Charter!" pins during the Conservative Party convention. One commenter at the Western Standard's blog thought this pin was unnecessarily inflammatory and that a more effective slogan would have been "Read the charter, stupid."
I must concur: more people should read the Charter. The problem is that though, according to a 2002 poll from the CRIC, 88% of Canadians think that the Charter is a "good thing for Canada", 52% of Canadians are, according to a 2002 poll by Léger Marketing, unable to name a single right which is protected by the Charter. This is even more astounding considering all the easy answers that could have been given, for example freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to life or equality rights. In other words, yes we think that the Charter is a wonderful thing, but please don't ask us what's actually in there.
I think this is a dangerous situation. When people express veneration for a document of which they know little or nothing, they are left vulnerable to politicians, judges, bureaucrats or activists who may want to manipulate this sentiment to their advantage and try to fool people into believing something is in the Charter when it isn't, or into believing something isn't in the Charter when it is.
Some people may object that they don't want to read the Charter because they don't like to read legalese. But in fact, the Charter is surprisingly readable. There is quite a contrast with the cryptic British North America Act, 1867.
So, "read the Charter, stupid."
Your analysis of the Gosselin case contradicts the "read the charter, stupid", position. For in fact, reading the charter is of no benefit for it is the interpretation that is important. There are no guarantees for abortion or SSM or social rights in the charter, nor were they intended by the framers. It is the malaise created by liberalism, the perverted notion of a 'living' constitution. The NWC is a paper tiger. It did not provide protection from the progressivism of the black robes in the instance of abortion or traditional marriage. If a political consensus existed, underwriting Arbor's desire to 'read in' social rights, governments would be loathe to stand in the courts way. So in the end it really is "the stupid Charter".
Écrit par: DJ à mars 23, 2005 11:47 PMThe point is precisely that outlandish interpretations of the Charter wouldn't fly if people actually knew what was in the Charter and what wasn't. Anybody who looks at the Charter will quickly realize that Louise Arbour's claims are nothing but bluff.
You say that the notwithstanding clause did not offer protection against abortion or SSM and you blame the black robes. But if Canada is now without a law with respect to abortion, it is not the Supreme Court's nor the Charter's fault. The Supreme Court did not rule against any and all laws restricting abortion, they just ruled against the particular law that was in force. If you read the Morgentaler ruling, you'll notice that the Court recognizes that it is legitimate for Parliament to regulate and restrict abortion and that they invited Parliament to do so through a new law. There would have been such a new law, had it not been defeated in a tie vote in the Senate.
Similarly, the Supreme Court never ruled against traditional marriage and declined to do so every time it could have done so. Last February, Stephen Harper made a persuasive case that it would be unnecessary to invoke the notwithstanding clause to preserve traditional marriage.
Finally, if a political consensus existed for Louise Arbour's views about politics, the socialists would win power through elections. The courts wouldn't need to impose anything and the whole matter is irrelevant to a discussion of the Charter or the notwithstanding clause.
Écrit par: Laurent à mars 24, 2005 09:32 PMYou miss the point. The courts should not be ruling on these issues at all. There is no right to abortion outlined in the Charter. There simply is no written committment to a woman's right to an abortion. It is read in by the courts. Trudeau reformed the abortion law as part of his Omnibus bill in 1969. Dickson's ruling on Morgentaler is an interpretation of s.7, the right to life liberty and security. Trudeau proclaimed that if the courts struck down the abortion law he would use the NMC. If a society wants to reform abortion law it should use the democratic process and invoke an amendment to the Charter. As in 1969 it is parliament that should make that decision not the courts. The role of the courts is to determine if the law is applied fairly. Now, the NWC is a paper tiger.
A political consensus may be arrived at negatively as occurred with SSM. Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Chinese, Quebecers, women, (basically a group as a whole) supported SSM, not because they necessarily supported gay rights but because they feared erosion of their position as a minority. If the NWC is invoked to deny this minority a 'right' then it might be invoked to deny our minority it's rights. In such an environment Arbor's fantasy could easily pass.
Look at the court's decision regarding Christopher's Law - "This court has expressed doubt whether a violation of the right to life, liberty or security of the person, which is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, can ever be justified except perhaps in times of war or national emergencies. In a case where the violation of the principles of fundamental justice is as a result of overbreadth it is even more difficult to see how the limit can be justified. Overbroad legislation which infringes section 7 of the Charter would appear to be incapable of passing the minimal impairment branch of the section 1 analysis." So any law denying an abortion will be interpreted as exceeding a women's right to security of person under s.7 and in the court's own words, s.1 virtually has no chance of overriding it.
Écrit par: DJ à mars 25, 2005 01:31 AMBonjour,
Mon nom est richard Jean.
Ma femme a été empoisonné par un médicament dangereux.
J'ai fait un site pour informer et trouver d'autres victimes.
Je tente de faire connaitre le site aux plus grand nombres.
Merci,
Richard Jean