The National Post's Andrew Coyne loves the Charter and thinks the judges' power to interpret it should be absolute. He seems to think that the Charter is cut-and-dried, and that the judges therefore must act within narrow constraints strictly involving matters of law in interpreting it. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Charter is sufficiently broad, and its interpreters sufficiently powerful, that the Charter can mean just about anything the courts choose it to mean. Abortion? Not in the Charter. Rights based on "sexual orientation"? Not in the Charter. Same-sex marriage? Not in the Charter. And why same-sex marriage but not, for example, bisexual marriage rights? Not in the Charter. Confining religious rights to the rites of organizations rather, as the words of the Charter actually state, the rights of individual citizens in society, not in the Charter.
The Charter does not inform and govern the judges who interpret it; the judges govern the Charter and decide its meeting. You don't think so? The Charter acknowledges the Supremacy of God. However, at least one appeals court has ruled this section "a dead letter". If the power to "kill off" God is not evidence of the courts' supreme power, what is?
The judges themselves, and not the Charter, have become the de facto supreme law of the land. And people like Andrew Coyne think that's just great.
O Canada, who stands on guard for thee?
1 comment:
Those SC judges are the scary ones with the hidden agenda.
They seem to read into the charter stuff that's not even there.
Paul Martin is afraid that if Stephen Harper wins he will pick conservative judges. That's a peculiar bit of hypocrisy after the weird batch of bagmen PM has chosen.
Post a Comment