But that didn't happen anywhere. It didn't happen in Britain after 7/7 and they have a conventional Parliamentary system without a Charter of Rights. That allowed Britain however, with a huge Muslim population to take aggressive measures to ban known terrorist groups, detain known activists of jihad, based on non judicial intelligence and in order to prevent another attack. All of those things would have been hamstrung by constitutional challenges if they happened here.
Canada has a not withstanding clause which allows legislation to temporarily violate the constitution.
In fact the will of majority is almost always fair, and consistent with long held traditions, especially those dealing with family, personal freedom and of people working within the law. Majorities in healthy societies tend to be fair and able to reconcile individual freedoms with essential limitations to those freedom in the interests of the greatest good for the society at large. Something that minorities NEVER do.
The will of the majority is almost always self serving and as a result tends to trample on the rights of minorities. If we blindly maintained traditions we would still be holding inquistions and burning witches. At one time those were long held traditions supported by the majority.
The historical instances in the West of the will of the majority supposedly used to persecute a specific minority are hard to find, in the longer context of history. You can look at slavery in America or the fascist persecution of the Jews. But both these involved political cliques imposing their will, for economic gain, or megalomaniac world conquest, over a true majority. Both of those ending in flames and defeat for those cliques. None of those defeats were by actions of a constitution, which was more often used to block the fair minded will of the majority to the benefit of those cliques.
Prejudice and discrimination is alive and well in Canada. Ask any visible minority or Muslim. Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives them the ability to fight for the same rights as everyone else.
As to homosexuality.. religions, like it or not, are the founding inspirations of civilizations, including that of West, in Christianity. The problem with describing homosexuality in terms of fundamental rights is that it is proscribed in every major religion in the world. The legitimization, as opposed to the fact, of homosexuality throughout history has always been in the context of a society in deep distress, disarray and confusion. One that has its lost original civilizing impulse and now bows to idols of gratification and satiation. When you define rampaging political agendas as minorities your constitution stands self destruct the nation.
Either we have equal rights or we don't. In a free society either consenting adults have the right to declare legally who they love or they don't. Homosexual equality with heterosexuals isn't just about sexual gratification. Its also child custody, survivor benefits, division of property, tax breaks...
Who gets custody of a Lesbian's child? Her life partner and the only other parent the child has ever known, or the biological grandparents who have never seen the child and disapprove of homosexuality.
The homosexual lobby has managed to gain the control of the lexicon of the debate, equating their situation with the struggle for human rights and equality. The problem is that all those religions including that of the West defines homosexuality as something you do, not something you are. And marriage as a defined legal institution, regulated by the state for the common good and in concordance with its religious antecedents, the primary statutory goal of which is the rearing of children in a safe, stable and loving structure.. something, obviously, of which the homosexual agenda has little interest.
Marriage defines us as a couple. Equal rights means that both heterosexual and homosexual couples have this right and all its benefits. Inequality would mean excluding people.
That means that when a gay man dies his pension goes back to the government rather than to his gay partner of 30 years. Even though the gay man contributed just as much to the pension plan as straight people, his partner doesn't get a survivor pension, because he is a homosexual.
And that's where we find ourselves. Those constructive civilizing impulses that remain have been left defenseless by a constitution that arms those who are intent on bringing down its most central tenets and institutions.That's Trudeau's legacy.
