The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the worst document

[Tonington]

The Law enforcement community deserves an equal share of the blame. If there are no Charter violations, there is very little time needed to devote to constitutional challenges. Proper police work minimizes court challenges.

Just a thought, but do the papers report every single crime Tamarin? Popular press will never be able to keep records like those charged with doing so. To even compare those statistics to national coverage by government agencies is ridiculous. Not to mention a source of confirmation bias.

 

[tamarin]

"Just a thought, but do the papers report every single crime Tamarin?"

Interesting! A local paper did just that a few years ago. It stopped doing it probably under political pressure or the inception of some new procedural hoops on the part of the local courts. What was clear when reading the paper's log of charges was that most were being dismissed. And often for the flimsiest of reasons. Case after case was moving into court and quickly dropped.
Had the locals talking!

 

[Tonington]

No doubt the locals were talking. In my Law class in high school we had to go down to the courthouse to observe the cases and what the legal system in action looked like. I suggest anyone with an interest in our justice system do just that.

 

[Niflmir]

Tonington: " Regardless of what the media frenzy might say, the integrity of our justice system is strengthened by the Charter."

What? And Chief Justice Bev McLachlin is wrong? She has said on several occasions in the last year that our justice system has broken down, the middle class has been excluded from its access. That's clear. And the blame is always linked to constitutional and charter delays and horseplay.

The Right Honourable Beverly McLachlin is not wrong, our courts have problems - but they are access problems, not charter problems. It is merely too expensive for a person to properly represent themself.

 

[coldstream]

A Charter of Rights is an anathema to a Parliamentary System. By definition Parliaments represent sovereign priviledge of representative government whose oversight is by the electorate alone. The American system of competing branches of government was very much a product of the 18th Century Enlightenment, which had developed a profound suspicion of all institutional government, and sought to balance what Lord Acton described as 'absolute power corrupting, absolutely' by developing and encouraging competing interests to keep everything in check. It has never worked smoothly. What the Charter has produced is a cloistered judicial priesthood, who now represent the worst of materialistic and relativistic modernism, who wield immense power to undo social and moral conventions. The latter are the essential framework to our culture, and have now been torn asunder by the sophistry of the intellectual lightweights that infest our judicial and political system to its highest levels. Everything is at stake here, not the least of which the economic welfare of our country, which will crumble with the disintegration of a cohesive culture.

 

[Tonington]

That's some strong opinion on what the future holds. The current system is certainly better than it was. Perhaps you prefer a return to the constitutional system we had in the 1950's?

How far back must we go for recognized 'cohesive culture'. From my experience in this country, there really is no such thing. The stories my grandparents tell describe to me an earlier Canada where again there were regional cultural differences.

My culture isn't threatened, though I derive less culture from Christmas ornaments and painted windows on businesses and government offices than it would seem many other Canadians do.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

A Charter of Rights is an anathema to a Parliamentary System. By definition Parliaments represent sovereign priviledge of representative government whose oversight is by the electorate alone. The American system of competing branches of government was very much a product of the 18th Century Enlightenment, which had developed a profound suspicion of all institutional government, and sought to balance what Lord Acton described as 'absolute power corrupting, absolutely' by developing and encouraging competing interests to keep everything in check. It has never worked smoothly. What the Charter has produced is a cloistered judicial priesthood, who now represent the worst of materialistic and relativistic modernism, who wield immense power to undo social and moral conventions. The latter are the essential framework to our culture, and have now been torn asunder by the sophistry of the intellectual lightweights that infest our judicial system to its highest levels. Everything is at stake here, not the least of which the economic welfare of our country, which will crumble with the disintegration of a cohesive culture.

The Parliment is the political manifestation of the will of the Canadian people, the Charter limits the rights of the Parliment to enact laws which infringe on the rights and freedoms of Canadians, how is that anathema.

Corporate interference with government policy has done more to derail effective representational government in Canada than anything else, something the Charter has acted to limit. Canadians would have even less control over our government without the Charter, anyone who advocates for its destruction isn't arguing for more effective government, they're boosters for the same special interests who slip $millions$ into politicians pockets come election time and give them a wish list of what they want, even if it goes against the common good.

We need more protection from the sort of special interests control the Charter has helped to moderate.

 

[Zzarchov]

It was lawless, or would be to us.

They had a remarkable system of not counting beating your wife as a crime, so I suppose if you share those views it was hunky dory. But for most of the Canadians alive today, the place would seem lawless.