Law: The Legitimacy of Charter

Summary

This lecture explores the legitimacy of judicial review through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It discusses the shift of power from parliament to courts, the role of courts in protecting individual rights, and the challenges this presents. The lecture also addresses the interpretation of rights, the balance between individual and community rights, and the adaptability of the charter in a changing society.

Takeaways

• 🏛️ The Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada was established to protect individuals from state overreach, shifting power from Parliament to the courts.
• 🌐 Prior to 1982, Parliament was supreme and set the laws, but the Charter introduced a system where courts determine if rights are violated.
• 👥 The Charter focuses on individual rights rather than federal or constitutional issues, which are left to Parliament.
• 🤔 The legitimacy of judicial review and the shift of power to unelected judges is a subject of ongoing debate.
• 📉 Any Canadian court decision based on the Charter of Rights becomes law across all of Canada, making the impact of such decisions far-reaching.
• 🚫 A law that violates the Charter becomes void, and the government cannot change the law back without going through the courts.
• 👥 The courts' role in protecting minority rights is crucial for maintaining democracy, as even democratic governments can be a threat to it.
• 📜 Courts promote transparency by making their decisions public, unlike government decisions which can be buried in bureaucracy.
• 🏢 The Charter protects individual rights against state and corporate control, ensuring personal freedoms and equality.
• 🔍 The Charter allows for democratic dialogue through judicial review, where courts can suggest changes to laws without automatically voiding them.
• 🌐 The Charter is not static and must adapt to new social, political, and historical realities, allowing for reinterpretation over time.

Q & A

What is the primary purpose of the Charter of Rights?

The Charter of Rights is designed to protect individuals from the state by setting a set of rights that the courts determine if are being violated or not, rather than parliament.

How did the power dynamics change with the introduction of the Charter of Rights in Canada?

Before the Charter of Rights, parliament was supreme and set the laws, with courts applying them. Post-1982, power shifted to the courts to interpret and apply the Charter, placing limits on parliament's power.

Why is the shift of power from parliament to the courts problematic according to the lecture?

The problem arises because the courts, unlike parliamentarians, are unelected, and decisions made by a few judges can affect the entire country, potentially leading to an interventionist state.

What is the significance of a court decision based on the Charter of Rights in Canada?

Any court decision based on the Charter of Rights becomes law across all of Canada, making any law that violates the Charter void.

How does the Charter of Rights protect individual rights against the state and corporations?

The Charter prevents the state and corporations from infringing on rights such as freedom of speech, equality, and the right to vote, ensuring individuals are not controlled by these entities.

What is the role of the courts in a democratic society as discussed in the lecture?

The courts protect the rights of minorities and act as a check on government overreach, ensuring that democratic governments do not undermine democracy.

Why is the interpretation of the Charter of Rights not considered originalist in Canada?

Canadian courts and legal scholars view the Charter as capable of growth and development over time to meet new social, political, and historical realities, rather than being a fixed document.

What is the difference between the Canadian Charter of Rights and the U.S. Constitution in terms of protecting rights?

The Canadian Charter of Rights is more open to interpretation and change over time, while the U.S. Constitution has a legal perspective that has shifted towards originalism, emphasizing the framers' intent.

How does the Charter of Rights allow for democratic dialogue?

It allows for judicial review, where courts can reinterpret laws and communicate with legislators, suggesting changes to laws without automatically voiding them when Charter rights are violated.

What are the main themes covered under the Charter of Rights?

The main themes include fundamental freedoms, democratic and political rights, mobility rights, legal rights, and language rights.

What is the 'trick' sentence in the Charter of Rights that nullifies the entire document, as hinted in the lecture?

The trick sentence is not explicitly mentioned in the script, but it suggests that there might be a clause or phrase that could undermine the Charter if interpreted in a certain way.

Outlines

00:00

🏛️ Judicial Review and the Charter of Rights

This paragraph discusses the introduction of the Charter of Rights in Canada and its impact on the balance of power between the courts and parliament. Prior to 1982, parliament was supreme, setting laws that courts applied. The Charter shifted power, allowing courts to determine if rights were violated, thus limiting parliament's authority. This change raised questions about whether unelected judges should have the power to interpret and protect rights, potentially leading to an interventionist state. The lecture also touches on how the Charter affects laws across Canada and the simplicity yet profound implications of judicial decisions.

05:02

🗣️ Rights, Freedoms, and the Interpretation of Law

The second paragraph delves into the complexities of individual rights and freedoms as outlined in the Charter, such as the right to equality and free speech, which are not absolute. It raises concerns about whether these rights could be exploited for self-interest or to continue breaking the law. The discussion includes the role of courts in protecting minority rights against the tyranny of the majority, ensuring government transparency, and giving voice to the voiceless. It also introduces the debate on whether the Charter should be a fixed document or adaptable to evolving societal norms.

10:04

🌐 The Relevance of the Charter in a Changing Society

This section explores the Charter's ability to remain relevant in a changing society, contrasting the originalist approach of the United States with Canada's more flexible interpretation. It discusses how technological advancements, such as the internet, were not foreseen by the framers of the Charter but have become integral to modern interpretations of rights. The paragraph also touches on the Second Amendment debate in the U.S., highlighting the evolution of weaponry and questioning the applicability of historical amendments to contemporary contexts.

15:04

📜 Judicial Review and Democratic Dialogue

Paragraph four examines the role of judicial review in fostering democratic dialogue. It explains how courts can identify legal issues without necessarily striking down laws, instead prompting the government to rectify them. The discussion highlights the interplay between courts and the legislature, with the latter sometimes enacting and sometimes opposing Supreme Court decisions. The paragraph also addresses potential biases in court interpretations and the idea that the Charter should evolve to meet new social, political, and historical realities.

20:05

🏞️ Balancing Rights and the Nature of Rights

The fifth paragraph focuses on the balance between individual rights and societal interests as outlined in the Charter. It discusses the non-absolute nature of rights, such as freedom of expression, which is limited by laws against child pornography and hate speech. The lecture also considers the implications of rights violations, the impact of court decisions on Canadian society, and the need for the Charter to adapt to societal changes. It raises the question of whether the Charter should include positive rights and contrasts the Canadian Charter's focus on community with the U.S. Constitution's individualistic approach.

25:05

⚖️ Competing Rights and the Limits of the Charter

The final paragraph addresses the issue of competing rights, such as freedom of religion versus equality, and the challenges courts face in balancing these rights. It discusses the limits of the Charter, the necessity for courts to choose which inequalities to address, and the lack of a hierarchy of rights. The lecture concludes by emphasizing the need for the Charter to be adaptable and to evolve with society, likening a good charter to an octopus that moves fluidly rather than a static brick.

Keywords

💡Judicial Review

Judicial review is the process by which a court examines the constitutionality of laws enacted by the legislature. It is a key concept in the video, illustrating the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislative branch. The script discusses how the introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada shifted the power to interpret laws from parliament to the courts, thereby allowing courts to determine if rights are being violated.

💡Charter of Rights and Freedoms

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a foundational document in Canadian law that guarantees certain rights and freedoms to Canadian citizens. The video uses this term to discuss how it was introduced to protect individuals from state overreach and how it has led to a shift in power dynamics within the Canadian government, placing limits on parliament and the state's power.

💡Parliamentary Supremacy

Parliamentary supremacy refers to the idea that the parliament is the supreme legislative body and its laws cannot be overridden by any other authority. The video contrasts this with the new system established by the Charter of Rights, where courts have the power to review and potentially overturn laws passed by parliament if they violate the Charter.

💡Individual Rights

Individual rights are the rights held by each person, such as the right to free speech or the right to equality. The video emphasizes the shift in focus from federal or constitutional issues to individual rights following the introduction of the Charter of Rights, highlighting the courts' role in protecting these rights against potential violations by the state.

💡Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the highest court in Canada and has the final say on legal matters, including constitutional issues. The video discusses the Supreme Court's role in interpreting the law and how its decisions affect the entire country, emphasizing the importance and power of this unelected body.

💡Un-elected

The term 'un-elected' is used in the video to describe the judges of the Supreme Court, emphasizing that they are not chosen by popular vote. This is contrasted with elected officials in parliament, raising questions about the democratic legitimacy of judicial review and the power shift from elected representatives to non-elected judges.

💡Interventionist State

An interventionist state is one that actively intervenes in social, economic, or political affairs. The video raises the question of whether the increased role of the courts in interpreting rights might lead to an interventionist state, where the government tries to circumvent court rulings to pass laws.

💡Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech is the right to express one's opinions without censorship or restraint. The video discusses how the Charter of Rights provides for freedom of speech but also notes that this right is not absolute and can be limited, such as in cases involving hate speech or child pornography.

💡Equality Rights

Equality rights are the rights that ensure every individual is treated equally before and under the law without discrimination. The video uses the example of gender pay equality to illustrate how courts can use the Charter to enforce these rights, emphasizing the Charter's role in promoting justice and fairness.

💡First Nations

First Nations refers to the various Aboriginal peoples in Canada who are neither Inuit nor Métis. The video mentions First Nations in the context of discussing how the courts can provide a voice to marginalized groups, such as protecting their rights when violated, showcasing the Charter's role in addressing historical injustices.

💡Positive Rights

Positive rights are rights that require active measures to be taken by the state to ensure they are realized. The video contrasts these with negative rights, which are protections against state interference. It raises the question of whether the Charter should include positive rights, such as the 'right to be happy,' and what impact such rights might have on society.

Highlights

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was introduced to protect individuals from the state.

Before the Charter, Parliament was supreme and courts could only review laws set by Parliament.

The Charter shifted power from Parliament to the courts, allowing courts to limit state power.

The Charter focuses on individual rights rather than federal or constitutional issues.

Any court decision based on the Charter becomes law across Canada.

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the law is a significant shift from elected parliament to unelected judges.

The Charter's implementation in 1982 led to a power shift from creating to interpreting laws.

Courts' decisions based on the Charter cannot be overturned by the government.

The Charter protects individual rights against the state and corporations.

The Charter allows for democratic dialogue through judicial review.

The Charter must be capable of growth and development over time to meet new realities.

The Charter's interpretation is not fixed and can be adapted to changing society.

The Charter's rights are not absolute and can be limited based on societal impact.

The Charter promotes protection of minority rights to maintain democracy.

The Charter allows individuals to challenge government policies that violate their rights.

The Charter's framers' intent is debated, especially with evolving social issues like abortion and internet freedom.

The Charter's application can lead to a balance between individual rights and community rights.

The Charter has been used to argue for and against societal norms, such as gay marriage.

The Charter's interpretation by courts can be influenced by judges' personal biases.

The Charter's purpose is to protect against government interference and promote open information.

Transcripts

welcome to this lecture on

the legitimacy of judicial review based

on

chapter two of the textbook

in this lecture we're going to go

through the

beginning controversies of the charter

of rights and the role

of the courts in as well as

parliament remember

the charter is brought in to protect the

individual

from the state but

in canada we have a well a range of

provinces

municipalities and canada itself is not

so generous

we have these very different

communities throughout the country with

competing

views of what is just what is moral

what is the right thing to do

so remember back prior to the charter of

rights

parliament is supreme the parliament

sets the laws and the courts

apply the laws the courts could

and did review the law but the law

basically remains within parliament

the charter of rights sets up a new

system

which says that here are a set of rights

and

the courts determine if the charge of

rights is being violated or not

not parliament and

the court the charter of rights and the

courts

place limits upon parliament

and the state's power so the power is

shifted from parliament

to the courts and that's what the charge

of rights does

so the issues involving the charter

rights are more involved with citizens

rights rather than federal or

constitutional issues

and the federal constitutional issues

are pushed on to parliament

whereas individual rights citizens

rights are pushed more onto the courts

and the argument here is should this be

happening

should the rights be protected by the

courts

rather than parliament and there's a

shift in power

and that in itself is problematic

so think about it before 1982

paul parliament retains power of

creating the laws

the courts are there to interpret the

laws maybe create some through case law

but

generally interpret the laws

but long times 1982 in the charter of

rights the power

shifts to the courts because they are

the ones who interpret and apply the

charter of rights

and remember any court anywhere in

canada

that makes a decision based upon the

charter of rights

that now becomes law across all of

canada

any law that violates the charter of

rights

becomes void any law and as soon as it

comes up in court and they say

well we want to carry on paying woman

less than men

the courts will turn around and say that

violates the charter of rights

across all of canada you must stop doing

that

for parliament to do this kind of thing

for parliament to pass a law in canada

takes a majority to vote on it

whereas the new charge of rights just

takes one judicial statement

change the law

so charter decisions in court means the

government can't change the law back

and it affects all of canada so is the

supreme court

now in charge of interpreting the law

should this happen

the courts and then the supreme court

are unelected the supreme court

nine people and i'm sure you are not

able to identify

even one of them you probably know more

members of the us supreme court

the canadian supreme court because it's

far more fighting

but who goes into the u.s supreme court

but on a deeper issue

where should power lie

with parliament with courts

balance of two this is an ongoing

argument

another question is do you understand

the law are the rulings clear

in the next few weeks you're going to be

looking at judicial decisions

and some of them are written very

clearly others are wrapped

up in legal jargon and you sit there

thinking what on

earth are they saying will this promote

an interventionist state

will the state or the government try to

sidestep the courts to try to get their

laws passed

also with a charter you have your rights

and your freedoms

you have a right to equality it doesn't

mean it's a guarantee

you have a right to free speech but it's

not absolute

will individual rights affect community

rights

or be used for purely self-interest

margaret trudeau

got caught drink driving and she used

the charter

to get the case thrown up

because the police didn't exactly follow

the correct procedure can

people who are breaking the law use the

charter to continue to violate the law

and we'll be coming up with some of

these cases these cases are few and far

between

but it still can set a precedent

so why allow it

why allow the charge of rights

why shift the power to this to the

courts well the one argument is to

protect democracy

democracy is more than majority rule

if i said to the class we want you to

vote

on who gets access to these online

videos and 51 percent of you

say only

those who are female can get access to

the videos

all males are not allowed to that's

majority rule

and there are more females in this class

than males

you need to protect the rights of the

minorities

you need the court to protect all rights

not just the majority

government is a big threat to democracy

even democratic governments are a threat

to democracy and the court can

interfere with government interference

if you look at other countries the

courts

have acted as a way to stop

government overreach

courts allow creates information and

open information

the courts must be open to all and so

the government decision

the court decisions are set out for all

to read government decisions are often

very deep inside bureaucracy and hidden

behind

freedom of information blocks

the courts also gives voices to those

who have none

if you are a member of first nations

and you're living in poverty your vote

really means nothing but

you still have access to the courts if

your rights have been violated

and you as an individual can go to court

and say my rights have been violated

something must be done and if your

charge of rights have been violated the

courts

should take your side and go even up to

the supreme court

you as an individual

charter protects your individual rights

protects your individual rights against

the state against corporations

against others a corporation cannot turn

around to you

in a job interview and say are you

planning on getting married and if

you're female

not hire you because that is

discrimination

the state can't take away your right to

vote

they can't take away your right to

movement or freedom of assembly

it stops you being controlled

by the state and corporations

it protects your rights versus

government policy

the government might think that we're

going to

limit your education you have a right to

that education and you can use the

courts

to block them

one of the really interesting things

here and this is interesting to contrast

the united states

is the framers intent

what was the intent for people who wrote

the culture of rights back in 1982

was it meant to be seen as a fixed

document

unchanging whatever is written down in

1982

stays there or should we

read into the law there's a very

important term

read in should we assume rights that

were not

written down inside the charter so

abortion in particular abortion is not

written specifically into the charter

but can you use the charter to support

abortion

in 1982 the internet wasn't around

in 1982 there was no when you're talking

about freedom of speech

it's the idea of freedom of speech in a

public sphere

of either newspapers or tv radio or

talking in an open field with a crowd of

people

not sitting there on the internet

saying things but going

throughout the world should we

read into the charter these ideas

how can the charter remain relevant in a

changing society

the really interesting thing in the

united states is that

the united states has shifted the legal

perspective has shifted to a more what's

called the originalist

argument which is the idea of the

framers intent

must remain so from 1776 and whatever

they said in 1776

remains like that so for instance the

second amendment

the interesting thing is that the second

amendment as written is very different

to the second amendment as

put forward by groups such as the

national rifle association

so the second amendment says

a well-regulated militia being necessary

to the security of a free state

the right to the people to keep and bear

arms should not be infringed

so 1791 the guns they're using the arms

they're using

are muzzle loading guns and if you were

really good

you could shoot that five times a minute

and the range of that gun and then you

could hit something was about 100 meters

what was that but here first was a

well-regulated militia in 1791

they wanted an army or a militia to

protect themselves

against british invasion

remember these are the people who are

rebels who are terrorists

who fought against the legitimate

government the british

who got assisted by an enemy power the

french

and overthrew the british

who they saw or the king and set up a

new independent state and they were

worried about being invaded and attacked

by britain

which of course they were and then they

went to nevada canada in

1812 and got their asses kicked

but have things changed in the last 220

years

1791 you had a muzzle loading musket

five rounds a minute now in the united

states

you can buy a sniper rifle 50 caliber

sniper rifle

where you can shoot an armored piercing

round

almost two kilometers

you can buy a machine gun which will

fire up to 500 rounds

a minute or the ar-15 an assault rifle

where you can buy a magazine of 100

rounds and you can get through that in

about 10 seconds

is that the right to keeping their arms

in other countries where you had a right

to a gun they're taking that out and

they said no

we don't want that anymore remember this

is an amendment

so it was added on later the original

declaration the bill of rights included

slavery

which they got rid of so the irony of

the u.s bill of rights

is that they've added things in

amendments and taking them out

like banning alcohol and then not

banning alcohol

so 47 percent of males in the u.s only

gun

their estimated 400 million guns

privately owned

firearms are used in 68 of homicides 50

of suicides in arizona you can carry a

gun into a bar

and right now you can carry it into a

college or university

same as for texas and florida what could

possibly go wrong carrying a gun

into a bar

this man who lives in arizona is

illegally

blind and it's a picture of him

buying a gun because he can

and he said when you shoot a gun you

take it out and point and shoot i don't

think eyesight is necessary

what he's doing is legal

what could possibly go wrong

right let's get back to the charter the

charter

allows for democratic dialogue here

judicial review which means the judge

the courts

reinterpret the laws and looking at

the cases the review allows for

communication between the courts and

legislators

so the courts can take a case and say

and we'll deal with some of these cases

what's happened here is wrong

but we're not going to ruin it we're

going to push it

to the government to say you need to

change the law

you need to go and you've got x number

of days or weeks

to change the law because what is ever

happening

cannot continue and there's give and

take

there's no automatic because your

charter rights will be violated

therefore you win

there's give and take between the courts

and the legislature

between the federal and provincial

powers

legislature can and has implemented laws

to reflect supreme court decisions

or to oppose them it's done both there's

a very canadian

thing

so courts under the charter are the

courts biased

do they promote conservative or liberal

interpretations of the

charge of rights in the constitution

well depends on the court

depends on the individual judge remember

judges

are human and they will interpret

the court and the laws depending on

their own personal biases

case law et cetera supreme court

decisions

can still be debated and reformed by the

political argument

supreme court can make a decision but

the politicians can turn around and say

you know what

we don't like that we're going to change

and the decisions can affect

far beyond the plaintiff we'll be

looking at cases where

the results these cases stretch years

into the future

and affect far beyond issues such as

fishing or abortion or whether you can

buy things on a sunday

remember the charge of rights

when you read it it's very simple

it's very short and it is massively open

for interpretation

in canada generally

the courts and legal scholars view the

charter of rights

as not originalist but it's something

that you can read in

the charter must be capable of growth

and development over time to meet new

social political historical realities

often unimagined by its framers as in

the case of hunter versus southern

there's a general accepted condition

that we can reinterpret the charter and

add things in but this is a cool thing

so there's a lot of argument of what

about what can be added

so let's look at your rights your nature

of rights you've got your fundamental

freedoms

democratic political rights mobility

rights legal rights equality

language these are the main themes

inside the charter and we're going to be

going through these

throughout this course

they are not absolute nothing in the

charter is absolute

as compared to the u.s constitution u.s

constitution you have guaranteed freedom

of speech

in canada it's limited

it's depends

the key points in the charter

reflect the issues at the time and that

is first nations rights quebec language

rights

limiting the power of the state and

mainly your rights are to be protected

from and that from is government

interference

one of the questions is should there be

positive rights

should you have the right to be happy

rather than the right not to be sad

or from sadness what do you think

we could write as a positive right

and what effect would that have on

canadian society

do you know in bhutan

they have a gross happiness index and

every single government agency has to

show that's improving the happiness of

the people

underneath it what effects would that

change

so which is better

protection of peace order and good

government

or the right to life liberty and the

pursuit of happiness

pick one

just first one or second one

your decision will show

how you view the law

first one is from the charter of rights

canadian

and this is about community the second

one

is the us constitution individualistic

the irony is that

the second one is very individualistic

and the right to life liberty and the

pursuit of happiness of course

didn't cover slaves because slaves did

not have any liberty

did not have the right to pursue

happiness and did not have the right to

life because they were not considered

human so that didn't count

canadian one peace order good government

you're

subserving individual rights to the good

of

the community the society good

government

us doesn't mention good government

or peace and order just your right to

pursue happiness and if owning a gun

gives you happiness you have that right

even though it might end up

getting rid of someone else's right to

life

the courts interpret the meaning of

to see if the case is violated child

right so you

have a court case you've got a court the

courts will sit there and say it has

this violence

rights and if it has this is very

serious they

realize whatever their decision is it

will affect

all of canada so should your

interpretation be narrow or wide

freedom of expression

pornography violence politics posters on

telephone poles

internet sites

what are you allowed to say what you're

not allowed to say in canada we have

limits on your freedom of expression

issues of child pornography hate speech

those are limited

your right to vote your right to know

voters more than just

saying you have a right to vote it's you

need to be able to engage and do

that vote in the united states of course

at the moment there's big arguments

about the right to vote and the

republicans

have said very clearly we do not want

everyone to vote

in the united states gerrymanders that

means

reorganizes as districts to ensure

that only certain people vote and others

don't

freedom of association this means you

can join anyone you want

but what happens if you join a terrorist

group

but what happens if you join a group

that then engages in terrorist

activities

are you now accountable for their

actions

if your rights have been violated this

doesn't mean you're going to win your

case

the courts will measure the against the

effect or the impact on the interests of

society

so you might say my rights for freedom

of speech are being violated in the

court

yes they have but

to allow you this freedom of speech will

create a greater harm

therefore sucks to be you

and this comes down to interpretations

inside the courts

the charter must be able to adapt and be

reinterpreted within changing society it

must have a purpose

per positive method

now it states that moving more and more

to the traditionalist that's what it is

that's how it stays in canada

there's been broad interpretations have

been used to maintain this goal so

the charter has changed its

interpretation

in the last 40 years

and will continue to do so maybe the

question is should we rewrite the

charter

to fit now the very

changed society

1985 or versus big m drug mod

begin drug mart wants to open on a

sunday which is in violation of the law

the law in particular

is the lord's day act which says no

selling goods on a sunday and this of

course is based

on a christian view

that sunday is a day of rest

the game drug mart wants to sell stuff

because

they're a store and they use the charter

to say this law violates their violates

the charter rights

not of them but of their customers

the ruling is that we should allow

trading on a sunday

because religions different religions

have different

holy days friday saturday sunday

whenever

and why are we imposing one religion on

everyone

the ruling held that the interpretation

of the child of right should be generous

to protect the rights of the individual

but not

overshoot the purpose of the charter of

rights

with big m drug mart are they going to

force their workers to work on the

sunday when they don't want to

or on the other side should we

be allowed to shop whenever you want it

might seem strange now

think back to 1985 when everything was

shut on a sunday

no shopping bit like now with covered

but

just on sundays

a contextual method imposes some limits

on rights

as the wider context of the act and here

the context of the nature of the

political system and

dealing with the right foot quality

issues should every inequality be dealt

with

if you look at a society everyone has

different

levels inside the society

and there's always some level of

discrimination

the courts can't deal with every single

inequality

they have to pick and choose who they

deal with

so that there are limits on your rights

and this is built into the system this

is sort of agreed tacitly amongst the

courts and legislature that there's no

free reign

and if you look carefully at the charter

you realize

the beginning is a certain sentence

that basically nullifies the entire

charter

the trick is to find it

also competing rights what happens when

rights collide

so freedom of religion

we have freedom of religion we also have

equality

equality says everyone must be treated

equally should we force

religions to treat everyone equally

should we turn around to the catholic

church and say

you must hire more women bishops

when the catholic church itself says

there are no woman bishops

religions are biased religions are

unequal in the way that they operate and

religions

are based on the system of my religion

is correct everyone else is wrong

which goes against the charter of rights

should we allow freedom of speech for

you to say

you are a terrible person what happens

with

gay marriage gay marriage now in canada

is accepted and

normalized but for a very long time it

was seen

by many as a terrible thing alberta

turned on and said we refuse to accept

gay marriage and we will fight the

charter to do it

and the charge will allow them to do

this

inside the court there is no hierarchy

of rights

your freedom of speech doesn't outweigh

the quality

of religion your right to a language

language rights doesn't outweigh

the other right for respecting first

nations treaties

it's a case-by-case balance

there's a constant struggle to maintain

this balance

and to maintain justice

it's an unsteady seesaw

there's no fixed system

it slowly moves as the cases come down

one side or the other

and this is what law should be it adapts

and develops a society

and our community adapts and develops

and that's what makes a good law that's

what makes a good

charter one that moves like an octopus

through the ocean rather than a brick