We must know that it was fashioned by a Liberal government and it needs to be revised.

I like the last part of your article:

“…if we can’t change our Charter, we must at least hold our government to account especially strictly when it comes to human rights.”

That sums it up succinctly!

Of course I’m going through my own Charter abuse – just started year NINE this last Sunday.

Find out more at my protest website – that has been online – without interruption – since April 2005:

http://www.spyimplants.webs.com

Here is a protest discussion I created about the matter – this opens to page 17:

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/forums/topic1064-240.html

I have the medical evidence but I cannot find a serious lawyer!

If Canada can’t outgrow its statist origins and learn to respect individual autonomy, then why bother pretending to try with a weakly designed and interpreted Charter? “C’mon now lads, Lord Selkirk’s come into the room; take your caps off and stand up straight!” — How are you ever going to graft Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and James Madison onto that?

Personally I think Canada has struck a good balance. Without s. 1 the Charter would be a ridiculous document as few or no rights can be absolute. I think if you went through the jurisprudence you would see a number of cases where the outcome would be simply ludicrous if the court could not resort to s. 1. The Oakes test is a great statement of when the public interest can justifiably supercedes the private. I don’t think I could have put it better myself.

S. 33 is definitely a problem but I think it is a good safety valve to have and we’ve done a good job of creating a political culture in which its use is ‘off limits’. Also if it weren’t for s. 33 we probably wouldn’t have had a Charter to being with.

As for the courts making the decisions about what these words mean… well someone has to. If not the courts who? The person whose right is allegedly being infringed? We can pretty well guess what they’re gonna say. The government or legislature? What is the point of a ‘right’ if the people accused of infringing it are the ones deciding if its a right? If you have a better suggestion of who should make this decision I’m all ears.

At the end of the day there is no simple answer and no system is going to be perfect. Subject to a few changes I’d like to see (both in terms of interpretation and the text of the Charter itself) I think we’ve struck a good balance.

We’re in trouble.