Conspiracy Theory

[bcholmes]

So, let's say it's the anniversary of some event. Like the 25th anniversary of the signing of the new Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sure, the Charter is important and all, but a lot of people might not notice that the anniversary is happening.

Suppose, also, that we live in a climate where there's a lot of public discussion about whether or not human rights are more important than fighting terrorism. Would the secret masters of the world be interested in marking the 25th anniversary with a bunch of articles that talk about how the Charter can be "blamed for complicating and slowing the justice system" or that it "has impoverished the political life of Canada"?

Or maybe this is just what passes for "balanced".

Comments

[avt-tor.livejournal.com]

There was an interesting article in various places, including the Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070412.CHARTERCHRETIEN12/TPStory/National), that showed how the Charter forced the government to accept equality for gays and lesbians in ways that people didn't expect. I think this is a good thing, especially for people who grew up in a different era who haven't quite thought through all the changes needed in the status quo.

The latter article doesn't argue the political problem is with the text of the Charter, but rather with the flawed process Trudeau used to bring it into effect. I think that's still a real problem that needs to be acknowledged once in a while. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has many improvements over the US Bill of Rights, but the one major advantage the Bill of Rights has is that it was adopted by a political process agreed on my major forces in society. The Constitution in Canada still needs that final step to make it legitimate.

Canada has gone through periods of terrorism paranoia in the past. It is disingenously smug to look down on Americans without acknowledging that past.

I've studied law in Canada, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is fundamental to study of the law; it is the part of Canada's basic law that is relevant to people in day to day life. The Charter doesn't prevent the government from introducing anti-terrorist legislation, any more than the US Bill of Rights does. Canada has passed anti-terrorist legislation since 9/11/01, but for political reasons it has chosen to apply it in less intrusive ways.

It's perfectly legitimate in a democracy to review legislation at historical milestones and to discuss how to improve things. It's also perfectly reasonable for people to disagree on what improvements are needed. As one might expect with a relatively new and sweeping piece of legislation like the Charter, there are a few reduction ad absurdem interpretations that could be tweaked by legislation or amendment. Setting aside abstruse legal points, it is very clear that from a political perspective there is tremendous support among Canadians for most of the provisions of the Charter and that no government has the ability to throw out the baby with the bathwater. In fact one of the main political flaws with the Constitution is that it's hard to amend. The Conservatives need to get past their Alberta-centric obsessions and acknowledge Canada's history as a bilingual culture. With the PQ being relegated to the obscurity that their illogical arguments deserve, it may be possible to have a meaningful national discussion now.

[the_axel]

With the PQ being relegated to the obscurity that their illogical arguments deserve, it may be possible to have a meaningful national discussion now.

That's optimism for ya.

While the PQ lost in the provincial election, the reason for that fall is more likely that the rural Quebecois don't want to vote for a gay man so they voted for the ADQ instead. The ADQ are nationalists too, spouting the 'sovereignity association' bullshit that the PQ use because they know they can't win support for actual independence.

the one major advantage the Bill of Rights has is that it was adopted by a political process agreed on my major forces in society.

I don't think that is *possible* in Canada because one of the major forces is Quebec seccessionists who, on principal, will oppose anything that serves to unify Canada.

I think your view shows one of the core differences between Canada & the US's cultures - the US was born from a shared intent (and most of the people who disagreed with it moved to Ontario) and a common unifying ideology/mythology has developed from that foundation. By contrast, Canada was thrown together by the British government and the people here have had to deal with it.

[erik]

You only get "balanced?" Another way the US is superior to Canada, then. Down here we get Fair And Balanced!