The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was established in 1982 and since its creation it has made a huge impact on the legal and political landscape of Canada. Some believe that the Charter has undermined democracy and put too much power into the hands of the courts that are not elected by the people. Some also contest that the Canadian courts are becoming lawmakers and are becoming activists. However, these claims have little truth when looking at what the Supreme Court has accomplished since the enactment of the Charter. The courts use and distribute their power conservatively because of how it effects the Canadian political landscape. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian courts work together to uphold rights and create checks
…show more content…
He argued that in cases of moral strife in society the courts do not make good compromises and the legislator should be more involved in creating policy for moral ideologies. Using neutralization only creates larger problems and does nothing to “fan the flames of the public”. Knopff believed that moderation of the courts is key when questions of morality are brought up and through the use of the Charter and the power the courts have this is not occurring causing morality issues to become more heated. The Quebec sign law is used as an example of where moderation should have been used and dialogue become open to fix these problems. Knopff also sighted debates on abortion and homosexual rights when explaining the need for moderation in the court …show more content…
This lets legislation respond to judicial rulings, giving parliament the final say and not the judicial branch. Critics state that dialogue in Canada fails in practice because legislatures routinely treat the Supreme Court rulings as the final word. Section 33 only can be used for section 2 and 7-15 in the Charter. Critics also argue that the use of section 33 can imply that the legislatures are trying to override the rights themselves by going against judicial interpretation of the law. It can be argued that this may cause judicial activism and abuse of power by the courts and that the Charter has given them too much power. Through looking at the number cases shot down by the courts through interpretation of the Charter to get a better understand on whether judicial activism has become a real
He argued that in cases of moral strife in society the courts do not make good compromises and the legislator should be more involved in creating policy for moral ideologies. Using neutralization only creates larger problems and does nothing to “fan the flames of the public”. Knopff believed that moderation of the courts is key when questions of morality are brought up and through the use of the Charter and the power the courts have this is not occurring causing morality issues to become more heated. The Quebec sign law is used as an example of where moderation should have been used and dialogue become open to fix these problems. Knopff also sighted debates on abortion and homosexual rights when explaining the need for moderation in the court …show more content…
This lets legislation respond to judicial rulings, giving parliament the final say and not the judicial branch. Critics state that dialogue in Canada fails in practice because legislatures routinely treat the Supreme Court rulings as the final word. Section 33 only can be used for section 2 and 7-15 in the Charter. Critics also argue that the use of section 33 can imply that the legislatures are trying to override the rights themselves by going against judicial interpretation of the law. It can be argued that this may cause judicial activism and abuse of power by the courts and that the Charter has given them too much power. Through looking at the number cases shot down by the courts through interpretation of the Charter to get a better understand on whether judicial activism has become a real