As Boyd (2015) explains, constitutional law is special in that it cannot be subjected to alteration through “the mere passage of new law through the House of Commons and the Senate” (p. 98). On the surface, this fact appears to guarantee respect for the authority of the rights laid out in the Constitution. This is significant because constitutional law supposedly, in the words of Cheffins and Tucker (as cited in Boyd, 2015), is a “mirror reflecting the national soul” (p. 98). However, many reject the claim that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [hereinafter, Charter] has brought about greater respect for fundamental rights and freedoms. This objection will be explored through analysis of the cases of R. v. Butler, R. v. Greffe, R.
…show more content…
Khadr (2010), the Prime Minister sought to have the decision reversed which would have ordered that Khadr, who had been detained at Guantanamo Bay by the US government for several years for war crimes, be brought back to Canada (para. 1). Khadr argued that his section 7 right to “life, liberty, and security of the person” had been violated and the Court agreed, but it was decided that having Khadr repatriated was not required by the government. The Court stated that an “appropriate remedy” would be a public admission that Khadr 's right had been offended, and that any further remedy would be at the “discretion” of the government (para. 2). Khadr was detained before he reached the age of majority, had been intentionally sleep deprived, and had been interrogated without the benefit of access to legal advice. As a result, it was judged that the Canadian government 's role in Khadr 's detainment “did not conform to the principles of fundamental justice” (para. …show more content…
For example, in Halpern v. R. the illegality of same-sex marriage was successfully contested when the Ontario Court of Appeal deemed it to be an unconstitutional restriction on the rights of homosexual citizens (Boyd, 2015, p. 119-120). In another famous case, R. v. Morgentaler, it was found that the limitations placed on abortion at the time opposed women 's right to “life, liberty and security of the person,” which was interpreted to entail that women have full determination over their bodies in seeking abortions (Boyd, 2015, p. 125). Significantly, in both cases the rights violation applies to a group of people, in the former case the LGBT community and in the latter case women. This is also true of R. v. Butler, where Butler 's individual freedom of expression was superseded by the collective equality rights of women. Ultimately, it seems that courts are more receptive to claims of rights violations when the offended party is not one individual, as it is highly difficult to dismiss the allegation that a group of citizens is being denied basic
Khadr (2010), the Prime Minister sought to have the decision reversed which would have ordered that Khadr, who had been detained at Guantanamo Bay by the US government for several years for war crimes, be brought back to Canada (para. 1). Khadr argued that his section 7 right to “life, liberty, and security of the person” had been violated and the Court agreed, but it was decided that having Khadr repatriated was not required by the government. The Court stated that an “appropriate remedy” would be a public admission that Khadr 's right had been offended, and that any further remedy would be at the “discretion” of the government (para. 2). Khadr was detained before he reached the age of majority, had been intentionally sleep deprived, and had been interrogated without the benefit of access to legal advice. As a result, it was judged that the Canadian government 's role in Khadr 's detainment “did not conform to the principles of fundamental justice” (para. …show more content…
For example, in Halpern v. R. the illegality of same-sex marriage was successfully contested when the Ontario Court of Appeal deemed it to be an unconstitutional restriction on the rights of homosexual citizens (Boyd, 2015, p. 119-120). In another famous case, R. v. Morgentaler, it was found that the limitations placed on abortion at the time opposed women 's right to “life, liberty and security of the person,” which was interpreted to entail that women have full determination over their bodies in seeking abortions (Boyd, 2015, p. 125). Significantly, in both cases the rights violation applies to a group of people, in the former case the LGBT community and in the latter case women. This is also true of R. v. Butler, where Butler 's individual freedom of expression was superseded by the collective equality rights of women. Ultimately, it seems that courts are more receptive to claims of rights violations when the offended party is not one individual, as it is highly difficult to dismiss the allegation that a group of citizens is being denied basic