The entrenchment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and its relation to democracy in Canada has been at the core of many debates throughout the years. A democratic government is one that allows the people to have a direct hand in what goes on in their country and some believe that entrenching the charter of rights in the constitution is a violation of the principles of this democracy. Although the charter of rights is entrenched, the charter of rights is very abstract in its rules and allows for flexibility when decisions are made. Adding to this, section 1 and 33 of the charter of rights is explicit in overcoming the argument that the entrenchment of the charter of rights violates any principles of democracy. Throughout my essay, I will argue
…show more content…
This did not stop people from thinking that because the charter of rights was hard to change that it would infringe on their democracy. However, this charter of rights was very vague and open to an “it is what you make of it” approach. This is important because it allows the constitution to always be changing and to not be held down by the past. What is most significant in this is that we have judges interpreting this charter and making decisions about laws in our country, which is known as judicial review. The problem with this can be seen as allowing the “will of the people (as determined by elected representatives) be frustrated by the decisions of judges” (Whyte, 1); the reason this is a problem is because people feel their laws in society are being governed by unelected judges which is a direct insult to their own democracy. Past events have proven that judges striking down laws have benefited the recent moral beliefs of our society; “Canada’s abortion regulation, legislative barriers to same sex marriage…” (Whyte, 1). This point is important because the striking down of these laws may or may not go against the judges own moral beliefs, but the judge ultimately makes decisions based on the moral beliefs of the community or …show more content…
However, I believe that both sections help promote the principles of democracy. Section 1 of the charter of rights describes the rights and freedoms as “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law … justified in a free and democratic society” (Dyzenhaus, Moreau, and Ripstein, 1056). This allows the government to make decisions on whether to limit a person(s) Charter rights or not depending on whether it is just in the current democratic society. Section 1 of the charter was exercised in the case of R v Keegstra, Keegstra was telling his students that the holocaust was simply a made up story for the Jews to gain sympathy (reasonable p, 2012). Although this case was argued as freedom of expression, Keegstra had created hate speech, which caused harm to the Jews and the society as a whole; this allowed for section 1 to be used and allowed Keegstra to be charged under criminal conduct (reasonable p, 2012). This case shows that section 1 of the charter can be used to limit the individual’s rights, which in this case was fair and just relative to the eyes of the democratic society of Canada. The use of section 1 of the charter allowed for the promotion of strengthening
This did not stop people from thinking that because the charter of rights was hard to change that it would infringe on their democracy. However, this charter of rights was very vague and open to an “it is what you make of it” approach. This is important because it allows the constitution to always be changing and to not be held down by the past. What is most significant in this is that we have judges interpreting this charter and making decisions about laws in our country, which is known as judicial review. The problem with this can be seen as allowing the “will of the people (as determined by elected representatives) be frustrated by the decisions of judges” (Whyte, 1); the reason this is a problem is because people feel their laws in society are being governed by unelected judges which is a direct insult to their own democracy. Past events have proven that judges striking down laws have benefited the recent moral beliefs of our society; “Canada’s abortion regulation, legislative barriers to same sex marriage…” (Whyte, 1). This point is important because the striking down of these laws may or may not go against the judges own moral beliefs, but the judge ultimately makes decisions based on the moral beliefs of the community or …show more content…
However, I believe that both sections help promote the principles of democracy. Section 1 of the charter of rights describes the rights and freedoms as “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law … justified in a free and democratic society” (Dyzenhaus, Moreau, and Ripstein, 1056). This allows the government to make decisions on whether to limit a person(s) Charter rights or not depending on whether it is just in the current democratic society. Section 1 of the charter was exercised in the case of R v Keegstra, Keegstra was telling his students that the holocaust was simply a made up story for the Jews to gain sympathy (reasonable p, 2012). Although this case was argued as freedom of expression, Keegstra had created hate speech, which caused harm to the Jews and the society as a whole; this allowed for section 1 to be used and allowed Keegstra to be charged under criminal conduct (reasonable p, 2012). This case shows that section 1 of the charter can be used to limit the individual’s rights, which in this case was fair and just relative to the eyes of the democratic society of Canada. The use of section 1 of the charter allowed for the promotion of strengthening