The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms

1531 Words7 Pages
Basing the Basics on a Belief in Something Bigger The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, implemented in 1982 outlines the rights and freedoms that Canadians have as citizens of this country. In this paper I will ask whether we need such a charter, whether we can trust the interpretation of the Charter by the Supreme Court and how the Charter balances power in a democratic way. I will then contemplate the foundational place morality holds in the lawmaking process. In all of this I argue that to make a good law one must hold to a moral standard and one must act in the understanding that belief, and not objectivity, plays the main role in rational thought. Section 1, the ‘reasonable limits’ clause, of our Charter makes the whole…show more content…
The Supreme Court is made up of legal experts, not moral experts. In order to properly answer a philosophical question, one must transcend self and go to a place of objective reasoning. But, objective reasoning is not possible. No matter how hard one tries to escape the biases of the mind, personal experiences and societal conditioning will always play a part in answering the questions. I find fault in the analogy of society as a man named Peter who is either drunk or sober. The flaw is that Peter can be one of only two things - he must be either entirely drunk, or entirely sober. I propose that Peter is not limited to these two states, but rather he is constantly sipping at the bottle of bias. Peter might get to a state where he is entirely intoxicated (Peter drunk), but he will never blow a 0.0 on the breathalyzer of objectivity. Society is never completely sober and a Supreme Court justice can never entirely remove bias from a decision. I have proposed in these first paragraphs that there are problems with having judges at the head of the legal and moral trajectory of our nation, but surely I am not the first to propose such a thing. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms addresses this issue by having the threat of a legislature disregarding the Supreme Court. Sections 1 and 33 give parliament just such authority. At the beginning of this essay I made the statement that putting our rights under reasonable limits
Open Document