4 ms·

Note that the two examples you give are generally by provincial authorities as well, not the federal government. I strongly support section 1, and think both o

• tonyarkles 2y ago
  Sorry for the late reply. I... generally do support it as well, although it does make things a fair bit less predictable than e.g. the US constitution does. From what I understand (not a lawyer) the US Supreme Court spends most of its effort on interpreting edge cases while the SCC has a fair bit more latitude in allowing what would appear to be clear prima facie Charter violations. One of the things that does worry me about Canadian politics in general is that it seems to be a bit of an arms race where we don't always consider the question "what if the other party did what we just did". As an easy example, whether or not you agree with the Liberals' use of the Emergency Act, they've basically set the precedent that it's ok to use in a situation like what we had. The left generally seemed to praise this action, in large part because it was used to shut down a protest that they didn't agree with. Next time the Conservatives are in power, though, it could very easily be wielded against left-leaning protests (e.g. the railway blockades) and the people who praised it the first time are going to be making shocked Pikachu face. Whatever I agree or disagree with doesn't matter, rather I'm just concerned that the way the Charter is put together does leave the door open for the government to do things that seem to be prohibited but can be surprisingly overridden. Sometimes it'll be a government you agree with and sometimes not.