The Charter of Rights
or
Minoritarionism
If you're familiar with the BNA Act (now properly called the Constitution Act, 1867, the overriding principle was Parliamentary Supremacy. IIRC, Bagheot observed that "Parliament can do anything but make man a woman, or woman a man." Trudeau's Charter was an irreconcialable break with Parliamentary supremacy, wholly in keeping with his utter disdain for Parliament.
Did the Canadian electorate have an opportunity to pass judgement on the Charter before it was enacted? No. Was there a comprehensive debate on the implications of the Charter? No. Did Canadians vote to give appointed judges the power to remake Canadian society? No.
From 1867 to 1982, the role of the Supreme Court (prior to 1932 the JCPC) was to interpret laws as ultra vires, that is, within their Constitutional purview. That was the limited role the founders gave them. Since 1982, the Charter has been an excuse for the Court, and those who appoint them, to socially engineer a "new Canada". Perhaps that "new Canada" is the vision of Toronto and Montreal liberals.
You excoriate the early Reform MPs for saying things that didn't sit well with the Eastern Intelligncia. Perhaps you have no idea how refreshing it was for many chroncically disenfranchised "Westerners" for those things to actually have been raised in Parliament, after years of "representation" by sheep MPs. Perhaps the "tolerance" for "diversity" of political and societal views is more limited than you care to acknowledge.
I question the overriding concern about the "tyranny of the majority". Frankly, I'm seeing real "tyranny of the minority". |
