Pubdate: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 Source: Medicine Hat News (CN AB) Copyright: 2016 Alberta Newspaper Group, Inc. Contact: http://www.medicinehatnews.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1833 Author: Alex McCuaig Page: B6 SUPREME COURT HAS NO AGENDA, SO CHARTER REVISIONS ARE APPROPRIATE On the eve of the 34th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Supreme Court of Canada has made two significant decisions regarding the constitutionality of legislation passed by the federal Conservatives. On Friday, the country's top court ruled that mandatory minimum sentencing for repeat offenders in drug offences and the denial of enhanced pretrial custodial credit for accused denied bail were unconstitutional. It's fair to say these and other so-called tough on crime legislative measures didn't meet the requirements outlined in one of this nation's foundational documents which establishes the rights of Canadians. The Charter can appear ethereal to the average Canadian who does - and should - expect those convicted of crimes be denounced and deterred from continuing such actions. The Charter can appear to be a high-minded aspirational document with little substance to a victim of a home invasion who had a piece of rebar smashed over his head and rightfully has the expectation that the perpetrator be punished for his crime. The application of the Charter can appear to be a contravention by judges over the legislative wishes of the elected members of government. Despite these issues, the Charter is a list of fundamental principles to which Canadians decided in 1982 to live by and has real and meaningful practical applications which many take for granted. As a foundational piece of legislation, it requires to be applied equally to every Canadian, whether they are exercising their rights by posting social media criticism or supportive of one thing or another or a shoplifter pinched on a theft rap. It's hard to find a law-enforcement member who has anything good to say about the Charter as they see it as placing limitations on what they can do. Unless you desire to live in a police state - and there are many options if you do - law enforcement need limits and the motivations of those who don't think they do should be questioned. These recent Supreme Court decisions will likely once again stoke the flames of many who see this as another incursion by judges in overturning the wishes of Parliament. Unless Canadians wish there to be unconstrained power placed in the hands of the government and that it should go unchecked, then by all means feel free to use the Charter as toilet paper - at least until the government passes a law that puts a camera in there as well. And for those who believe Supreme Court justices are exercising a political agenda, since seven of them were appointed by former prime minister Stephen Harper, one by former PM Brian Mulroney and one by Paul Martin during his short tenure as PM, it's hard to see exactly what agenda that is, aside from a conservative one. The Charter may not be a perfect document but it can be amended - not easily but it can be changed though the same mechanisms unto which it was formed. That's to say a large consensus of the provinces representing a majority of Canadians. It's futile to criticize a document, far less so for those who are responsible for changing it on behalf of those they are elected to represent. If change is needed, that's where you start. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom