HN Explorer

13 comments

[ 0.15 ms ] story [ 98.4 ms ] thread
peteradio
The court will appoint him expert witness at his own trial or will he have to recuse due to conflict of interest? This is kind of wild times.
jdsully
The Canadian court subscribes to the living tree doctrine, so it doesn't really matter what his thoughts were at the time of signing.
peteradio
Interesting, so are judges elected in Canada or appointed?
scj
Appointed by the Federal Government.
peteradio
Generally long serving I guess? In the U.S. its mixed and there is worry what impact politics plays when they've got to get out the vote.
scj
Chretien was instrumental in the authorship of the Charter, signed the Proclamation of it alongside QE2, and is still alive.

The website's way of phrasing that is misleading, even if partially true.

And to further illustrate your point... The greatest authority on post-1982 Constitutionalism in Canada wasn't a politician, but a legal scholar, Peter Hogg. Sadly, he died in 2020.

peteradio
Will Chretien speak with press or appear before govt to discuss the matter? Is there a sense which way the courts view it? How is the charter viewed, it's relatively new?
scj
IANAL, I'm pretty sure the only question that matters is if Section 1 of the Charter [0] is sufficient to meet the government's goals. If not, Section 33 certainly is.

Since 1986, the Oakes test has become the way to determine Section 1's applicability.

The former legislators thoughts and experiences of 1981/1982 are simply irrelevant in our legal system [1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_tree_doctrine

peteradio
> the infringement can be "demonstrably justified"

I wonder how this will be framed.

sudosysgen
It has been previously found constitutional in Canada to force people to be vaccinate (as in, with force). This won't do anything. Also, the Canadian constitution is a bit more of a suggestion than others.
rasz
Forced sterilization and kidnapping children was also seen as fully legal. Contrary to wikipedia article stating this was repealed in 1973 recent senate committee https://globalnews.ca/news/7920118/indigenous-women-steriliz... found otherwise:

>Most of the women interviewed for the report were coercively sterilized between 2005 and 2010. The committee says it is aware of a case of forced sterilization as recent as in 2019.