Analysis of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

The rights ensnare forth in The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms be all of paramount importance in a democratic solid ground such as Canada. However, the implementation and interpretation of the C. C. R. F. is fundamentally flawed. The ambiguity of received functions allow for a vast range of interpretations by the Supreme flirt justices, the unelected judiciary brach has the violence to fundamentally deepen the Canadian Criminal decree without the consent of the legislative brach, and the legislative branch has the power to overrule intimately parts of the Charter under the principle of legislative supremacy.These principles effectively posit the charter useless is serving its adjudicate. The Charter itself is a short enumeration with only very general invokements about the nature of the rights and libertys it provides. Under section 2(a) of the C. C. R. F all Canadian citizens are granted the right to freedom of conscience and religion. However, this can prese nt itself to be difficult in a multicultural society such as Canada, thus, religious beliefs and more importantly their sincerity can become difficult to asses.Also, religious beliefs whitethorn come into conflict with other fundamental rights. In the case of A. C. v. Manitoba (Director of minor and Family Services), a Jehovahs Witness couple refused blood transfusions for their 14-year-old young lady after doctors decided they were necessary. The child was made a ward of the state in order to administer blood transfusions. The Supreme Court of Canada had do determine wether the childs right to life or the produces religious freedom was of greater importance. The court ruled that this was a legitimate limitation on religious freedom.Furthermore, the freedom of the judiciary brach to set precedents equal in importance to the law, especially on the controversial issues mentioned in the C. C. R. F. , actually diminishes Canadas democratic nature. Because they are not elected, judge s do not have to be sensitive to the will of the electorate, thus close democracy. The Supreme Court has made a number of controversial decisions without the source of any legislative body or Canadian citizens. One of the most significant being R. v. Morgentaler, which effectively made abortion legal in Canada.The court ruled that The abortion provision in the Criminal write in code violated the right of women, under section 7 of the charter to protective covering of the Person. However, a 2010 Angus Reid poll found that only 40% of Canadians think abortion should be permitted. The Supreme Court of Canada fundamentally change the Canadian Criminal Code and clearly acted against the will of most Canadians. However, to command legislative supremacy, Section 33 was written into the C. C. R. F. Section 33 states that Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly . . that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate only a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15. Thus, should they chose the Federal of Provincial governments can suspend many of the rights guaranteed in the C. C. R. F. One recent example is when In March, 2000, the Alberta Legislature passed Bill 202, which revise the provinces Marriage Act to include an opposite-sex-only commentary of marriage as rise up as the notwithstanding clause in order to insulate the definition from Charter challenges.It was later overruled by the Supreme Court of Canada, however, under a different Supreme Court Bill 202 might have prevailed. In conclusion, the ambiguity of the C. C. R. F allow for different interpretations, the judiciary brach has the power to alter the Criminal Code without the consent of the legislative brach, and the legislative branch has the power to overrule most parts of the Charter under the principle of legislative supremacy. These principles effectively render the charter useless is serving its purpose of ensuring a fair and just country for Canadians.