Hacker News Reader

Comment by jdsully | Hacker News Reader

The Canadian court subscribes to the living tree doctrine, so it doesn't really matter what his thoughts were at the time of signing.

View on HN

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.

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?

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

> the infringement can be "demonstrably justified"

I wonder how this will be framed.

Interesting, so are judges elected in Canada or appointed?

Appointed by the Federal Government.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com