Criticism and Support of The Canadian Bill of Rights
Criticism of the Bill of Rights has mostly centered on its limited effect. The ineffectiveness of the Bill of Rights in achieving its stated aim was the main reason that, two decades later, it was thought necessary to adopt a constitutionally-entrenched charter.
The Bill of Rights was (and is) limited in several ways.
First, it does not explicitly amend any conflicting statutes, either to remove conflicts or to insert explicit allowances for the statutes to operate notwithstanding the Bill of Rights. When called upon to apply conflicting laws, the courts typically sought to interpret a later statute as creating a minimal disturbance of earlier law. In practice this meant that the courts relied on Parliament to repeal or amend any laws contrary to the Bill of Rights. Disappointments for those who wanted courts to enforce rights vigorously included Bliss v. Canada and Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell. A notable exception was R. v. Drybones.
Second, since the Bill of Rights was not a constitutional amendment, there was some debate as to whether it was binding on future Parliaments. However, Section 3 requires the Minister of Justice to notify Parliament that a proposed law (nominally) denies protected rights. The intent of this provision was presumably to discourage Parliament from enacting such a law.
Third, because it is an ordinary statute, the authority of the Bill of Rights is limited to matters set out in Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 as being under the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada.
However, the 1960 Act does enumerate some rights (property rights for instance) not protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For this and other reasons, the 1960 Act is regularly referenced in court decisions today.
Read more about this topic: Canadian Bill Of Rights
Famous quotes containing the words bill of rights, criticism, support, canadian, bill and/or rights:
“Meantime the education of the general mind never stops. The reveries of the true and simple are prophetic. What the tender poetic youth dreams, and prays, and paints today, but shuns the ridicule of saying aloud, shall presently be the resolutions of public bodies, then shall be carried as grievance and bill of rights through conflict and war, and then shall be triumphant law and establishment for a hundred years, until it gives place, in turn, to new prayers and pictures.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)
“The aim of all commentary on art now should be to make works of art—and, by analogy, our own experience—more, rather than less, real to us. The function of criticism should be to show how it is what it is, even that it is what it is, rather than to show what it means.”
—Susan Sontag (b. 1933)
“I support all people on earth
who have bodies like and unlike my body,
skins and moles and old scars,
secret and public hair,
crooked toes. I support
those who have done nothing large.”
—Naomi Shihab Nye (b. 1952)
“We’re definite in Nova Scotia—’bout things like ships ... and fish, the best in the world.”
—John Rhodes Sturdy, Canadian screenwriter. Richard Rossen. Joyce Cartwright (Ella Raines)
“Chippenhook was the home of Judge Theophilus Harrington, known for his trenchant reply to an irate slave-owner in a runaway slave case. Judge Harrington declared that the owner’s claim to the slave was defective. The owner indignantly demanded to know what was lacking in his legally sound claim. The Judge exploded, ‘A bill of sale, sir, from God Almighty!’”
—For the State of Vermont, U.S. public relief program (1935-1943)
“Why hast thou lost the fresh blood in thy cheeks,
And given my treasures and my rights of thee
To thick-eyed musing and cursed melancholy?”
—William Shakespeare (1564–1616)