When the New York Times published a feature encouraging its writers to admit mistakes, we were both intrigued and outraged. What a fantastic idea—why didn't we think of it?! That is precisely the spirit we aim to foster at The Hub. We understand that we will not always be correct, but we want to admit when we are wrong and figure out why. So, this week, we'll be stealing the Times' approach and publishing essays by our writers and staff about where we went wrong. Please appreciate our blunders.I began working in law at a time when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was at its peak. During the so-called Bedford trilogy (2013-2016), Section 7 of the Charter, which safeguards the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, was amended to include rights to safe injection sites, medically assisted dying, and brothels. The Court stated unequivocally that if a challenged law violated even one Canadian's rights, that was enough to declare the statute unconstitutional.So, as the features of the government's reaction to the pandemic became clear in late 2020 and early 2021—vaccine passports, longer lockdowns, mandates, and obligatory quarantines—I was cautiously optimistic about the feasibility of the most serious claims under the Charter.Of certainly, some restrictions on rights were reasonable in order to achieve acceptable public health goals. However, laws that had a direct and significant influence on people's fundamental liberty, even their dignity, could not be simply pushed under the rug of Section 1 indefinitely and justified in light of the government's self-proclaimed exigent circumstances. In particular, circumstances in which the government failed to provide compassionate exemptions for its most draconian measures should be accommodated or the statute overturned under the Charter.
I was mistaken. In summer 2021.
the Canadian Constitution Foundation, together with numerous individuals, filed an application against the government regarding its quarantine hotel regulations, which forced all returning passengers to isolate in an approved hotel for three days at a cost of approximately $2,000.2 The applicants, all of modest means, required to travel outside of Canada to care for terminally ill parents or, in one case, a wounded spouse.The cost alone was terrible for some people. However, the public health basis for the motels was inadequate.3 In spring 2021, the federal government's own expert advisory council advised that the hotel initiative be discontinued since it was unlikely to have an impact on the virus's spread. If the Charter's promises were to have any teeth, striking down the program appeared to be an obvious consequence. Instead, in his conclusion, the court summarily dismissed the claim, dismissing the issues highlighted as "decidedly first world, economic problems." He found no violation of any of the claimed Charter rights (including the right to movement and the right to life, liberty, and security of person).This stance of great reverence persisted throughout the pandemic. It was expected that governments, in response to popular pressure, would overshoot the target and implement regulations based on the precautionary principle. Throughout the pandemic, practically all health measures voted positively. It was up to judges to uphold the idea that, as Robert Nozick puts it, "Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may make them do."4
A constitution is intended to distinguish between.
acceptable and unacceptable state behavior, rather than to serve as a catch-all for varying interests. If a right is merely one norm or interest to be balanced against others, and the government's reasoning for its actions is consistently ignored, the Charter is nothing more than a lame duck showcase. Throughout the pandemic, I expected the Charter to serve as a strong deterrent to rights violations. I was mistaken.Finally, the Pope has apologized on Canadian territory for the Catholic role in the country's awful history of residential schools.Will the apologies be accepted? A buddy reminded me that forgiving is an act of will. Each residential school victim and family member will decide what this apology means to them. An APTN correspondent characterized one woman's reaction as follows: "The moment [the Pope] apologized, she felt all of her sadness and anger leave her body." If just for that, this visit is worthwhile.It is not my place to determine if the apology should be accepted. However, for some of those who reject it, one argument stands out: the Doctrine of Discovery. The problem arouses strong feelings. Just last week, demonstrators unfurled a banner reading "RESCIND THE DOCTRINE" during a papal Mass in Quebec.
To them, I am pleased to inform that the.
Church has done just that. There is no Catholic doctrine of discovery. The suggestion that one is part of present Catholic teaching is just false.So what is the Doctrine of Discovery? Things become a little complicated here. The term "Doctrine of Discovery" was first used by the United States Supreme Court in 1832. It defines a principle under which Europeans who first "found" "new" territories claimed dominion over them, regardless of whether Indigenous peoples already resided there. Today, the phrase is used more broadly. It is a catch-all term that includes terra nullius, the false belief that Europeans discovered unclaimed land.When the Doctrine of Discovery and the Catholic Church are spoken together, the most common connection is to a series of papal bulls issued during the Age of Discovery. What is a papal bull? First, it is not a doctrine in theological terms. There is a common misperception among Catholics that everything the Pope says is infallible and comes directly from God. Only in extremely particular instances is what the Pope declares to be infallible doctrine. Papal bulls are not one of such examples.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment