LETTERS .
Weak constitution
Sir: I understand from The Spectator that in the United Kingdom there is at present a great deal of huffing and puffing about Charter 88, this to be presumably a docu- ment to protect people's rights: in fact, a `written' constitution.
I would like to suggest to those in- terested that they be very careful how they engage in such an exercise. In Canada we have a Charter of Rights, a Bill of Rights, a written Constitution and a Supreme Court. This, one would think, would be enough to protect all rights imaginable. Not so.
In Canada's language squabble the Sup- reme Court of Canada struck down Quebec Bill 101 (a language law restricting the use of English) as unconstitutional. The government of Quebec, exercising its power granted by the 'notwithstanding' clause, promptly set Bill 101 back up on its feet, so a law that the Supreme Court condemned as unlawful is still law. So much for our Charter of Rights, our Bill of Rights, our Constitution, and our Supreme Court.
This situation where we have all these protective documents and yet government can set them at naught is a farce, explicable only because that is the way we do things in Canada. It is enough to make a cat laugh, unless of course it's a Canadian cat.
David L. Parker
General Delivery, Coldwater, Ontario, LOK 1E0, Canada
Previous page
