You should probably educate yourself about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has so far held up far better than the Amendments. Its language is far more specific and precise, and the document itself provides justification and context for its requirements... Unlike the amendments, which have largely been re-interpreted and gutted by partisan judges into absurdity.

Do the 13th, or the 14th, or the 4th amendment mean anything these days?

▲

petcat 4 hours ago | parent [-]

We'll need to see some examples of this. Especially given the topic at hand.

▲

vkou 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Examples of what? An insurrectionist assuming the office of president? SCOTUS approving gerrymandering aimed at suppressing minority votes? Armed, masked thugs with a license to kill asking for your papers when you walk the street? Trump running for a third term in office? Immigrants arrested, held without trial, and deported without due process or access to a lawyer?

We have lots of examples of that. Are there lots of examples in Canada of basic charter rights being violated in such a manner? Or do you dispute that the text of the charter is unclear?

If it's the latter, you're free to read it for yourself. Is there a lot in https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-12.html#h-44 that you find unclear?

▲

AlexandrB 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Are there lots of examples in Canada of basic charter rights being violated in such a manner?

Plenty, it's just usually against unpopular targets. The most notable recent one being the trucker protest[1]. And what were the consequences for those in charge for this charter violation? I believe the answer is "nothing".

So what we have in Canada is a charter that theoretically protects citizens, but in practice can be violated by the government with impunity.

[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-federal-cou...

	▲	vkou 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don't understand a bit of your complaint. As you yourself described, the system worked exactly as intended. The government does something illegal, the courts mull over it, and decide that it was, in fact, illegal. The government's currently not doing it. Surely you can see a difference between an one-off that after the fact was found to be illegal, and hasn't been repeated, versus a pattern of the courts making batshit insane rulings? Since you think that the truckers had to right to do what they did... If the courts ruled against them, would you have taken that as evidence for the quality of the charter, and the legal system that stands behind it? Or is this a tails I win, heads you lose situation? No piece of paper can ever prevent a government from doing something illegal, or from passing an illegal law. The courts are only ever an after-the-fact remedy. In the US, meanwhile, that remedy doesn't even work.