Quote:
Originally Posted by AR_Six
You guess wrong. I am a lawyer but not a criminal lawyer. I have a particular hobbyist's interest in s.8 though.
Well, no, it either is or isn't unconsitutional as it's enacted. If law X is determined to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the decision doesn't transform the law into an unconstitutional one - it was that way all along, the Court has just confirmed that it is so. Practically speaking it may be enforced until struck down, but from a legal philosophy standpoint the courts are merely applying the law.
And you've assumed incorrectly - it's not that it goes against my "personal beliefs". It goes against my view of our charter rights, particularly the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. The point is that once that principle is engaged, it's not about whether you like texting and driving or whether one individual is guilty or not - it's about our civil rights and whether this sort of legislation is acceptable in Canada in light of the principles we've codified.
This is in a sense the same kind of argument I always hear from people when a story gets in the paper about some gangster or drug dealer who's clearly committed the crime he was charged with but has been acquitted as a result of evidence being excluded. People start talking about how this is proof the system is broken. No, it's proof that the system is working.
|
You're arguing semantics, personal belief and your view are essentially the same thing, you're viewing something with your own bias. If law X is enacted and found to be compliant with the charter it's constitutional and it was all along, my point is no one knows until the judiciary rules. The law will be applied practically as the government is the only body entitled to enact legislation, the court interprets it.
I understand that your view is that cell phones should not be seized as you feel that is a violation of your charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure. My point is that to call it "unconstitutional" is a pretty big assumption as it hasn't been deemed so yet. Agree with it or not, it's up to the courts to decide.