The nature of the charter here in Canada means that these two things - individual rights and freedoms vs. societal needs - are constantly weighed against each other on a case-by-case basis. Personally, I strongly support that approach, but it's also pointless for discussing things on an abstract, high-level perspective like this, because it's the details of that individual case that are important: what is the personal right and how does it relate to the emergency, and how significant are the effects of the emergency?
And I do trust our courts to exercise more judicial independence in charter rights than, for example, our neighbours to the south. I can't point to a charter rights case where I think the courts absolutely got it wrong, but I can point to a lot where the courts got it right (and a lot of cases where I'm just glad I'm not the one who has to navigate a really difficult balance). But that doesn't mean we should relax and just assume that we're always in good hands. I think any effective attack on democracy in Canada would begin with court appointments, and so far I don't think we know if our institutions can effectively safeguard against that.
So yeah, in summary I do think the government should have the power to limit personal freedoms for the common good, both in times of emergency or not, but those restrictions still need to be tested in the courts. Personally I don't have a problem with someone 'testing' pandemic restrictions in the courts (even if I strongly disagree with their claims) as giving the courts an opportunity to weigh in on that balance is not a bad thing.
|