It basically allows for obvious exceptions to be dealt with on a principled basis rather than case by case. So rather than just saying that "child pornography isn't expression", we can say sure it is, but protecting children from exploitation and harm is a pressing and substantial objective of government in a free and democratic society and so making it illegal is a reasonable limit on your ability to express yourself in that way. And there is a clearly defined test for judges to follow to get to that result.
Literally every right in the Charter has a bunch of law on how to interpret it, what it means and where the boundaries are, section 1 is no different. Judges decide all of this stuff regardless. It's a MASSIVELY better way of doing things than how the USA does it.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
|