e x THE CANADIAN TS AND FREEDOMS’ ‘s the Charter stir up serious controversy? il Quebec (though they obviously must abide by it). (Through it is important to note that a Montreal- based Centre for Research and Information on Canada study from 2002 found that the Charter was viewed well in all provinces—with the highest approval rating [91 percent] for the laws coming out of Quebec.) THE “NUCLEAR OPTION” AND OTHER ISSUES While the poll for Policy Options mentions that the majority of Canadians—especially the 18 to 29 age group—are pleased with the Charter and believe it achieves many of the goals it sets out, there are some who feel the Charter has its fair share of issues. For example, the highly controversial notwithstanding clause. The clause (also known as Section 33) allows “federal, provincial, or territorial governments” to ignore specific Charter rights (and these bypasses are subject to renewal after five years). Essential to consider is the fact that the Pokey Options poll found that nearly half of Canadians were not aware of the notwithstanding clause. The notwithstanding clause (the “nuclear option’) has been used to impede the freedom of religion. While this “override” clause has never been used by the federal government, in 2019, Quebec enacted Section 33 after banning the wearing of religious garments by public service employees (e.g. teachers). ‘This law would have been challenged with the Charter, but the notwithstanding clause prevented such an action—and this sparked many protests. Section 33 also allowed Ralph Klein’s Progressive Conservative government to rule against gay marriage in Alberta (although the federal government later overrode that decision). The Charter faces criticism also critiqued for offermg such vague language. This criticism has been the driving force for the study “The Charter in the Supreme Court of Canada: The Importance of Which Judges Hear an Appeal” which investigated if judges have the tendency to rule inconsistently in court cases concerning the Charter, While it was originally claimed by the government that 75 percent of Charter-related court cases were unanimously decided, the study found that in reality, only 48.8 percent of cases were resolved with such unified agreement on the interpretation of the Charter. Furthermore, the study emphasizes that some judges are seen as social justice warriors that use this Charter law to push through policy change undemocratically. While the Charter cases have brought about positive changes to the law—like the amendment to gay marriage—there are still many questions around the problems that can arise from allowing judges so much power through the room for interpretation. The vagueness allows judges to bypass elected bodies like Parliament and the legislatures when making such large modifications through the law. Other notable criticisms target the fact that it gives too many rights to criminals (e.g, the nght to vote), the rights given to the incarcerated made the justice system slower and added great expenses, and that Canadians are “losing rights to the rule of minority groups” according to the previously mentioned Pokey Options poll. USING THE CHARTER TO CHALLENGE THE STATE The Charter is constantly referenced in court, and there are many significant cases that have completely changed Canadian law through the use of the document. Should Sikhs be able to carry a religious symbol that looks like a dagger? When a young Sikh boy named Gurbaj Singh Multani carried his kirpan to school, he was met with punishment from his educators because of the sharp object. The ruling in the case solidified the definition of freedom of religion. On the opposite end of the religious freedom spectrum, a corner store was fined in 1985 for being open on Sundays 6C and not observing the Christian “day of rest.” The owner of the business won the case as the Supreme Court ruled that the punishment unfairly enforced the store owner to follow one specific religion. And who could forget M v H: the 1999 case that removed discrimination against same-sex couples in the law (and similarly the pro- choice abortion laws passed in R v Morgentaler). Our Charter also comes with specific exemptions, and some significant cases have highlighted that. In the case of R v Kapp, John Kapp and a group of commercial fishers looked to challenge the government for enforcing rules that only allowed native fishers access to specific areas at certain times. The defendant stated that by pushing out those that were not indigenous from fishing, the government was discriminating against the fishers on the basis of their race. Yet the Charter already outlines the nuance considered in this case; the Supreme Court reasoned that because Indigenous people are historically discrummated against, helpful programs created in their favour furthers an mclusive, equal, and just society. The Charter continues to change as Canadian society and values change; seeing how the Charter has been modified twice since its 1982 enactment, it will likely see many more alterations in the future. It seems that the public’s knowledge about the controversial parts of the bill could be improved—and seeing how the younger generation is paying it special attention, perhaps there will be more outcry for reform the parts that are heavily criticized. However, the public could also find itself more aligned with the Charter’s values as time passes. Guesses about the future aside, places around the world like South Africa and New Zealand have looked to the Charter of Eights and Freedoms as a defining standard for rights. Even with all critiques considered Canadians should still appreciate the value of the freedoms granted in our Charter. The vagueness allows judges to bypass elected bodies like Parliament and the legislatures when making such large modifications through the law.