Charter Rights considered acceptable collateral damage? Yes, this pertains to the UK, but with International Law now taking precedent over US Law, it is on topic.

In the commentary explaining their final ruling on "RJR-MacDonald v. AGC [1995 ] 3 S.C.R. 199", our Supreme Court Justices articulate some very disturbing rationalizations for their decision in this case. If these rationalizations are already entrenched or become entrenched as 'precedent', there may be no hope left for preventing total legislative micromanagement of every aspect of our lives.


Supreme Court ruling & commentary:

The potential impact of this ruling on the tobacco companies and their ability to advertise their products is of no consequence to me personally. Frankly, who cares about that? What is of concern to me are general principles articulated in this ruling and the potential of those principles to reduce the Charter of Rights to a meaningless 'paper tiger'.

Here are the passages containing an ideological formula that ought to send icebergs of chill running up and down your spine:

"Where ... legislation is directed at changing human behaviour, ... the causal relationship may not be scientifically measurable. In such cases, this Court has been prepared to find a causal connection between the infringement and benefit sought on the basis of reason or logic, without insisting on direct proof of a relationship between the infringing measure and the legislative objective"

To begin with, when and how did "changing human behavior" become a legitimate objective of legislation?

The purpose of criminal law is to prohibit the intentional (or negligent) inflicting of harm upon others and to provide punishment for transgressors. The purpose of civil law is to govern relationships between individuals not involving criminal conduct, such as the fulfillment of contracts, the payment of bills, business arrangements, and similar matters. "Changing human behavior" is an objective and component of social marketing, (a social engineering tactic employed by the Health Promotion industry), which is concerned with manipulating people's attitudes and behavior. Manipulating attitudes and behavior is not a legitimate objective for legislation. Using legislation as a form of social marketing would be an appalling, trivializing, abuse and misuse of the power we have vested our elected representatives with.

In plainer language, the passage cited above is talking about the relationship between the infringement of a Charter Right, which may be inherent in a piece of legislation, and the "benefit" sought by passing that legislation into law. "Causal connection" means - how do we know that infringing upon a Right, such as suppressing Freedom of Expression, will achieve the desired objective (the "benefit") of the legislation? In this passage, the Justices are saying that it's "ok" for there to be no direct proof of a causal connection, that it's "ok" for there to be no scientifically measurable relationship between the suppression of a Charter Right (inherent to the legislation in question) and the desired outcome of the law! The Justices are saying that they accept "common sense" - reason and logic - intuitions of a relationship between a given law and it's desired outcome. OMG! That's the same type of rationalization that allowed laws like forced sterilization of the mentally challenged to over-ride the rights & freedoms guarantees in various countries' constitutions. The causal relationship between maiming certain people and depriving them of their reproductive capabilities, against their will, and "genetic improvement of the human race" made logical, reasonable sense to the Healthist technocrats of those times - but in reality those people turned out to be deluded, bigots, and totally wrong!

"Deference may be appropriate in assessing whether the requirement of rational connection is made out. Effective answers to complex social problems, such as tobacco consumption, may not be simple or evident. There may be room for debate about what will work and what will not, and the outcome may not be scientifically measurable. Parliament’s decision as to what means to adopt should be accorded considerable deference in such cases."

In this passage, the Justices toss their own minimal requirement for evidence of a connection - between the violating of Charter Rights inherent to some piece of legislation and the desired outcome of the law - out the window. "Deference may be appropriate in assessing whether the requirement of rational connection is made out" - in other words, it's ok if there isn't even a clearly discernible rational/logical connection between the suppressing of a Right and the desired outcome of a law...if the intent of the law is to "address complex social problems".

"There may be room for debate...", "the outcome may not be scientifically measurable", "Parliament's decisions ...should be accorded considerable deference..."

The Justices seem to be saying that when a law is intended to "address complex social problems" - anything goes! Governments can & should shoot blindly in the dark, cast vast and intrusive nets of regulation that may or may not have any discernible connection to the social problem in question, trampling over Charter Rights - who knows, they might get lucky and pass a law that actually has a measurable impact on the targeted problem. But its "ok" to violate Charter Rights in stacks of laws that never do have a measurable impact - because "effective answers to complex social problems...may not be simple or evident".

Apparently, our Supreme Court Justices are willing to accept and endorse legislation that clearly violates our Charter Rights, for which there exists no direct proof that the measure(s) in the legislation are causally connected to the intended outcome, and from which there may never be scientifically measurable impact on the issue they are intended to address - so long as such legislation is about "complex social issues".

Is there anything in our lives today that doesn't involve complex social issues? According to the Population Health & Health Promotion industries - the people who are engaged in lobbying governments for a never-ending stream of intrusive legislations micromanaging every aspect of our lives - all problems in our society constitute complex, inter-related social issues. The above quoted passages from the Supreme Court ruling, and the principles described within them, appear to be rationalizations for allowing social engineering technocrats to draft and pass any & all laws and regulations that they might possibly concoct - regardless of the Charter Rights violations they may contain.

__________________
Maryetta