Date Published:
Nov 1, 2009
Abstract:
This article examines whether the global trend of codifying
rights in entrenched bills accompanied by judicial review to broaden
rights protection is justified. By comparing the religious freedom regimes
in Canada and England, this article finds that although the Canadian
constitutional transformation in the late twentieth century contributed
to strengthening religious freedom, its overall effect has not
been broader than the protection afforded by its primordial English
statutory model. As such, the article challenges the ongoing legal debate
over judicially enforced constitutional systems of rights. Proponents
of such systems praise their extensive contribution to rights protection,
while opponents warn against their obstructive impact on the
separation of powers. This article concludes that both sides of the debate
overstate their arguments by incorrectly presupposing the actual
effects of a judicially enforced constitutional system of rights.
Notes:
Download PDFWebsite
