An Econoclectic Perspective
I'll plead ignorance to Quebec's charter of human rights and I haven't read the complete opinion, so I may be way off the mark. That said, this quote "Does that mean the Supreme Court of Canada gets to decide how many scarce resources must be devoted to law enforcement in Canada" made me think that the proper analogy might be in a court upholding the right to self-defense (which I assume a Canadian court would do). There's no requirement in either case that gubmint devote more resources to the issue, merely an assertion that people have the fundamental right to defend their own lives, independent of government assistance, whether it's from a physical attack or a disease.
The best post I've seen on the subject so far -- if we only concern ourselves with the ends, the means will weaken us.
The judges _had_ to make a decision on the case before them -- on the basis of whatever idiotic legislation was around. To say ,'Wait for Parliament' is no answer to the _specific_ case in front of them. Judges as usual are blamed for the legislation they have to work under. Their decisions are immediately visible; the legislation which brings the cases to them & which gives them specific scope -- is invisible. Cases do not come with labels tied round their necks: 'We are common-law'; 'We are statutory'.
Commenting by HaloScan
