I'm not saying the judge is *right*, I'm saying I understand his logic.
Imagine a ban on, say, dogs. On the original grounds that everyone breeding dogs is breeding bad dogs who get lose and cause damage and are a general nuisance.
Owners of an abusive puppy mill that produces inbred, deformed, and poorly behaved dogs, who release feral packs of dogs into their neighbour's yards, sue on the grounds that they have a Charter right to breed and own dogs.
The judge looks at the law, and confirms that yes, there IS a Charter right to own and breed dogs, and that yes, this law DOES violate it.... but then looks at the section that defines when such violations are permitted, and declares that this law's violation of *those particular breeders'* rights is justified.
The court does not address the rights of people other than the plaintiffs, because that's not the job of the court. That question is not something that the court *can* rule on, legally.
(And before you get on about having a section that says when your rights are allowed to be abrogated: You've got that, too, you just phrase it differently. You've got a right to be free, and then they can put you in jail for murder. You've got a right to be proof against unreasonable search and seizure, and then a legal definition of "unreasonable". You've got a right to practice religion without interference, and yet illegal acts as part of a religious practice are not protected. You've got the same thing we do, just not as clearly delineated.)
(no subject)
Date: 2011-11-23 10:17 pm (UTC)Imagine a ban on, say, dogs. On the original grounds that everyone breeding dogs is breeding bad dogs who get lose and cause damage and are a general nuisance.
Owners of an abusive puppy mill that produces inbred, deformed, and poorly behaved dogs, who release feral packs of dogs into their neighbour's yards, sue on the grounds that they have a Charter right to breed and own dogs.
The judge looks at the law, and confirms that yes, there IS a Charter right to own and breed dogs, and that yes, this law DOES violate it.... but then looks at the section that defines when such violations are permitted, and declares that this law's violation of *those particular breeders'* rights is justified.
The court does not address the rights of people other than the plaintiffs, because that's not the job of the court. That question is not something that the court *can* rule on, legally.
(And before you get on about having a section that says when your rights are allowed to be abrogated: You've got that, too, you just phrase it differently. You've got a right to be free, and then they can put you in jail for murder. You've got a right to be proof against unreasonable search and seizure, and then a legal definition of "unreasonable". You've got a right to practice religion without interference, and yet illegal acts as part of a religious practice are not protected. You've got the same thing we do, just not as clearly delineated.)