The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was made a part of our constitution in 1982. An objective reading of the actual words written in the Charter finds that on its face, it is a very good, instructive and even, Christian document. The Charter's very first words in Part 1 begin with:
At the outset therefore, it subjects to a biblical Judeo-Christian view, all the rights and freedoms that the Charter subsequently lays out. Although liberal secularists hold up the Charter as an inviolable sacred text when using it to defend immoral proposals, they conveniently ignore Part 1 of the Charter, which subjects their proposals to the supremacy of God and therefore, the laws He has laid down. Today, in a bizarre twist, liberal secularists even use the Charter to argue that God has no place in the laws of the land!
Even the general structure of how the Charter's writers laid out the rights and freedoms is instructive. It sets out a priority of rights and freedoms that intuitively makes sense, with the most important being at the start, and progressing to rights that are least important. These lesser rights flow from the higher order of rights.
It makes logical sense that if we first have these freedoms, then basic rights will flow. There can be no rights, unless we first have freedom.
Then it begins to lay out rights starting with democratic rights (e.g. right to vote), then mobility rights and finally, minority-language rights.
This priority of rights was denied in later years by activist judges who claimed there is no priority amongst the various sections in the Charter, but subsequently proceed to give section 15 (equality rights), greater priority than section 2 (freedom of conscience and religion).
On the one hand, activist judges, politicians and human rights tribunals deny the priority of freedoms and rights built into the document. On the other hand, they proceed to give the equality section priority every single time it clashes with freedom of religion. Their duplicity is seen by the fact that their actions do not match their preaching.
While the prima facie wording is clear enough, the Charter was a flawed document in that it lacked strong language to protect it from being re-interpreted in a dangerous way. Campaign Life Coalition's legal team actually examined the draft Charter. And on April 26, 1981, it placed an advertisement in the Catholic Register warning that if it were ratified in its present form, it would one day be hi-jacked and used to justify homosexual "marriage" and adoption of children by homosexuals.
Time has proven CLC right. In recent years, activist judges together with radical feminist and homosexualist lawyers have invented a practice called "reading in". By appealing to this abstract concept, they claim for themselves the right to "read into" the Charter whatever concepts they deem fit. For instance, section 15 of the Charter says:
"15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."
From 2003 to 2005, pro-homosexualist judges "read in" the words: "homosexuals have the right to marry" into section 15. Clearly what we had there was a case of irresponsible, biased judges who knew they could get away with inventing their own rules. What makes this even more bizarre is that the founders of the Charter knowing decided to leave 'sexual orientation' out of the list of protected categories in section 15.