From Chris Seatliff re the Supreme Court.

Thanks to Doug McManaman for his excellent article on "The Charter and the Supremacy of God" in the December issue.

He makes the point that Canadian "Supreme Court decisions ... have been interpreted ... in the context of post-modern nihilism." However, as he also says in the article, post-modernism recognizes no absolute and universal truth, no natural moral law, and no permanent or universal standards for the validity and legality of laws.

Canada's Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin seems, however, to have a superior insight into such universal "truths" and moral laws. The following is quoted from the December 5, 2005 National Post: "Even in countries that have written bills of rights enshrined in their constitutions, such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Judge McLachlin said unwritten principles have a role for several reasons. Societal values change over time, and the constitution document can be incomplete or open to interpretation." She added, "Judges should feel 'emboldened' to trump the written word of the Constitution when protecting fundamental, unwritten principles and rights." She uses the example of no one being subject to imprisonment without trial as a "universal truth." However, it is equally plausible that, regardless of Canadians' expressed will, she might feel empowered in the future to proclaim edicts about the isolation of religion from public discourse, gay "marriage," abortion, or euthanasia, all as "universal truths."

So Canada's predicament is even worse than that which Mr. McManaman portrays. Not only has the sub-text of the Canadian Charter of Rights been disconnected by this Court from the pre-amble that acknowledges the supremacy of God, but these written rights can be twisted or even trumped "even in the face of clearly enacted laws or hostile public opinion" based on a subjective set of "unwritten universal truths" that even Justice McLachlin probably won't know for sure until she makes them up.

While we must continue to battle against immoral legislation at the legal and political levels, it seems to me equally important that Canadians demand much more open vetting of Supreme Court Justice nominees to prevent dangerous ideologues like Ms. McLachlin being appointed in the future by a handful of ruling party insiders.

Oakville, ON

Editor: It would also seem necessary to remove from the Charter's Section 16, the equality clause, the right of judges to read their own opinion into Canadian law. See also other related articles in this issue.