MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077417931 · doi:10.1353/cpp.2011.0015

The Politics of the Charter: The Illusive Promise of Constitutional Rights (review)

2011· article· en· W2077417931 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Dennis J Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterLawPoliticsPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The Politics of the Charter: The Illusive Promise of Constitutional Rights Dennis Baker The Politics of the Charter: The Illusive Promise of Constitutional Rights by Andrew Petter. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010, 256 pp. Cloth $65.00, paper $29.95. It is commonplace to attribute criticism of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to an author’s displeasure with particular judicial outcomes; those on the political right, it is sometimes said, simply object to the progressive decisions made by the Supreme Court of Canada. Andrew Petter’s recent collection of essays cannot be so carelessly pigeonholed since it offers a stinging critique of the Charter that is largely process-based and from the left. Certainly Petter’s left-wing credentials cannot be doubted: his opening introduction includes a wistful reminiscence of boyhood summers spent at CCF picnics listening to Tommy Douglas and Robert Strachan. Petter’s critique of the Charter is not ideological—at least not in the programmatic sense—and he does not criticize the Court for failing to hew to a strictly leftist agenda. Rather, like some of the best scholarship on the Charter (Knopff and Morton 1992; Manfredi 2001), Petter is able to separate his political preferences from his institutional arguments convincingly. As someone who has been a legal scholar, partisan insider, and cabinet minister, Petter is ideally placed to judge the Charter’s impact on Canadian democracy. His understanding that the appropriate venue for political change is the legislature, not the courtroom, was clearly informed by his early experience as Saskatchewan premier Alan Blakeney’s speechwriter during the Patriation saga of the early 1980s. During his tussle with Trudeau, Blakeney argued that no social democrat “should voluntarily hand power from the political forum, where the policies of the majority find expression, to the judicial forum” (p. 6). Activists of Blakeney’s era typically viewed judges as elderly naysayers, largely out-of-step with popular opinion, and generally hostile to left-wing politics (something clearly evident when labour statutes were before the bench). Given this [End Page 133] background, why would any one expect judges to be the new vanguard of social justice? However, as Petter notes, the “alluring realm of rights” offered too tempting an escape from the “sordid world of politics” (p. 99); instead of protracted and messy fights to win the opinions of the public and their representatives, the judicial process could engender superior policies in a reasoned and principled fashion. While this vision would capture the imagination of many of his contemporaries, Petter saw the early Charter decisions of the Court as vividly demonstrating that the promise of constitutional rights—to deliver us from politics—was illusory and ultimately detrimental to our practice of self-government. The Politics of the Charter tracks Petter’s views over three decades, and the format of the book—a collection of previously published essays—carries both obvious drawbacks and unexpected benefits. The first half of the book consists of essays that are now very dated. For those keen on jurisprudential minutia, reading them can be an enjoyable trip down memory lane. Venerable “con law” classics like BC Motor Vehicles and Dolphin Delivery—case names that stand now as place-holders for the major premises and axioms they introduced—are subjected to in-depth and sustained critical scrutiny here. For those too young to remember them and for those who have forgotten the details, Petter’s close analysis of each case reveals how these decisions were hardly inevitable and, moreover, suggests that the Court got them wrong. Despite the tantalizing glimpse of a constitutional world lost, the general readership may find this historical expedition somewhat tedious and, more troublingly, they might be left confused about the current state of constitutional law (to his credit, Petter has updated the cases through endnotes in each chapter). The upside of the collected format is that one can easily trace the evolution of Petter’s thinking—itself a rewarding journey since Petter is such a thoughtful and open-minded observer. In short, the Younger Petter’s seeds of concern about the direction of early Charter jurisprudence grow into the Elder Petter’s skepticism of the Court’s place in...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207