I read a couple of the decisions from challenges to the rules that I thought were overreaching (for example: the hotel quarantine requirement even for vaccinated Canadians), and the bar held by the judges seemed incredibly low — merely that it was “necessary” for public health. No data needed, the mere assertion is enough.
I feel like in the US, states, the federal government and the judiciary tend to be more adversarial and this can be quite useful.
If you’re hep on freedom, tool on up the road to Quebec and protest their legalized discrimination based on language, religion and probably gender. Laws that violate their own charter passed via the notwithstanding clause. This is an anti Trudeau protest by the 35% of the population that is right wing. With some “get the Governor General to disband the government” throw in. Some folks just hate being told what to do.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. I’m not in favor of the Quebec language laws or more recent laws regarding religious symbols. However, I’m not sure how whataboutism helps.
Indeed, and there is ample case law from the Supreme Court of Canada that provides guidance to judges as to how to apply that section of the Charter.
R v. Oakes was one of the seminal cases in that regard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Oakes