To the editor:

Gerald Wright's opinion piece [October 5] substantially misrepresents
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Wright claims that the Charter "requires the courts to throw out a good
law, which could benefit millions of people, if it can be shown to have
a negative effect on even two or three people".  This is simply false.
The Charter protects fundamental freedoms such as freedom of expression
and freedom of religion.  Only laws violating these fundamental freedoms
can be overturned on Charter grounds.  

Furthermore, it is false, as Wright implies, that there is no legislative
remedy for bad court decisions.  Mr. Wright need only look at section
33 of the Charter, which contains the "notwithstanding" clause.

Let's try a thought experiment.  Suppose Parliament, finding Gerald
Wright's opinion pieces egregious, passed a law condemning him to
prison.  I think you could make a good case that such a law would
indeed benefit the suffering readership of the K-W Record.  Its effect,
however, would be rather disastrous for Mr. Wright individually.  I
wonder if Mr. Wright would then be so quick to pooh-pooh the Charter's
legal protections for individual rights.

Finally, I would have expected that as a former journalist for the Record,
Mr. Wright would understand the difference between "peon" and "paean".  
Mark me down as one peon who believes Mr. Wright's piece deserves no
paeans.


Jeffrey Shallit
Kitchener