Legislating under the Charter explores how governments and Parliament justify limitations on rights when advancing laws that raise rights concerns or when responding to judicial decisions under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Through an analysis of legislation concerning criminal justice policy, the approval of new safe consumption sites, sex work, and medical aid in dying, the book provides a detailed analysis of the extent and nature of parliamentary deliberation about rights, the extent to which government initiatives are properly scrutinized, and the broader institutional relationships under the Charter. The authors draw from a host of qualitative data, including research interviews and examination of judicial decisions, various bills under study, Hansard debates from the floor of the House of Commons, committee and Senate scrutiny of legislation, bureaucratic advice and Charter statements by the department of justice, and news media coverage. The book offers a set of concrete reform proposals to improve the transparency and accountability of executive and bureaucratic vetting processes, and to strengthen the role of Parliament in upholding constitutional values and holding the government to account. In doing so, Legislating under the Charter contributes to the broader comparative scholarship on models of judicial review, morality policy, policy change, and constitutionalism.

Deliberative democracy - whereby people debate competing ideas before agreeing upon political action - must rest on its capacity to include all points of view. But how does this inclusive framework engage with activism that occurs in opposition to deliberative systems themselves? Through the examples of ACT UP, Black Lives Matter, and other contemporary activist movements, Activism, Inclusion, and the Challenges of Deliberative Democracy explores the systemic oppression that prevents activists from participating in deliberative systems as equals. Anna Drake concludes that only by addressing activism separately and on its own terms can we acknowledge its distinct democratic contribution.

Legislating under the Charter explores how governments and Parliament justify limitations on rights when advancing laws that raise rights concerns or when responding to judicial decisions under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Through an analysis of legislation concerning criminal justice policy, the approval of new safe consumption sites, sex work, and medical aid in dying, the book provides a detailed analysis of the extent and nature of parliamentary deliberation about rights, the extent to which government initiatives are properly scrutinized, and the broader institutional relationships under the Charter. The authors draw from a host of qualitative data, including research interviews and examination of judicial decisions, various bills under study, Hansard debates from the floor of the House of Commons, committee and Senate scrutiny of legislation, bureaucratic advice and Charter statements by the department of justice, and news media coverage. The book offers a set of concrete reform proposals to improve the transparency and accountability of executive and bureaucratic vetting processes, and to strengthen the role of Parliament in upholding constitutional values and holding the government to account. In doing so, Legislating under the Charter contributes to the broader comparative scholarship on models of judicial review, morality policy, policy change, and constitutionalism.

Deliberative democracy - whereby people debate competing ideas before agreeing upon political action - must rest on its capacity to include all points of view. But how does this inclusive framework engage with activism that occurs in opposition to deliberative systems themselves? Through the examples of ACT UP, Black Lives Matter, and other contemporary activist movements, Activism, Inclusion, and the Challenges of Deliberative Democracy explores the systemic oppression that prevents activists from participating in deliberative systems as equals. Anna Drake concludes that only by addressing activism separately and on its own terms can we acknowledge its distinct democratic contribution.