The form
of argument in this presentation has emphasized several specific points: first, that the Asian
values argument, as a challenge to the implementation
of constitutional democracy, is exaggerated and fails to account for the richness
of values discourse in the East Asian region - local
values do not provide a justification for harsh authoritarian practices; second, that the cultural prerequisites arguments fail because they ignore the discursive processes for
value development and they are tautological, excessively deterministic and ignore the importance
of human agency it, therefore, makes little sense to take an entry test for
constitutional democracy; third, the difficulties
of importing Western communitarian ideas into an East Asian authoritarian environment without adequate liberal
constitutional safeguards; fourth, the positive role
of constitutionalism in constructing empowering conversations in modern democratic development and as a venue for
values discourse; fifth, the importance, especially in a cross-cultural context,
of indigenization
of constitutionalism through local institutional embodiment; and sixth, the
value of extending research focused on the positive engendering or enabling function
of constitutionalism to the developmental context in general and East Asia in particular.
In this respect, I believe it can only be commended that the Court attributes a meaningful role to the principles
of democracy and the rule
of law — principles which, after all, rank amongst the EU's founding
constitutional values as expressed in Article 2 TEU.
The legal question that Mr. Charkaoui's
Constitutional challenge presented was how the government should balance its responsibility to protect the safety of its citizens and to remain accountable to constitutional values and democracy.3 The security certificate provisions in the IRPA tried to balance these issues by giving the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness the authority to issue «security certificates» to detain and deport non-citizens deemed to be a danger to
Constitutional challenge presented was how the government should balance its responsibility to protect the safety
of its citizens and to remain accountable to
constitutional values and democracy.3 The security certificate provisions in the IRPA tried to balance these issues by giving the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness the authority to issue «security certificates» to detain and deport non-citizens deemed to be a danger to
constitutional values and
democracy.3 The security certificate provisions in the IRPA tried to balance these issues by giving the Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister
of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness the authority to issue «security certificates» to detain and deport non-citizens deemed to be a danger to public safety.