University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies Legacy Theses 1997 Implied constitutional rights and the growth of judicial activism Bottomley, Samuel A. Bottomley, S. A. (1997). Implied constitutional rights and the growth of judicial activism (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/22552 http://hdl.handle.net/1880/26943 master thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Implied Constitutional Rights and the Growth of Judicial Activism by Samuel A Bottomley A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE CALGARY, ALBERTA AUGUST, 1997 Q Samuel A. Bottomley 1997 National Library Bibliothéque nationale 1*1 of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington Onawa ON K1A ON4 ûttawa ON KI A ON4 -da Canada The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microfonn, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfichelfilm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or othenvise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. ABSTRACT What accounts for the giobal spread of judiciai activism? According to a legalist/institutional exphnation, judicial activism is mandated by entrenched constitutionai documents, and the spread of activism is thus explained by the spread of this kind of constitutionalism. A rival explanation, based on legal realism, holds that judicial activism is rnainly a fbnction of judicial inclination or judiciai culture, not constitutional documents. This study is grounded in the second perspective. In other words, it denies the legaiist explanation for judicial activism, at least in its more simplistic versions. Does it foilow fiom the obvious fact of judiçial discretion, howwer, that inclination and culture are the sole explanatory variables? Are the uisights of neoinstitutionalism of no relevance to the understanding of judiciai behaviour? Or, despite ttie great weight of judicial culture, does institutional context continue to exercise a si@cant infIuence? In short, in the area ofjudicial behaviour, 'do institutions matter'? The phenornenon of implied biiis of rights provides an interesting context in which to explore this question. Ifjudiciai inclination and culture is everything, one wouId expect judges to invent the grounds for constitutiondiy based activism where they do not explicitly exist. That such inventions exist - in the fonn of implied bill of rights - is itself eloquent testimony to the explanatory power of judicid incIination. But this knot the whole story. Having established an implied bill of rights, do judges use it as cornprehensively and aggressively as they would an explicitly entrenched constitutional document. If not, then claims that constitutional entrenchment explains judicid activism, while ofien used by judges in exaggerated ways, retain some force. 1 am indebted to many people for their help throughout the completion of this thesis. First, 1 wodd iike to thank the politicaI science office staff at the University of Calgary: Carolyn Andres, Judi Poweli, Valerie Snowdon, and espeçiaiiy Eiia Wensel were dl very helpfid and always full of encouragement. Further appreciation goes out to Drs. Archer, Gibbins, Harasymiw and Peri, who saw me through the coursework component of this degree. Thanks also to Dr. Morton for his insight and for aiiowing me to borrow numerous books and articles fiom his personal coiiection. I mus? also express my gratitude to a number of my feUow graduate students - Vince Lauerman, Butch Kamena, Nancy Bleses, Mebs Kanji, KeWi Muxlow, David Greener, Fred Wd, and especially Ian Brodie - t hanks for everything . Most of alI, 1 wodd like to thank Dr. Rainer Knopff 1 can say with cornplete sincerity that 1 codd not have had a better supervisor. This thesis benefited greatiy fiom his wisdom, guidance and patience. It was a pleasure working with hirn. To my parents, for al1 thezr encouragement. TABLE OF CONTENTS .. Approval Page........................................................................................................... .LI ..* Abstract .................................................................................................................... .III Achowiedgment ....................................................................................................... iv . - Dedication................................................................................................................. .v Table of Contents.................................................................................................... ..vi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.............................................................................. .1 CHAPTER 2: THE LEGALISTIINSTITUTIONAL EXPLANATION.................... .ll Explainhg Charter Activism: An Example of Legalist Justification............... -12 The U.S. Example........................................................................................ -16 The Swedish Example.................................................................................. .20 The Canadian Example................................................................................. -23 Judiciai Inclination or Institutionai Context?................................................. .27 CHAPTER 3: THE CANADIAN IMPLIED BILL OF RIGHTS.............................. .29 The Implied Bill of Rights in the Pre-war Era - 17ie Alberta Press Case.. ... .3O The Implied Bill of Rights and Judicial Activism in the 1950s........................ 38 Rex W. Hess. ...................................................................................... -39 The Quebec Cases.. .......................................................................... .4 1 Szmur v. Quebec................................................................. .42 Switnnan v. Elbling.............................................................. -46 A Period of Restra.int 1960-1982 ................................................................... 5( Oil Chernicd and Atmzc Workers v . Imperial Ozl ............................. 51 Dupond v. Mmesi.. ......................................................................... 53 Judiciai Inclination or Institutional Context?.................................................. 58 CHAPTER 4: THE ISR4ELI DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.................. 61 A Bnef Period of Judiciai Restraint ............................................................... 65 A Period of Experimentation......................................................................... 68 Kol Ha 'am....................................................................................... -69 Ywdor............................................................................................... 74 The Recent Perioà of Judicial Activisrn......................................................... 77 Judicial Inclination or Institutional Context?................................................. -81 CHAPTER 5: WLYING RIGHTS IN THE FRENCH CONSTITUTION........... -84 The Constitutionai Council........................................................................... 85 Constitutionalking the PreambIe: The Decision of July 16, 197 1 ................... 88 Fundamental Principles Recognized by the Laws of the Republic .................. 93 The Decision of Juiy 16, 197 1 ........................................................... -93 The Decision of January 12, 1977 ...................................................... 95 The Decision of December 29, 1983 ..................................................96 The Decision of January 19-20, 198 1 ................................................. 98 The Dedaration of the Rights of Man .......................................................... 101 The Decision of December 1 8, 1973 ................................................ 101 The Decision of July 23. 1975 ........................................................... 102 The Nationaikations Case ................................................................. 102 The Collectivist Provisions of the 1946 Preamble .......................................... lû4 Judicial Inclination or Institutional Context?................................................. 107 CHAPTER 6: THE AUSTR4LIAN WLIED BILL OF RIGHTS ........................ 110 Implications in the Constitution Prior to The Free Speech Cases .................. 111 The Free Speech Cases