the United States was slower, and did not flower until the pollution emitted from the House Un-American Activities Committee had evaporated. But blossom it did, with the American judiciary and government taking turns at the head of the rights parade until, more recently, partisan ideology has merged sufficiently with the judicial appointment process to seemingly make rights protection less of a preoccupation. This background helps us to understand that while constitutional mandates rarely change, governments, judges, and attitudes do. The ebbing and flowing, the critical scrutiny, and the inherent relational tensions, are inevitable. They are a function both of perspective and political will, each of which will likely vary with time and with the times. Why does this matter now, when we are supposed to be looking forward to millennial goals rather than backwards to romanticized history? It matters because we seem to be trapped at the moment in a conversational whirlpool about judges and constitutions and rights, a conversation in which loaded phrases are perpetually spun and important concepts are conveniently disregarded. The most basic of the central concepts we need back in the conversation is that democracy is not - and never was - just about the wishes of the majority. What pumps oxygen no less forcefully through vibrant democratic veins is the protection of rights, through courts, notwithstanding the wishes of the majority. It is this second, crucial aspect of democratic values which has been submerged by the swirling discourse. Which brings us to Canada. I think