THE ruling Conservatives in Canada never much liked the charter of rights and freedoms embedded in the constitution by a Liberal government in 1982. In opposition they feared that making the charter part of the constitution would undermine the supremacy of parliament; courts would be able to strike down laws as unconstitutional if they violated charter rights. In power, they have seen cherished bits of their legislative agenda suffer that very fate. The latest setback came on July 4th with a federal-court ruling that the government’s cuts to health care for refugees made in 2012 represented “cruel and unusual treatment”, specifically prohibited under the charter. In his tersely worded response, Chris Alexander, the immigration minister, said the government would appeal against the decision at the Supreme Court. If recent rulings are anything to go by, the government is unlikely to achieve satisfaction there. In the past year, the Supreme Court has invoked the charter to strike down Canada’s prostitution laws on the ground that they put the security and lives of prostitutes at risk; to declare unconstitutional a law allowing police to wiretap without a warrant; and to restore early parole for some convicts.

A number of high-profile Supreme Court decisions not involving the charter have also gone against the government, even though the majority of justices now on the court were appointed by Stephen Harper, the prime minister. The setbacks include the humiliating rejection of his latest nominee to fill one of spots on the bench reserved for Quebec, and the rejection of Mr Harper’s plans to reform the Senate without reopening the constitution.

The muttering among Conservative supporters about “judicial activism”, which began in the early days of the charter when the Supreme Court upheld same-sex marriages and struck down abortion laws, is growing louder. Following the prostitution ruling, Jason Kenney, the employment minister, said “the judiciary should be restrained at the exercise of judicial power in overturning a democratic consensus”. More recently, the prime minister’s office tried to suggest the chief justice had acted inappropriately in the rejection of its nominee.

Yet the government itself, not meddling judges, may be more to blame. Edgar Schmidt, a former lawyer in the justice department, is suing the government for not subjecting proposed legislation to sufficiently rigorous scrutiny to see if it conforms to the constitution prior to presenting it to parliament. Simon Potter, a former head of the Canadian Bar Association, cited Mr Schmidt’s points in a speech to the association last month in which he accused the government of not doing enough to defend the charter and of fostering disrespect for the judiciary. If Mr Schmidt’s allegations are correct, says Mr Potter, “the executive has decided to take as many freedoms away from us as possible, rather than as few as possible”. He is dismayed that there is more legislation in the pipeline that looks ripe for charter challenges.

One step this government is not prepared to take is to revoke the charter itself. It would involve lengthy, arduous and potentially inconclusive constitutional negotiations with the provinces. More importantly, even the government’s own surveys show the charter is hugely popular with the majority of Canadians. When it asked Canadians to suggest the people and feats they want celebrated in 2017, the country’s 150th birthday, Medicare, peacekeeping and the charter of rights and freedoms were the top three accomplishments. Pierre Trudeau, the former Liberal prime minister who brought in the charter, was the most inspiring Canadian.