Throughout the term we have examined how the courts (via the Charter) have attempted to balance the goals of public policy with the rights and freedoms entrenched in the Charter. In doing so, we have also agreed that the law is not a mechanical exercise or a failsafe analytical tool when it comes to addressing problematic social and moral issues. The law is, to a large degree, political. That means that decisions, legally principled, logical coherent or otherwise, will always be inuenced by contextual factors. Given the cases we have examined this term, it seems then that the tension between the objectives of law, politics and morality will never be completely solved. Perhaps this is a desirable aspect of law in relation to complex social/moral issues. Discuss and evaluated the above quote by making reference to at least one case that involved the tension between morality, the public good, and/or the harm principle and a particular right. In your opinion did the courts strike the correct balance in this cases? Provide reasons for your position(s.)