What must the law have for the infringement to be potentially justified?

The requirement for a potential justification of legal infringement is anchored in the principle that any restriction on rights must serve a valid legislative objective. This means that the law must aim to achieve something considered legitimate, such as public safety, health, welfare, or the protection of rights and freedoms of others. This concept aligns with the legal tests applied in assessing the constitutionality of laws that may limit certain rights, ensuring that the law's purpose is aligned with values recognized in a democratic society.

When a law infringes upon rights, courts will usually apply a proportionality test, which necessitates not just any objective, but a valid one that justifies the limitation. This assessment looks at whether the objective is pressing and substantial, and whether the means employed to achieve the objective are reasonable and demonstrably justified, thus reinforcing the importance of the legislative intent behind the infringement.

In contrast, historical amendments, public opinion, and documented consultation processes may play roles in the broader legal and legislative context but do not inherently provide the justification necessary for legal infringements. Specifically, while public opinion can influence law-making, it alone does not satisfy the criteria for a valid legislative objective, as laws should ultimately be grounded in established legal principles rather than fluctuating societal sentiments.