Gitmo lawyers back Obama

[bush_cheney2004]

... the perceived problems of "extreme" interpretation are not based so much on the Charter itself than the political climate we live in.

Yep..I just said that.

[BubberMiley]

Yep..I just said that.

But I said it better.

[Leafless]

How is the charter undemocratic and extremely liberal in comparison to the Bill of Rights? You still haven't indicated how they are in any way different.

If you don't recognize the Charter as being discriminatory and racist, then there is no logic in discussing this any further.

There are so many rights in Canada that they have to categorize them by alphabet, enough to make your head spin.

Maybe not yours.

Canadian Bill of Rights

(in French: "Déclaration canadienne des droits") The Canadian Bill of Rights is a federal law that was passed in 1960. Unlike the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of Canada's constitution, the Canadian Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government and can be repealed or amended in the same way as any other law. Also, the Bill's equality protection is more restricted than section 15 of the Charter; the Bill guarantees only "equality before the law", which the courts have interpreted narrowly. Because of these limitations, the Charter was adopted in 1982, though the Bill of Rights remains in force today. Should not be confused with the International Bill of Rights or the Canadian Human Rights Act. Back to Contents

To read the Canadian Bill of Rights

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

(in French: "Charte canadienne des droits et libertés") The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which forms Part 1 of Canada's constitution since 1982, sets out most of the rights and freedoms that all the governments in Canada must respect. It includes certain fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of religion, expression and association, as well as certain democratic, mobility, legal, equality, linguistic and aboriginal rights. The Charter is enforced by the courts, not by human rights commissions. The Charter should not be confused with the Canadian Bill of Rights or with the Canadian Human Rights Act. Back to Contents

To read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Canadian Human Rights Act

(in French: "Loi canadienne sur les droits de la personne") The anti-discrimination law that applies to federally regulated activities, such as broadcasting, telecommunications, banking, railways, ships, airlines, extra-provincial transportation, Native reserves, the federal government and federal Crown corporations. It is administered by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, based in Ottawa with its closest office being in Halifax. The types of discrimination prohibited by the Canadian Human Rights Act and the applicable procedures differ somewhat from those of the New Brunswick Human Rights Act. The Canadian Human Rights Act should not be confused with the Canadian Bill of Rights or with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Back to Contents

To read the Canadian Human Rights Act

To go to the Canadian Human Rights Commission's website

Civil rights

(in French : "droits de la personne") Historically, civil rights were the rights of American citizens under the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S Constitution, especially fundamental freedoms, civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the law and freedom from discrimination. More recently, the term civil rights in the United States usually refers to the right to equality for members of minority groups.

Complainant

(in French: "plaignant" or "demandeur") In the human rights field in Canada, a complainant is a person who files a human rights complaint with a human rights commission. See also Respondent. Back to Contents

Complaint

(in French: " plainte") See Informal complaint and Formal complaint

Contract compliance

(in French:"respect de l'obligation contractuelle") A means of improving the employment opportunities of disadvantaged groups by setting conditions for those who enter into contracts with the government. For example, certain businesses that wish to bid on certain federal government contracts in Canada are required to show that disadvantaged groups are well represented in their workforce, or if not, that an employment equity program is in effect to improve their representation. Back to Contents

Information about the Federal Contractors Program from Human Resources Development Canada.

D

Designated group

(in French: "groupe désigné") In the human rights field, a disadvantaged group of people which is the focus of an affirmative action plan. In Canada, visible minorities, natives, women and physically or mentally disabled persons are the most common designated groups. Also called "target group." Back to Contents

Direct discrimination

(in French: "discrimination directe") A practice where people are treated differently (usually less favourably) based on personal characteristics such as their race or gender. Back to Contents

Discrimination

(in French: "discrimination") Discrimination is any practice or standard that, intentionally or not, has the effect of limiting the opportunities available to certain individuals or groups because of shared personal characteristics such as race or colour, in a way that perpetuates the view that they are less capable, or are less worthy of recognition or value.

Canadian courts have recognized two types of illegal discrimination: (1) direct discrimination and (2) adverse effect discrimination (also called indirect discrimination or systemic discrimination). Accordingly, employers, service providers and others who are required not to discriminate must go beyond treating everyone the same without regard to race, sex and the other personal characteristics protected in human rights laws. They must, in addition, accommodate as much as reasonably possible the protected characteristics of those to whom such uniform treatment would have a discriminatory effect. That is, they must avoid standards that have a discriminatory effect where this can be done without sacrificing their own legitimate objectives or incurring undue hardship.

Harassment is a form of discrimination. Discriminatory practices usually result from bigotry, prejudice, stereotypes and the failure to accommodate the particular characteristics of minorities. Back to Contents

E

Education equity

(in French: "équité en matière d'éducation") See Affirmative action

Employment equity

(in French: "équité en matière d'emploi") See Affirmative action

Equal pay for equal work

(in French: "rémunération égale pour un travail égal") A requirement that male and female employees be paid the same wage for doing similar or substantially similar work. In New Brunswick, section 37.1 of the Employment Standards Act guarantees the rights to equal pay for equal work. Do not confuse with "equal pay for work of equal value." Back to Contents

Information on equal pay for equal work in New Brunswick from the N.B. Dept. of Post-Secondary Education and Training.

To read the Employment Standards Act of New Brunswick

Equal pay for work of equal value

(in French: "rémunération égale pour un travail de valeur égale" or "traitement égal pour un travail de valeur égale") Unlike laws that guarantee equal pay for equal work for men and women, laws that require "equal pay for work of equal value" require a comparison of dissimilar jobs based on the value of the work. Value is assessed according to a point system that compares effort, skill, responsibility and working conditions. The principle of equal pay for work of equal value is based on the observation that the types of jobs which have been customarily performed by women have been traditionally undervalued in the market place. See also the definition of Pay equity. Back to Contents

Information on equal pay for work of equal value from Human Resources Development Canada

F

Formal complaint

(in French: "plainte officielle") In the human rights field in Canada, a formal complaint is a written complaint filed with a human rights commission about a violation of a human rights act. The commission must investigate formal complaints and, if they appear to have merit, must attempt to conciliate them. If a complaint cannot be settled, a board of inquiry may be appointed to hold a hearing. See Informal complaint Back to Contents

H

Harassment

(in French: "harcèlement") In the human rights field, harassment means unwelcome or insulting comments or conduct related to a personal characteristic such as race, gender or sexual orientation. See also the definition of "sexually harass" in the Human Rights Act of New Brunswick. Back to Contents

To read "Sexual Harassment in Employment in New Brunswick"

Human rights

(in French: "droits de la personne") Human rights are rights that all people have. These rights do not have to be earned and they are inalienable, which means no one can take them away." Back to Contents

Human rights act

(in French: "loi sur les droits de la personne") In Canada, human rights acts are the provincial and federal laws that prohibit certain types of discrimination and harassment, whether by governments, businesses or organizations. The term usually used in the United States is "civil rights act." Some human rights acts in Canada also guarantee certain liberties and freedoms.

The New Brunswick Human Rights Act is a provincial law that prohibits certain types of discrimination and harassment in: the leasing and sale of premises; public accommodations, services or facilities; labour unions and professional, business or trade associations; signs and publicity; and all aspects of employment. Discrimination and harassment is prohibited on the grounds of race, colour, religion, national origin, ancestry, place of origin, age, physical disability, mental disability, marital status, social condition, political belief or activity, sexual orientation or sex, including pregnancy. Certain exceptions apply. The act is enforced by the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission.

Federally regulated activities, such as broadcasting, telecommunications, banking, railways, ships, airlines and the federal government, are subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act, which is enforced by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Back to Contents

To read "FAQ on the N.B. Human Rights Act" or the New Brunswick Human Rights Act

To read the Canadian Human Rights Act

Summaries of leading decisions by courts and human rights tribunals in Canada, by the Canadian Human Rights Reporter

Human Rights Code

(in French: "Code des droits de la personne") Another name for the Human Rights Act of New Brunswick Back to Contents

Human Rights Commission

(in French: "commission des droits de la personne") In Canada, human rights commissions are the government bodies that administer the human rights acts (not the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms), usually through investigation, conciliation and education. They should not be confused with human rights boards of inquiry, which are independent tribunals, or with the Office of the Ombudsman. Back to Contents

And that is only to the letter 'H'.

http://www.gnb.ca/hrc-cdp/e/e2defini.htm#Canadian%20Bill

[BubberMiley]

If you don't recognize the Charter as being discriminatory and racist, then there is no logic in discussing this any further.

Do you even know what you're quoting? That's just a definition of terms. It's not a list of rights. (Though if your complaint with the Charter is that there are too many big words and obscure terms, then you have a point.)

But your reply reminds me of what my dad would tell me whenever I asked a question he couldn't answer:

"If you don't know, then I'm not going to tell you."

Edited February 25, 2008 by BubberMiley

[Leafless]

Do you even know what you're quoting? That's just a definition of terms.

Mostly, it is a guideline directing individuals to their associated rights.

Look up words closely related to communism in the dictionary and you will see a 'map of Canada'.

[BubberMiley]

Look up words closely related to communism in the dictionary and you will see a 'map of Canada'.

Your only comeback when asked to explain how the U.S. Bill of Rights and Canadian Charter differ is an unpatriotic attack on Canada?

I could, off the top of my head, provide you with some key distinctions between the two documents, but I can’t see how any of these differences could be interpreted as racist or socialist in any way. The only difference BC2004 could come up with is their age, which is not particularly relevant in terms of their specific content.

You would think someone who spends so much time criticizing the document would be aware of its content. But I suppose someone who provides a glossary of terms like “complainant” and insists it’s a list of rights shouldn’t be expected to actually be able to provide insight into constitutional law.

Just remember how your pants are around your ankles now the next time you rush to call someone anti-American.

[Leafless]

I could, off the top of my head, provide you with some key distinctions between the two documents, but I can’t see how any of these differences could be interpreted as racist or socialist in any way.

Your logic on differences between the U.S. Bill of Rights and Canada's Charter makes no sense because what we are talking about is how the Charter was created in comparison to the Bill of Rights created from the U.S. Constitution which was created by delegates of the Second Continental Congress unlike Canada with the Charter basically stemming from Pierre Trudeau and the Liberal party of Canada with great Quebec influence.

That is the issue!

The Canadian Charter IS a government , both federally and provincially, imposed undemocratic, racist, socially engineered document.

Rights combined with social engineering without citizen input is the trademark of a totalitarian government.

[BubberMiley]

You appear to lack any actual knowledge of the content of the Charter or how it was created. It became part of the Canadian Constitution because the federal government and every single province except Quebec agreed to it. It met all the rules necessary to become the law of the land, but most every other rational person in the country, from all sides of the political spectrum, feels its major weakness is the fact that it did not include Quebec.

Once again, explain how the Charter is more racist and undemocratic than the U.S. Bill of Rights. It's a simple question that someone with such a preoccupation with the Charter should be able to answer quite easily. You've made the same point, over and over again, but when asked to elaborate, all you can do is insult or, perhaps, threaten violence.

This is your opportunity to redeem yourself.

Edited February 25, 2008 by BubberMiley

[bush_cheney2004]

....Once again, explain how the Charter is more racist and undemocratic than the U.S. Bill of Rights. It's a simple question that someone with such a preoccupation with the Charter should be able to answer quite easily. You've made the same point, over and over again, but when asked to elaborate, all you can do is insult or, perhaps, threaten violence.

This is your opportunity to redeem yourself.

Contrary to your earlier assertion, there are more differences than just the age of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If you shall accuse another of not providing specifics, then please provide some of your own to prove there are no differences with the US Bill of Rights. One need only read this Wiki description to identify many differences, particulary the excruciation pains taken for language rights, limitations and nitwithstanding clause, which you have already admitted to earlier. Indeed, the Charter (as part of a repatriated Canadian constitution), was a second try at the very weak Bill of Rights from 1960, which provinces could ignore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Char...ts_and_Freedoms

[Leafless]

You appear to lack any actual knowledge of the content of the Charter or how it was created.

How was the Charter created.

I am asking you. You say it does not discriminate. This is very important so please answer it.

It became part of the Canadian Constitution because the federal government and every single province except Quebec agreed to it.

You are talking about how this discriminatory piece of legislation was ratified, even though Canada's constitution of 1867 is BRITISH and not Canadian.

They call it Canadian after the BNA Act was repatriated but only allows parliament to make some amendment's to the original BNA Act and still requires the approval of the Queen for some other types of amendments.

Regardless we are still a Constitutional Monarchy and the Queen is Head of State and holds other titles.

It met all the rules necessary to become the law of the land, but most every other rational person in the country, from all sides of the political spectrum, feels its major weakness is the fact that it did not include Quebec.

Unfortunately it does include Quebec.

And strangely enough Quebec benefits the most under Charter Section 16, under 'Official Languages of Canada' which itself was never presented to the people of Canada to reject or accept this official title of basically the minority French language as the majority English language never required any official status.

Regardless this section promotes a minority language French special privileges that discriminates against against speakers of the majority English Language and also makes it a condition of employment in the Federal public service utilizing compulsory bilingualism abusing the rights of English speakers even though Sec.16-1 says "English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the parliament and government of Canada. This is false and discriminates.

Section 1. of the Charter says we are a free and democratic society, which we are not, even relating to this very Charter.

Section 2. Under fundamental freedoms does not support as what is stated.

(a)Freedom of conscience and religion. Why is it not a freedom? Federal political interference.

(b] Freedom of thought , belief, opinion of expression, including freedom of the press and other means of communication. Why is it not a freedom? Federal political interference.

I could go on as there are more discriminatory aspects of this Charter which is an amendment to the original BNA Act or Canada Act as they like to call it.

Although this Charter meets legal requirement the amending of a foreign constitution should include Canadian citizens as part of the amending formula.

This requires a thread of its own and has little to do with Gitmo.

[BubberMiley]

If you shall accuse another of not providing specifics, then please provide some of your own to prove there are no differences with the US Bill of Rights.

I don't need to provide proof that there are no differences because I didn't say there weren't. In fact, I said I probably could, just off the top of my head, cite a few (particularly in terms of language rights and the notwithstanding clause) and there are likely many more. My point was that none of these differences warrant the overblown assertion that the Charter (as opposed to the U.S. Bill) is a racist, undemocratic document.

The two documents, in their intent, are very similar. The Bill established a model that Canada clearly followed, and to say that constitutional rights are undemocratic is, I think, a bit of a paradox.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The two documents, in their intent, are very similar. The Bill established a model that Canada clearly followed, and to say that constitutional rights are undemocratic is, I think, a bit of a paradox.

Good...we agree that they are in fact different, and in some areas, fundamentally different. Hate speech laws come to mind, where provisions of the Charter (and Charter politics) were used to silence free speech. Do you understand that such a thing would be/is very problematic under the US Bill of Rights?

[BubberMiley]

Good...we agree that they are in fact different, and in some areas, fundamentally different. Hate speech laws come to mind, where provisions of the Charter (and Charter politics) were used to silence free speech. Do you understand that such a thing would be/is very problematic under the US Bill of Rights?

It was actually the Criminal Code that defined hate speech. Ernst Zundel challenged that under the Charter and lost because the Charter, in Section 1, said "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society", and in Section 15 said "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

So Zundel hoped that his hate speech would have been legal under the Charter as freedom of speech, but the court determined that this would be beyond the reasonable limit prescribed by law, and would infringe on people's right to equal protection without discrimination under the law.

The Bill of Rights has no such explicit anti-discrimination clause, but it does defend against discrimination on the basis of religion. It also states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This can be interpreted much the same as Section 1 (roughly), that one person's rights only go as far as they don't impinge on another's rights.

But, to make a long story short, the Charter didn't rule against hate speech; the Criminal Code did. The Charter is just not nearly as strong a document as the Bill of Rights that it could override the Criminal Code in this case.

Edited February 26, 2008 by BubberMiley

[bush_cheney2004]

...But, to make a long story short, the Charter didn't rule against hate speech; the Criminal Code did. The Charter is just not nearly as strong a document as the Bill of Rights that it could override the Criminal Code in this case.

Then, at its core, the Charter is fundamentally different and impotent compared to the US Bill of Rights. IMO, the language provisions are discriminatory, not racist. The limitation and notwithstanding clauses hobble things further. But this is by design. It is difficult to change the foundation after a building is constructed. The Americans waited about 14 years....Canada waited a lot longer.

[BubberMiley]

Then, at its core, the Charter is fundamentally different and impotent compared to the US Bill of Rights. IMO, the language provisions are discriminatory, not racist.

Yes, the notwithstanding clause killed the argument that it was in any way "imposed" on the Canadian people. Its strengths are more political than legal. Anything it says can be overrided, but politicians do so at their peril. One might even say, in that regard, it's more democratic.

But I suppose we've ventured too far beyond Gitmo and Obama. But I think gitmo's days are numbered.

Though didn't McCain come out in favour of waterboarding in the last few days?

Edited February 26, 2008 by BubberMiley

[bush_cheney2004]

....But I suppose we've ventured too far beyond Gitmo and Obama. But I think gitmo's days are numbered.

Though didn't McCain come out in favour of waterboarding in the last few days?

Senator McCain can hardly be objective on such matters. He remembers our "tiger cages" in 'Nam.

[Leafless]

My point was that none of these differences warrant the overblown assertion that the Charter (as opposed to the U.S. Bill) is a racist, undemocratic document.

It is racist as culture is a component of race and language being a component of culture.

Official languages is a farce and is the creation of the Liberal government for the main reason of advancing Quebec's nationalistic ideologies including language.

The Charter uses a minority French language as a qualifying factor to determine rights and federal job opportunities out side of the confines of unilingual French Quebec.

Quebec and its provincial government ignores all federal bilingual incentives, yet the federal government rewards Quebec with discriminatory language rights and job opportunities.

This is racial discrimination especially when Quebec's provincially self imposed 'French official language of Quebec' is not recognized as official by the federal government a language that discriminates against the majority English language in Quebec.

It is also racial discrimination when the federal government using Canadian tax dollars goes out of its way to promote this obsolete French language in English provinces involving the creation of bilingual policies at the expense of job loss relating to unilingual majority English Canadians.

English Canadians do not have to learn an imposed foreign obsolete minority French Language when the English language is the 'de facto' commercial language of Canada. This is outright racial discrimination.

[BubberMiley]

This is racial discrimination especially when Quebec's provincially self imposed 'French official language of Quebec' is not recognized as official by the federal government a language that discriminates against the majority English language in Quebec.

While I agree that having official languages is unnecessary, I think it's quite the stretch to call it racist to have them. Unless, of course, you feel it excludes the numerous other language groups in the country. I doubt you feel that way though.

But again, the charter is the most democratic of constitutions because not only did the largely unilingual provinces (such as Sask or Alberta) agree to it, they can opt out if they feel it's politically feasible.

BTW, where are your statistics that say English is the majority language in Quebec?

[Leafless]

While I agree that having official languages is unnecessary, I think it's quite the stretch to call it racist to have them. Unless, of course, you feel it excludes the numerous other language groups in the country. I doubt you feel that way though.

I think it also it is unecessary to have official languages.

I have explained why in previous posts why the Charter racially discriminates including a thread under Local Politics:

Russell by-law spat sparks bilingual study

Denial of freedom of expression

But now that you mention it another conflict exist where 'official languages' discriminates against other languages in Canada since Canada is also 'officially multicultural'.

But again, the charter is the most democratic of constitutions

Our basic Constitution is a foreign constitution (British) the BNA Act.

The Charter is not a constitution but an amendment to the our existing constitution.

How can you possibly say the Charter is most democratic, when you have yet failed to explain how the Charter was created initially?

because not only did the largely unilingual provinces (such as Sask or Alberta) agree to it, they can opt out if they feel it's politically feasible.

How do you know this for a fact?

How do you know other provinces did not ask to opt out or expressed the desire the desire to declare their respective province 'officially English' but were confronted with negative federal sentiments or threatened one way or the other, with some sort of federal reprisal?

We will need proof to back your claims.

BTW, where are your statistics that say English is the majority language in Quebec?

I don't need any statistics. French might be a federal official language but is only recognized at the federal level and not being official in the eyes of other provinces except for New Brunswick being officially bilingual.

It is common knowledge the majority language of Canada is English and Quebec being a province in Canada and not a separate country. Quebec's provincially self declared province wide official language is not recognized as being official by the federal government.

It is because of this when speaking of statistics, Quebec must be included with all other provinces, and statistics compiled and averaged with all other provinces. This makes the French language a minority language anywhere in Canada including Quebec.