Did you have to read the whole Canadian Constitution at any time in yo

[Machjo]

I didn't. Yet one would think that in a democracy, it should be a required document to read, no?

I'd done most of my compulsory education in BC.

[Smallc]

I've read a large part of it....by choice.

[Machjo]

I've read a large part of it....by choice.

But do yo think the entire constitution should be required reading before the end of compulsory education, seeing that we all become voters?

[Smallc]

But do yo think the entire constitution should be required reading before the end of compulsory education, seeing that we all become voters?

I think...that a better explanation of our Constitutional Monarchy and Parliamentary Democracy should be required, along with a test on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but I'm not sure about the whole constitution.

[August1991]

I didn't. Yet one would think that in a democracy, it should be a required document to read, no?

I'd done most of my compulsory education in BC.

IME, being forced to read anything rarely leads to much education.

The term "compulsory education" has a wrong-headed sound. True education is based on curiousity.

[Machjo]

IME, being forced to read anything rarely leads to much education.

The term "compulsory education" has a wrong-headed sound. True education is based on curiousity.

Of course I was simplifying my ideas for brevity, but I thought it wouldbe understood that by 'compulsory education' is not meant to suggest teachers carrying batons, but simply education for those at legal age to attend school compulsority. I do believe that basic education must be compulsory.

As for making pupils read the Constitution, gain I wasn't implying the use of batons, but simply finding ways of making it interesting for pupils to read. Like any other piece of writing, it could stimulate debate in class. In fact our Constitution would likely be fascinating for high school pupils. Few might be aware of the religious content of it for instance.

[Machjo]

I think...that a better explanation of our Constitutional Monarchy and Parliamentary Democracy should be required, along with a test on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but I'm not sure about the whole constitution.

Seeing that the Constitution affects the laws we pass, it would seem that any responsible voter should have read it. Just to take an example, recent Ontario elections have brought up the issue of special treatment for Catholic schools. In the debate, the Liberals defended such special treatment to the exclusion of other religions on Constitutional grounds. Well, a voter who's never read the Constitution cannot respond adequately to this owing tohis ignorance of the Constitution. With this ignorance in mind, a government can continue to maintain such a discriminatory policy by bargaining on the ignorance of the population relating to the Constitution. Without knowledge of the Constitution, what is democracy?

[g_bambino]

I didn't. Yet one would think that in a democracy, it should be a required document to read, no?

Problem is, it isn't a document. Instead, it's a whole collection of bills going all the way back to the Magna Carta, as well as a load of unwritten common law. I think more should be taught about the essential basics of what the constitution constitutes, but I really don't see how making it a compulsary read could even be implemented.

[Rue]

I didn't. Yet one would think that in a democracy, it should be a required document to read, no?

I'd done most of my compulsory education in BC.

I had to when I studied to get my B.A. in Political Science, then Bachelor of Laws and Master of Laws.

I am such an ancient dinosaur I can remember when there was no Charter of Rights and the Constitution was a mix of the Bill of Rights and unwritten conventions and simply the BNA Act.

Quite frankly its misleading to read the Charter. It can't be read literally. It doesn't necessarily get applied as it reads. As well about the only part of the BNA Act that would make sense to laymen is the division of powers betweent he feds and provinces.

People should read the charter but they should not automatically assume it means what it seems to state.

You also have to read case law interpreting how to apply it.

I personally find Constitutional Law to be the biggest crock of doodoo I have ever seen. It is to me a whole bunch of politically arbitrary policies disguised by pseuto logic justifications. It to me is absurd.

I find constitutions to be fictional reading. Its like reading the Bible. People interpret it any way they want for politically partisan reasons.

[Rue]

Problem is, it isn't a document. Instead, it's a whole collection of bills going all the way back to the Magna Carta, as well as a load of unwritten common law. I think more should be taught about the essential basics of what the constitution constitutes, but I really don't see how making it a compulsary read could even be implemented.

Bang on. can you imagine actually putting all the relevant laws, treaties, conventions (written and unwritten) down on the table leading up to the Charter, BNA Act, etc. That is what you would have to do to properly understand the constitution. It is not just the BNA Act and Charter and you are bang on it starts right back with the Magna Carta Act. Most people won't read more then a paragraph on an inter-net site these days.

I do note Mr. Bambino that when I do read your comments however, you seem to be quite aware and comfortable speaking about the constitution and its doctrine. I commend you for that. I have no patience to be able to do what you do some days and read it in proper context both historically and legally.

I defer to you.