.

[Machjo]

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a very flawed document; but after seeing the the kind of laws governments can try to pass, even a severely flawed human rights declaration like the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is still far preferable to no protection at all.

[Machjo]

I find the most irritating parts of the Charter are those pertaining to the separate school system and official bilingualism, both of which are remnants of the beliefs if the pre-reconciliation era and both rooted in the idea of 'two founding races.'

[ToadBrother]

I find the most irritating parts of the Charter are those pertaining to the separate school system and official bilingualism, both of which are remnants of the beliefs if the pre-reconciliation era and both rooted in the idea of 'two founding races.'

And yet the Constitution Act, 1982, goes further than any document since the Royal Proclamation of 1763 in protecting Indigenous rights.

[Smallc]

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a very flawed document;

How so? It's the one part of the written constitution that I like.

[ToadBrother]

How so? It's the one part of the written constitution that I like.

I can only argue with the Notwithstanding Clause. Fortunately, it has proven to be political poison to even mention invoking it, so it would appear to have been a damp squib.

[Smallc]

I can only argue with the Notwithstanding Clause.

I don't like every part of it, but there's a lot to like about it. Otherwise, the Constitution (especially the 1982 one) takes too much power from Parliament.

[ToadBrother]

I don't like every part of it, but there's a lot to like about it. Otherwise, the Constitution (especially the 1982 one) takes too much power from Parliament.

And which part does that? Yes, it enshrines the Supreme Court's role, but the Supreme Court had largely been playing that role since 1949, and before that constitutional questions were handled by the British Privy Council. Parliament in Canada has never enjoyed the same powers as Westminster, and for good reason; the UK is a unitary state, and Canada is a Confederation.

As to the bulk of the heart of the Constitution Act, 1982, that's the amending formulas, and while all the attention is often given to the Charter, it is the amending section which is the single most important part of the document.

[Argus]

Now you're getting delusional. If Harper even sniffed at trying that he would be out of office so fast his,

Do pay attention. I'm tired of repeating myself. I said IF he had the public support. It is the public's wishes which guarantee freedoms, not a stupid piece of paper. IF he had public support he could appoint people to the SC who would okay all sorts of things the present bunch don't and wont.

Your piece of paper is not the guarantee of rights. The people themselves guarantee their rights.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Argus

[cybercoma]

The people themselves guarantee their rights. Except when they protest they get beaten, pepper sprayed, and falsely arrested, as was the case during the G20 Summit.

[Argus]

You seem to have a very limited understanding of constitutional democracies.

No, but I have a very good understanding of reality.

There are literally hundreds or even thousands of cases where the top courts in various constitutional democracies have protected peoples rights from being trampled by the government.

Nonsense.

If a significant ammount of Canadians decided to execute redheads it would be shot down by the courts, and even if a party that campaigned on this policy managed to win a majority government, it would take decades for them to change the balance of the courts.

Harper has appointed 7 of 9 members of the SC in under a decade. Weren't you paying attention?

The Canadian people themselves are the only safeguard of their rights, their REAL rights, and always have been.

[Machjo]

And yet the Constitution Act, 1982, goes further than any document since the Royal Proclamation of 1763 in protecting Indigenous rights.

Essentially circumscribed by official bilingualism and while maintainingetting the separate school system.

[Smallc]

As to the bulk of the heart of the Constitution Act, 1982, that's the amending formulas, and while all the attention is often given to the Charter, it is the amending section which is the single most important part of the document.

Yeah, that's the part I don't like. I think it should apply only to the Charter. It's made the constitution unchangeable, even when the desire for change is universal.

[On Guard for Thee]

Do pay attention. I'm tired of repeating myself. I said IF he had the public support. It is the public's wishes which guarantee freedoms, not a stupid piece of paper. IF he had public support he could appoint people to the SC who would okay all sorts of things the present bunch don't and wont.

Your piece of paper is not the guarantee of rights. The people themselves guarantee their rights.

As has been pointed out, constitutional law is not your forte, and I like others are tired of repeating ourselves.

[ToadBrother]

Yeah, that's the part I don't like. I think it should apply only to the Charter. It's made the constitution unchangeable, even when the desire for change is universal.

Not impossible. Just hard. And constitutions are supposed to be hard to change. We are a confederation of provinces, not a unitary state. And I question how often there has been even near-universal desire for change. It took a half a century for Britain to convince Canada just to patriate the amending powers.

[ToadBrother]

Do pay attention. I'm tired of repeating myself. I said IF he had the public support. It is the public's wishes which guarantee freedoms, not a stupid piece of paper. IF he had public support he could appoint people to the SC who would okay all sorts of things the present bunch don't and wont.

Your piece of paper is not the guarantee of rights. The people themselves guarantee their rights.

BS. The people of many polities have shown many times throughout the ages that they alone are not sufficient to guarantee their own rights. What guarantees the rights in Canada, as with a number of other Western democracies, is the rule of law, and entrenched notion of division of powers.

[ToadBrother]

The Canadian people themselves are the only safeguard of their rights, their REAL rights, and always have been.

The Canadian people did not even enjoy those rights until Britain conferred responsible government upon the Crown Colonies.

Not even do you not understand our constitution, you don't even know our history.

[Argus]

The Canadian people did not even enjoy those rights until Britain conferred responsible government upon the Crown Colonies.

Not even do you not understand our constitution, you don't even know our history.

I'm just a realist and you're a technocrat babbling about theories. Go ahead and worship your document. It won't hurt to do so. Just don't expect it to help you if your real rights, as opposed to the imaginary kind which people have come to embrace of late, are ever in danger.

[dre]

No, but I have a very good understanding of reality.

Nope, you contemplate these things in a whimsical fantasy world.

Nonsense.

No its not... do a tiny bit of research.

Harper has appointed 7 of 9 members of the SC in under a decade. Weren't you paying attention?

And he cant get them to vote his way on anything. It would take a couple more decades of trial and error to stock the court with 9 people that would blindly do his bidding and ignore the law.

The Canadian people themselves are the only safeguard of their rights, their REAL rights, and always have been.

Their "real rights" are enumerated in the charter and enforced by the courts. At least thats how it works in constitutional democracies on this particular planet.

Edited September 30, 2015 by dre

[cybercoma]

The Canadian people did not even enjoy those rights until Britain conferred responsible government upon the Crown Colonies.

Not even do you not understand our constitution, you don't even know our history.

And that didn't happen until armed rebellions broke out.

[cybercoma]

This huge issue that the Conservatives are pushing through affected how many women since 2011?

2.

This is the major election issue right here.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/niqab-ban-zunera-ishaq-1.3249495

[Black Dog]

I'm just a realist and you're a technocrat babbling about theories. Go ahead and worship your document. It won't hurt to do so. Just don't expect it to help you if your real rights, as opposed to the imaginary kind which people have come to embrace of late, are ever in danger.

Y'all way off in the ditch now. Again: what does any of this ranting about the worthlessness of the Charter have to do with the issue at hand?

[Rue]

The Charter of Right's creators never envisioned its use as it is today. That is a fact. It wasnot perceived by either Prof. Hogg or Trudeau as being used as it is today. Prof. Hogg told us, his students that. He's an honest modest man. He's never hidden that.

It is not a secret.

If the Charter for example was applied as narrowly as possible not as widely as possible, decisions would be vastly different The only thing deliberate in the Charter was to place in a clause saying aboriginal legal rights preceded the laws of Canada and would continue to be equal and parallel ot the laws of Canada-that was deliberate-was was the amending formula which as some have stated all but makes it impossible to change.

The not withstanding clause was put in to try get Quebec on-side but that didn't work.

The Charter is a written attempt to codify the constitution. In British law, the constitution was never written-if anything it was a series of customs or protocols passed down sometimes referred to in statutes and Canada reflected that tradition and we had for example the British North America Act but that was only part of the constitution, much of it remaining unwritten and that unwritten portion still continues.

In fact when the state of Israel created itself and looked to models of law from democracies to emulate, it refrained from a written constitution imitating the British approach while it tried to take the best of civil and common law approaches for its laws.

The US constitution which heavily influenced the Charter emphasizes individual rights as being equal to state rights and envisioning a dynamic tension, an on-going balancing act between the two.

I think its fair to say in Canada, that dialogue or dynamic tension does not exist-the Supreme of Canada, does what it wants. How it determines the Charter remains a mystery other than to say, it will assume as wide an application as possible. It frowns upon the rights envisioned in it being applied narrowly which explains why it went so far as to say it applies to anyone who steps foot on Canadian soil even if they are a terrorist, illegal entrant, criminal.

Some believe the rights envisoned in the Charter should only apply to Canadian citizens.

Now in the case of the current government, it has had political battles with the Supreme Court of Canada because it feels it was elected democratically to pass laws which the Supreme Court overides. Well with due respect to Mr. Harper because I agree with him over the face cover, The Supreme Court ignores political ideology and thus many of its decisions become political in an unintended way but not deliberately so.

The Supreme Court of Canada's view is if you don't like the Charter, change it. The problem is Harper can not because of the amending formula that all but makes that impossible and is the reason for example the Senate can not be abolished. The Court can only work with the law you have. If you don't like the law, you must change it, not expect the court to ignore the written law. That is what the Supreme Court of Canada is saying-don't ask us to engage in politics and ignore the law for you. We can't.

We have a Charter no one envisioned being used as it is now, and it if is to be scaled back in application, you would need all the provinces plus the aboriginal nations to agree. Not going to happen.

I think the only way to get people to understand that there is a Canadian vision more than, "I am whatever I want to be and to hell with everyone else", is through called community grass roots dialogue. That is a slow and some say impossible process but it does happen but it takes 2-5 generations to change mass behaviour. The problem no one wants to admit is that in certain communities the " I am whatever I want to be and to hell with everyone else" approach is seen as an absolute right.

The combination of the application of our constitution to protect this mentality (unintentionally) and current grass roots sentiments promote this which Is in turn sparks resentment in many Canadians who believe some of their fellow Canadians or people coming and demanding instant constitutional rights and ciizenshio, don't give a damn about Canada just themselves.

If for example your religion teaches you people of other religions are inferior to you, its not rocket science- such belief will make you resist a Canadian vision of inclusivity. Its not conducive to nation building. Its cancerous. It creates islands of disinterested groups not seeking a connection to Canada unless its a one way take as opposed to give process. That is not how you build a nation. You need people willing to put CANADA FIRST not their own individual rights. That is what builds a nation. You really think the way we bring people up today, they feel anything but entitled and will sacrifice anything for a greater good? Hah!

I think anyone who wants to cover their face and chooses that, because its not obliged in the Koran, but who chooses that, is choosing an approach that says, I am above the rest of you. My individual rights and beliefs are more important than yours. You conform to me, not the other way around

Excuse me, in this country, the notion a woman must cover her face is bull sheeyit. Its based on an antiquated concept of women. The bleeding heart liberals on this forum who want to be all things to all people showcasing their own feelings of unlimited entitlement, don't get it. Their very liberal approach is creating chaos as rigid fundamentalists are pulling their children from school with this mentality that they can opt out of Canadian society and pick and choose only those parts of Canadian society to their advantage, but ignore the rest.

The problem is people forbidden from eating pork when they come to Canada, gorge on it. They become blinded by the pork balls not even taking the time to digest them, just demanding them and swallowing hole.

Now we have some idiot liberals saying, gosh gee, that man in the mask seems to not be wanting to share the pork balls. Golly I thought he was a nice man. I mean I smiled at him you know and he smiled back.

No Black Dog he wasn't smiling, he had gas.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Rue

[Machjo]

On the matter of the Charter applying only to Canadian citizens, you can only imagine the possible abuses. For example, a foreign national seeking recourse against a Canadian marriage fraud to then divorce him for his money.

A neighbour's visiting foreign relative looks at a Canadian the wrong way and the Canadian makes a false accusation to get him deported because he just doesn't like him. A CBSA officer decides to deport someone out of spite. Let's not think for one moment that government officials can't be incompetent, spiteful, prejudiced, or even outright corrupt.

[ToadBrother]

I'm just a realist and you're a technocrat babbling about theories. Go ahead and worship your document. It won't hurt to do so. Just don't expect it to help you if your real rights, as opposed to the imaginary kind which people have come to embrace of late, are ever in danger.

But, as I have demonstrated, you're statements don't even resemble reality.

The US has a pretty strong argument for the people having been the font of democracy, but in Canada, Responsible Government was essentially granted to Canadians by the Crown.

Look, I get it. You don't understand constitutions, you don't understand CAnadian history. You just have this series of ludicrous statements that you keep repeating because you have infantile dislike of our constitution.

Well tough. This is our system of government.

[Argus]

Y'all way off in the ditch now. Again: what does any of this ranting about the worthlessness of the Charter have to do with the issue at hand?

It's called the flow of conversation. Now go lie down!