The Charter

[Leafless]

Does anyone see our federally administered Charter of Rights and Freedoms not a good thing for Canada, or is it a good thing for Canada.

In my view charter rights are administered to the good and bad, deserving or undeserving, to the loyal or unloyal concerning dedication to our country Canada.

This is why I think the Charter should be scrapped as no governmnet has the right to hand out legally binding rights that could be used to protect individuals that are a national security risk, criminals, that use these rights in an anti-Canadian fashion to develop their own society, individuals that use the Charter to help defeat a criminal charge or related to immigration deportation etc.

[Riverwind]

This is why I think the Charter should be scrapped as no government has the right to hand out legally binding rights that could be used to protect individuals that are a national security risk, criminals,

People that believe that the police and other government bodies can be trusted to only target guilty people are extremely naive. The charter does not exist to protect criminals - it exists to protect the law abiding citizens who through no fault of their own are targets of unjust government/police police actions.

This famous quotation summaries why it is necessary to have the Charter even if it means some guilty people do not get what they deserve:

When the Nazis arrested the Communists,

I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist.

When they locked up the Social Democrats,

I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat.

When they arrested the trade unionists,

I said nothing; afterall, I was not a trade unionist.

When they arrested the Jews, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Jew.

When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest.

Martin Niemöller (1892—1984), Protestant pastor

[Leafless]

Sparhawk

You wrote- " The charter does not exist to protect criminals -it exist to protect law biding citizens through no fault of their own are targets of unjust government/ police actions."

There is no direct evidence to suggest what you are saying is true. All the federal government does is administer those rights on what the government of the day (mainly the Liberals) FEEL is an issue. This of course could be done for primarily self political gain and could even be considered a hidden agenda and this is where the danger lies. There is no proof that the Liberals who initiated the Charter have not a long term plan to steer the country with Liberal ideologies

The Charter is being abused by, groups, indivduals, criminals who lean back on interpretations of different sections to suit their individual requirements and the federal government is basically sitting back and letting it all happen.

Even the wife of Pierre Trudeau used the Charter to beat a possible impaired driving charge which I understand is being appealled regardless. Is this what you want to see in our society with the legal system bogging down the courts with expensive Charter rights escape issue's and a government setting up the country for it's own self interest.

[Riverwind]

The Charter is being abused by, groups, indivduals, criminals who lean back on interpretations of different sections to suit their individual requirements and the federal government is basically sitting back and letting it all happen.

What constitutes abuse of the charter is a matter of opinion not fact. For example, the are those that believe the recent Chaoulli case is an abuse of the charter because it undermines the current public healthcare model (aside: this case did not specifically use the Canadian Charter because the Quebec charter was sufficient but there is every reason to believe that a challenge under the Canadian Charter would go the same way). I don't feel that way and I am glad the charter allowed to court to break a political log jam on this issue.

I agree that the court has gone way to far in creating rights that were not anticipated by the charter's authors. However, I would not want to see the charter scrapped because I don't trust governments elected with <40% of the population to always respect the rights that I do consider important.

For example, I would like to see a conservative majority for economic reasons but I would not want a conservative majority if that meant the fundamentalist Christians in the party could use the power to force their religious views on the rest of society. The charter provides enough protection to ensure that cannot happen.

[Leafless]

Sparhawk

You wrote- " What constitutes charter is a matter of opinion not fact."

I am sure anyone looking for a Charter escape route would agree with you.

As with the case of racial profiling by police authorities. Is the Charter in this case actually aiding and promoting criminal acts and behavior or is it a legitimate tool to fight off those potential racist or presumed racist police officers.

This of course depends on what side of the fence your sitting on and in reality most police officers are just doing what they are paid for and the individuals who get interrupted by police mostly are sore losers and simply won't admit that vehicles are stopped for many different reasons or groups hanging around street corners questioned by police concerning loitering or possible offences.

You wrote- " I would not want to see the Charter scrapped because I don't trust governments elected with 40% of the population"

Good point but I would not direct that to the Charter but am concerned concerning the legitimacy of the government itself. We need reform in this area also.

I think all provinces should be responsible for the administration of rights similar to what Quebec has.

They seem to be the only province to not only not sign the Constitution and use a discriminatory language Bill that contravenes even their own Quebec Charter but still get full federal Charter protection and actually more than any other province in Canada while still being in confederation.

This enforces the view that the federal Charter discriminates aginst other Canadian provinces by not allowing the same rights as Quebec to be provincially responsible for their own provincial rights legislation.

[FTA Lawyer]

Wow...

Leafless you are taking a very naive approach to this issue.

Canada is increasingly becoming known world-wide for the number of wrongful convictions that we have been uncovering as of late. Even with all of the protections that our Charter affords, innocent Canadians spend large portions of their lives behind bars.

The Charter is not an escape route for criminals, it is a strict code of conduct for our government and its agents, including the police. The fact that the guilty will also benefit is a necessary consequence of protecting the innocent.

As a criminal lawyer, I too am a citizen, and I don't want criminals out wandering the streets that I live on. The reality is, if the police toe the line, get warrants for searches, don't physically abuse prisoners, follow procedure and act always in good faith, I will never have a successful Charter argument to make on behalf of a client.

The number of successful Charter arguments I have made are an indictment of an increasingly untrustworthy state, including the Justice department and the police forces...and without the Charter I would have been virtually powerless to uncover and set right the wrongdoings.

I enjoy living in a society where I can refuse to talk to agents of the state, I cannot be arbitrarily detained while walking down the street, my home cannot be violated by overzealous police, the government cannot tell me how to live my life (by and large)...all of these freedoms are protected by the Charter.

If you think that governments can be trusted to just do the right thing, take the quote given to you by Sparhawk to heart. The Nazi party was validly and democratically elected before heading off toward extermination of Jews.

If you cringe at the symbolic cliche of Naziism, consider that it is within most of our current population's lifetime that "Indians" were given the right to vote in Federal elections...and it's not that long ago that women were not legal persons in Canada.

There are elements of the Charter that I criticize often, however, I am prepared to argue that it should remain.

FTA

[Leafless]

FTA Lawyer

You wrote- " Leafless you are taking a very naive approach to this issue."

I think I am taking a realistc view of this issue.

Supreme court judges bend to appease parliament and the Charter.

In your case it helps you earn a living.

We never did have the conditons in Canada that Sparhawk reflected on with his famous quotations.

This Charter was implemented long before the emphasis on immigration occurred and in my opinion and many others was for the benefit soley of Quebec. Without proof you must contemplate the theory that perhaps the Liberals did have a hidden agenda with fastracking Quebec's closed society jocking them to a political postion based on linguistics to possibly take over Canada.

Now the Charter is redirected and Canadians sidetracked with dubious rights issue's while Quebec slowly inches on realitively unnoticed acquiring more and more federal power and federal real estate.

I think the whole Charter situation is dispicable to a democratic Canada and to reflect the realities that successful countries are not created with the government playing robbing hood to feed other jealous socities and give away rights like candy to undeserving individuals and groups.

Canada has become a police state built and manipulated by the Liberals utilizing not guns or physical force but with the outward appearance of an all good Charter.

Time for an immediate change of government if you ask me or it might all ready be to late.

[August1991]

I enjoy living in a society where I can refuse to talk to agents of the state, I cannot be arbitrarily detained while walking down the street, my home cannot be violated by overzealous police, the government cannot tell me how to live my life (by and large)...all of these freedoms are protected by the Charter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

FTA, there is no question that to be free in a civilized society, individuals need to be guaranteed protection from the State (ie. from the wishes of the majority).

The question, in mind, is whether a Charter is the best way to achieve this protection.

On the face of it, an explicit charter which clearly states how the State cannot encroach on an individual seems good. In practice, this is not so obvious. Britain does not have a single, explicit charter yet individuals and minorities have been well protected.

FTA, to make a comparison, do you think English grammar and spelling would improve if the government established a single code of grammatical and spelling rules? Well, the French language has precisely that.

[FTA Lawyer]

I think the whole Charter situation is dispicable to a democratic Canada and to reflect the realities that successful countries are not created with the government playing robbing hood to feed other jealous socities and give away rights like candy to undeserving individuals and groups.

Canada has become a police state  built and manipulated by the Liberals utilizing not guns or physical force but with the outward appearance of an all good Charter.

Time for an immediate change of government if you ask me or it might all ready be to late.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't really understand what you are trying to say here. And whether or not we need a new government (I agree we do) really has nothing to do with whether or not the Charter ought to stay or go.

In my view, the Charter is far from perfect, but it does allow citizens a swift and meaningful method of protecting themselves from unwarranted state intervention. To the extent that you are not happy with the way the SCC is interpreting it, that is what the notwithsatnding clause is for. Unfortunately, no politician has the conviction to actually use it because many, especially Paul Martin, have villianized it with ridiculous rhetoric.

Where Parliament wants to maintain its supremacy over the courts it can do so easily...unfortunately too many politicians govern in the interest of increasing their pension payout rather than in the public interest, so nobody will take a stand when the SCC steps on the lawmakers' toes.

FTA

[FTA Lawyer]

I enjoy living in a society where I can refuse to talk to agents of the state, I cannot be arbitrarily detained while walking down the street, my home cannot be violated by overzealous police, the government cannot tell me how to live my life (by and large)...all of these freedoms are protected by the Charter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

FTA, there is no question that to be free in a civilized society, individuals need to be guaranteed protection from the State (ie. from the wishes of the majority).

The question, in mind, is whether a Charter is the best way to achieve this protection.

On the face of it, an explicit charter which clearly states how the State cannot encroach on an individual seems good. In practice, this is not so obvious. Britain does not have a single, explicit charter yet individuals and minorities have been well protected.

FTA, to make a comparison, do you think English grammar and spelling would improve if the government established a single code of grammatical and spelling rules? Well, the French language has precisely that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

August,

If not the Charter that we have, what should we do instead? In reality, we would go back to the 1960 Bill of Rights, which essentially is the same as the Charter (with a few minor differences, including protection of property rights).

Either way, we have legislation that would be interpreted by the courts to monitor the government...or do you advocate revocation of the Bill of Rights also?

Maybe there are better ways, I'm just not sure what they are.

FTA

[Leafless]

FTA

You wrote- " And whether or not we need a new government (I agree we do) has nothing to do whether or not the charter ought to stay or go."

The Liberals are the originators of the Charter without the consent of individual Canadians and have introduced and promoted official bilingualism with sections pertaining to equality rights, official languages of Canada, minority language educational rights, fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights and legal rights.

Are you telling me that these rights in the hands of a federal government cannot be played according to favourtism, votes or political interest thus changing the face of a country vs. in the hands of a provincial government who can no way achieve the same effect.

Actually rights in the hands of a provincial government could produce a more desirable result with Quebec or any other province concerning language legislation, bilingualism, mobility rights, minority language education and perhaps bits and pieces from the entire Charter.

Look at the SSM issue as the Liberal originally agreed marriage was between a man and a woman.

The sudden shift in reasoning towards favouring the homosexual view is votes and votes secularist would also give to the Liberals in supporting this issue.

I think the federal government should stay out of rights and freedoms and leave it soley a provincial interest where provinces have a chance to fight back against federal rulings that are not in there interest.

Provincial human rights laws are all that is required but in my opinion the Charter must be re-written as in it's present state leaves to much power to be allocated to a single province namely Quebec.

[FTA Lawyer]

I think the federal government should stay out of rights and freedoms and leave it soley a provincial interest where provinces have a chance to fight back against federal rulings that are not in there interest.

Provincial human rights laws are all that is required but in my opinion the Charter must be re-written as in it's present state leaves to much power to be allocated to a single province namely Quebec.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you suggesting an elimination of the Federal system of confederation in Canada? Because if rights and freedoms of Canadians was "solely a provincial interest" as you recommend, then I dare say we would have completely different standards in various provinces such that it would be really hard to explain why we call ourselves a single country.

And really, the 1982 Charter has nothing to to with dividing power between Feds and Provinces (with the exception of acknowledging Quebec as a distinct society)...that's s. 91 and s. 92 of the 1867 Constitution. So really what you are looking for is an entirely new Constitution?

Both Federal and Provincial governments are bound by the Charter, and both Federal and Provincial judges have authority to interpret laws in light of the Charter...including the ability to strike laws down (with the buck stopping at the SCC of course).

When Alberta was choked about the re-writing of the definition of marriage, it was not the Charter that prevented Klien from doing something about it...it was the fact that s. 91 of the Constitution gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal government to define marriage.

The Charter may have been what gave the Liberals the idea to flip-flop on SSM, but it wasn't the tool that made it possible for them to change the definition...it was the original Constitution itself.

FTA

[Wilber]

Wow...

Canada is increasingly becoming known world-wide for the number of wrongful convictions that we have been uncovering as of late. Even with all of the protections that our Charter affords, innocent Canadians spend large portions of their lives behind bars.

Maybe that's why we don't have enough room in jails for the guilty ones.

[stubblejumper]

Britain does not have a single, explicit charter yet individuals and minorities have been well protected.

Yes they have 2, the EU declaration of rights and the UK Human Rights Act.

[Leafless]

FTA

Since the repatriation of the Charter there have been ten formal ammendments to the Constitution of Canada and for the most part these ten ammendments dealt with religion and linguistics rulings where a federal government should not intervene.

I don't imagine the BNA Act was ever designated to include linguistic legislation and legislation pertaining to religion as this country was built on those very aspects.

SSM was made possible with the implementation of Bill C-33 into the Canadian Human Rights Act to include 'sexual orientation'.

Federal decissions it appears were based on this Bill C-33 and not the BNA Act.

It should be noted the concept of language rights was written into the Constitution to create a legal balance between two linguistic communities thus to try to ensure social order but clearly failed as Quebec to this day still advocates separation.

It is also clear the government of this country continues to meddle in linguistic waters that are not federal concern. I think there are limits to the absolute waste of taxpayers dollars.

[August1991]

I enjoy living in a society where I can refuse to talk to agents of the state, I cannot be arbitrarily detained while walking down the street, my home cannot be violated by overzealous police, the government cannot tell me how to live my life (by and large)...all of these freedoms are protected by the Charter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

FTA, there is no question that to be free in a civilized society, individuals need to be guaranteed protection from the State (ie. from the wishes of the majority).

The question, in mind, is whether a Charter is the best way to achieve this protection.

On the face of it, an explicit charter which clearly states how the State cannot encroach on an individual seems good. In practice, this is not so obvious. Britain does not have a single, explicit charter yet individuals and minorities have been well protected.

FTA, to make a comparison, do you think English grammar and spelling would improve if the government established a single code of grammatical and spelling rules? Well, the French language has precisely that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If not the Charter that we have, what should we do instead? In reality, we would go back to the 1960 Bill of Rights, which essentially is the same as the Charter (with a few minor differences, including protection of property rights).

Either way, we have legislation that would be interpreted by the courts to monitor the government...or do you advocate revocation of the Bill of Rights also?

Maybe there are better ways, I'm just not sure what they are.

FTA

OMG!

FTA, do you mean individual Canadians had no rights before Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights? (Of course, they did.)

Look, FTA, the issue here is whether it is best to look to a single source for an answer (Bill of Rights, Civil Code, Charter of Rights) or several sources (common law, precedent).

FTA Lawyer, who decides the rule/law of English grammar? Precedent, what works. Who decides the rule/law of French grammar? An academy, wise people.

----

Now then FTA, as a normal person (not as a lawyer), what - IYV - is the best way to find the "truth": appeal to experts or what works best?

(FTA, lawyer? What law school produced you?)

[FTA Lawyer]

I enjoy living in a society where I can refuse to talk to agents of the state, I cannot be arbitrarily detained while walking down the street, my home cannot be violated by overzealous police, the government cannot tell me how to live my life (by and large)...all of these freedoms are protected by the Charter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

FTA, there is no question that to be free in a civilized society, individuals need to be guaranteed protection from the State (ie. from the wishes of the majority).

The question, in mind, is whether a Charter is the best way to achieve this protection.

On the face of it, an explicit charter which clearly states how the State cannot encroach on an individual seems good. In practice, this is not so obvious. Britain does not have a single, explicit charter yet individuals and minorities have been well protected.

FTA, to make a comparison, do you think English grammar and spelling would improve if the government established a single code of grammatical and spelling rules? Well, the French language has precisely that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If not the Charter that we have, what should we do instead? In reality, we would go back to the 1960 Bill of Rights, which essentially is the same as the Charter (with a few minor differences, including protection of property rights).

Either way, we have legislation that would be interpreted by the courts to monitor the government...or do you advocate revocation of the Bill of Rights also?

Maybe there are better ways, I'm just not sure what they are.

FTA

OMG!

FTA, do you mean individual Canadians had no rights before Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights? (Of course, they did.)

Look, FTA, the issue here is whether it is best to look to a single source for an answer (Bill of Rights, Civil Code, Charter of Rights) or several sources (common law, precedent).

FTA Lawyer, who decides the rule/law of English grammar? Precedent, what works. Who decides the rule/law of French grammar? An academy, wise people.

----

Now then FTA, as a normal person (not as a lawyer), what - IYV - is the best way to find the "truth": appeal to experts or what works best?

(FTA, lawyer? What law school produced you?)

I never said Canadians had no rights prior to the 1960 Bill of Rights...but the point I'm making is that we've had a piece of legislation substantively similar to the Charter for almost 50 years now...and that document is just a codification of the common law principles that developed before it.

The Charter is merely one further step in the evolution...take good common law, pass a statute to codify it...take a statute and elevate it to the status of constitutional document...can't simply be repealed by the next government who comes along...

If what you are saying is we should reverse the development of our democratically advanced system of rights and freedoms by a century or so and just go back to good ol' common law (i.e. true "judge-made" law), then I will still choose to stick with the Charter...flaws and all.

As to your question regarding what law school "produced" me...are you questioning whether or not I am a lawyer or are you just trying to take a shot at the instituiton that I attended? What if I told you that I went to two different law schools (placing in the top ten percent at each)...which one will you blame?

FTA

[Leafless]

FTA

You wrote- " I never said Canadians had no rights prior to the 1960 Bill of Rights...but the point Iam making is we had a piece of legislation substantively similar to the Charter for almost 50 years now...and that document is just a codification of common law principles that developed beforeit."

Sure, a codification that overides provincial human rights and rights that can be interpreted by a federal government and courts to set the stage and impressed on all Canadian provinces. Previously the Bill of rights worked in conjunction with provincial human rights and still do based but based on federally controlled and manipulated Charter rights forcing provinces to comply with it's court backed desires.

But you know Charter rights are not being upheld concerning English speakers in Quebec and the escape clause used is the notwithstanding clause applicable to provinces. But what provinces REALLY would be allowed to use that clause in the event of say wanting to establish English as the official language. We already know the answer to that one, don't we?

Now Mr. Martin is advocating it's removal on a FEDERAL LEVEL ONLY to attain full control of dictating social policy in many important areas and controlling it.

The Liberals are well on the way of removing all traces of a democratic Canada.

[mcqueen625]

Martin vows to end federal notwithstanding clause

CTV.ca News Staff

Liberal Leader Paul Martin dropped the most surprising news of Monday's leaders' debate, revealing an unexpected plan to amend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to bar federal use of the notwithstanding clause.

In the name of defending the Charter, Martin proposed the Amendment to End Federal Ability to Invoke Notwithstanding Clause.

The details were quickly posted on the Liberal website, which billed it as "the boldest defence of rights and freedoms in Canada since the creation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982."

As it now stands, the clause gives the government the power to overrule court rulings on Charter issues. It has never been used federally.

Martin talks about Harper having a hidden agenda! This latest proposal by Paul Martin is much scarier than anything Harper has talked about, because it would forever leave all decision making in this country up to an unelected, and unaccountable judiciary. I read an article in the Canadian Free Press comparing the power afforded to our Supreme Court similar to that granted to the judiciary in Germany leading up to the Third Reich. In that articlem it talked about how Hiler used the judges and the courts to foist onto the people his own agenda.

I'm not saying that this is happening, but when we have a PM who is eager to hand over decision making powers to this appointed judiciary, a judiciary that for the most part that has been appointed by either himself or Chretien, quite frankly that scares the hell out of me. Some of the asinine decisions coming out of this bunch of morons is hard to believe, and what is more unbelievable is the fact that Martin says he would not use the notwithstanding clause, because he believes that; "The Supreme Court is the final word in this country." I was taught that this country was a democracy and it is our elected representatives that have the final word. To allow this bunch of appointed, unaccountable judges to have the final word is certainly not democratic, but is instead a dictatorship.

[mcqueen625]

Since it is the Supreme Court Justices that are being charged with interpreting these Cahrter rights, we have to remember that these justices are nothing but appointed lawyers, currently from the ranks of the Liberal Party faithful, how can they be trusted to do what the people want. I would suggest that these appointed, unaccountable judges are acting as if they are BIG BROTHER, and telling us what they think is good for us.

I think the Charter is a flawed document, and should be scrapped. Until we start elected these judges to specific terms in office they will continue to act as if the have the right to tell Canadian's how we are to live and think.

Someone mentioned these judges overstepping the authority by writing things into the Constitutution that was not already there. One of Martin's recent appointees to the Supreme Court Beverley McLachlin was lecturing recently in Victoria, New Zealand to a group of Law School students, and she told those students that; The judiciary should feel emboldened to make rulings even if it is not written in their constutution to allow for that to happen." This type of attitude tells me that these appointed morons want to be in charge, and that is not democracy in action, it is instead a dictatorship.

[sage]

FTA

It seems forgotten in this debate that Diefenbaker actually codified a Canadian "Bill of Rights" in the sixties which guaranteed much of the same rights as the Charter. All too often Trudeau is enamoured (or villified) for his quest to incorporate the charter into the constitution, however seldom if ever is Dief recognzied for his contribution.

[Guest eureka]

The Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. The Charter covers Canada. It was Trudeau's greatest achievement by a long way: not only for what it is but also because it had not been possible to get the provinces to agree to anything that was to the benefit of Canada and not just to their province for a very long time.

[tml12]

The Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. The Charter covers Canada. It was Trudeau's greatest achievement by a long way: not only for what it is but also because it had not been possible to get the provinces to agree to anything that was to the benefit of Canada and not just to their province for a very long time.

In other words, strong central government all the way...

[FTA Lawyer]

FTA

It seems forgotten in this debate that Diefenbaker actually codified a Canadian "Bill of Rights" in the sixties which guaranteed much of the same rights as the Charter. All too often Trudeau is enamoured (or villified) for his quest to incorporate the charter into the constitution, however seldom if ever is Dief recognzied for his contribution.

Not to be too mouthy, but have you even read the previous posts on this thread?...We've been all over the 1960 Bill of Rights!?!?!?!

FTA