Charter of Rights: 25 Years Later

[August1991]

Harper chose to go to Vimy Ridge to commemorate a battle 90 years later. But Harper seems to be doing nothing to signal the 25 years of the signing of the Charter of Rights.

Chretien has given interviews in both English and French.

In English, Chretien was surprised about same-sex marriage and the idea that a PM could appoint activist judges:

He has even less sympathy for Harper's recent declaration that he wants to find judges who share his Tory government's law-and-order agenda.

From a practical standpoint, Chretien said, it does little good to impose an ideological litmus test on would-be judges, since once they're appointed they're beyond government control anyway.

"Some guys will tell you what you want to hear, and after that they will do what they want to do.''

Beyond that, Chretien argued that it's just not proper for any government to quiz candidates for the bench on their political or social views.

"Are you in favour of abortion, yes or no; are you in favour of capital punishment, yes or no . . . I never asked those questions. The test is: are they good judges?"

CTV

In French, Chretien reminded everyone that the PQ never would have signed the constitutional package. And speaking about Muslim veils, Chretien reminded everyone that one generation ago, woman wore a kerchief to mass:

«Écoutez, essayez pas de réécrire l'histoire, a déclaré M. Chrétien dans un entretien au réseau de télévision Radio-Canada diffusé lundi à l'occasion du 25e anniversaire du rapatriement.

«Lisez le livre de l'ancien ministre péquiste Claude Morin, il le dit clairement, «notre but c'était d'empêcher l'ex-premier ministre du Canada Pierre Trudeau de réussir».

Selon M. Chrétien, qui était alors ministre de la Justice, puisque l'ex-premier ministre du Québec René Lévesque n'avait pas l'intention de signer quoi que ce soit, il était normal qu'il tente d'arriver à conclure un accord sans lui.

La Presse

Chretien conveniently forgets to mention that Claude Ryan, Robert Bourassa and Jean Charest - all federalists - also rejected Trudeau's constitutional package.

----

For myself, is the Charter a big deal? In some ways yes. It limits broadly and clearly the powers of the State over the individual. It does this in a way that, 25 years on, is somehow sensitive to Canada's common law tradition. In some ways, this is contrary to what many Canadians would like. To many, the Charter has been an invitation for activist judges to seek to promote a social agenda.

It is one thing to protect an individual against the actions of the State. It is another thing to order the State to treat everyone alike.

Anyway, the big news is that Harper has ignored this anniversary. And Chretien has chosen it to make some noise. Chretien still has the PR touch.

[segnosaur]

Harper chose to go to Vimy Ridge to commemorate a battle 90 years later. But Harper seems to be doing nothing to signal the 25 years of the signing of the Charter of Rights.

Chretien has given interviews in both English and French.

...

For myself, is the Charter a big deal? In some ways yes. It limits broadly and clearly the powers of the State over the individual. It does this in a way that, 25 years on, is somehow sensitive to Canada's common law tradition. In some ways, this is contrary to what many Canadians would like. To many, the Charter has been an invitation for activist judges to seek to promote a social agenda.

It is one thing to protect an individual against the actions of the State. It is another thing to order the State to treat everyone alike.

Ah yes, the charter... one of the biggest examples of overinflated hype ever seen in Canada.

Frankly, I think the charter was a big waste of time, for several reasons:

- Even without the charter, it wasn't like Canadians lacked basic freedoms. We lived perfectly well for decades under the rights and responsibilities layed out through precident and tradition.

- There ARE several glaring problems with the charter with regards to protecting our freedom. For example:

* No enshrined property rights

* A 'notwithstanding' clause which allows many of our basic rights to be overridden

* I can also point to some court cases (such as the Little Sister's book store) which demonstrate how poor the protection for freedom of speech is

- Personally, as an athiest, I don't really like the fact that our constitution/charter recognizes the 'supreme god' (even if Canadian society does have a strong non-theocratic history)

I know a lot of Canadians think the charter is a source of 'pride'; I wonder how many would change their opinions if they actually knew what was was IN the charter

[hiti]

Actually before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we had the our constitution and the Bill of Rights from 1960. But the Bill of Rights had limited effect, nor was it a constitutional amendment.

The 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an entrenched and therefore pre-eminent part of the law. The ineffectiveness of the Bill of Rights was the main reason that it was thought necessary to adopt a Canadian Charter of Rights entrenched in the constitution.

Canadians are very fortunate to live in a country where they have their rights entrenched in the constitution.

[dpwozney]

The Charter is part of the so-called “Constitution Act, 1982”. The “United Kingdom”, referred to in the present draft of the “Canada Act, 1982, including the Constitution Act, 1982”, refers to the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, not the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”.

According to the British North America Act, 1867, the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”, not the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.

[segnosaur]

Actually before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we had the our constitution and the Bill of Rights from 1960. But the Bill of Rights had limited effect, nor was it a constitutional amendment.

While you're right in that the scope of the Bill of Rights was limited, it wasn't necessarily a bad document... it covered the basic freedoms that we need (speech, assembly, religion, equality), plus the right to property, something our current consititution lacks.

Secondly, the 1960s Bill of Rights wasn't the only protection for our civil liberties.... as I stated before, many of our 'rights' were protected by traditions and precidents established from the British and Canadian systems. It wasn't perfect, but then, the constitution certainly isn't perfect either.

Canadians are very fortunate to live in a country where they have their rights entrenched in the constitution.

Except for the right to property, and except for the right to free speech (as noted by various gag laws and the Little Sister's book store case, as examples), or any of the other rights they want to take away via the notwithstanding clause.

You may not think the above 'rights' are worth defending, and that's fine... I however DO think they're significant.

[PolyNewbie]

A charter of rights is not a constitution. The politicians & judges are free to take any of those rights we have away anytime which means they are really privilidges. The constitution of the United States has rights.

[Argus]

Harper chose to go to Vimy Ridge to commemorate a battle 90 years later. But Harper seems to be doing nothing to signal the 25 years of the signing of the Charter of Rights.

Vimy was an important moment in English Canada's history, though as a French Canadian you probably don't recognize that. The Charter was important only to lawyers - who have been gleefully raking in the cash ever since it was put in place.

In English, Chretien was surprised about same-sex marriage and the idea that a PM could appoint activist judges:He has even less sympathy for Harper's recent declaration that he wants to find judges who share his Tory government's law-and-order agenda.

From a practical standpoint, Chretien said, it does little good to impose an ideological litmus test on would-be judges, since once they're appointed they're beyond government control anyway.

Ah Chretien. The fact he's no longer a politician certainly hasn't stopped him evidencing the dishonest hypocrisy which marked his rule. The litmus tests for judges during Liberal times consisted of "How much money or free legal services has the candidate given us?" and "Is his ideology consistent with ours?" Quality? Insight? Intelligence? Legal knowledge? None of that even entered into the equation. Martin even forced a pair of otherwise totally unknown lawyers onto the SC for the sole apparent reason they were both well-known gay rights supporters.

Anyway, the big news is that Harper has ignored this anniversary. And Chretien has chosen it to make some noise. Chretien still has the PR touch.

Chretien was always all about style without substance. The Charter has done absolutely nothing to improve the lives of Canadians. It has cost billions and billions in taxpayer funding for litigation, and for the schemes and requirements issued by the unelected judges. The Bertha Wilson decision alone has cost us uncountable billions of dollars and left our immigration system a smoldering ruin. Foreign criminals and terrorists walk the streets because it's almost impossible to deport them. How many Canadians have died because the Charter protects criminals from being properly dealt with? Because foreigners can't be properly deported?

What exactly do you think we ought to be celebrating?

[myata]

Speaks volumes of who Harper actually is. There's no way to tell the character (especially of a politician) with any certainty, but I have this feeling that should he ever get his craved majority, we're going to see a very different Harper.

[Leafless]

Harper chose to go to Vimy Ridge to commemorate a battle 90 years later. But Harper seems to be doing nothing to signal the 25 years of the signing of the Charter of Rights.

Maybe Chretien (probably because he is French) thinks its a big deal and smart thing turning over federal operational characteristics to a bunch of Francophone Quebec nationalist.

I am like Harper and see virtually nothing to celebrate with this racist Charter that has created a form of Canadian made Apartheid. All cultural groups coming to Canada or aleady flourishing in Canada are now funded and promoted as being equal of every other ethnic, cultural or racial group in Canada.

So much for cultural seniority in Canada as the law did not contemplate our existing English speaking Canadian culture as being anything different than that of the latest boatload of immigrants from wherever.

I guess we must be thankful to Mr. Trudeau and Charter and the Liberals for the sinking of our historical birthright of individual rights and principles.

This document (the Charter) deserves to burn in hell with all other legislated oppressive racist documents.

And I will celebrate happy birthday to that wish, any day.

[Michael Bluth]

Speaks volumes of who Harper actually is. There's no way to tell the character (especially of a politician) with any certainty, but I have this feeling that should he ever get his craved majority, we're going to see a very different Harper.

Interesting lead in to an unfounded charge of *scary* *scary* *scary* with a majority.

Harper probably believes that the signing of the FTA and NAFTA are two accomplishments that have had a much more profound effect on Canadian's lives in the past 20 years.

What exactly are the volumes it speaks about Harper?

That he doesn't believe the flawed document Pierre Trudeau foisted on the Canadian people is more important than honouring the sacrifices made at Vimy Ridge?

[BC_chick]

Foreign criminals and terrorists walk the streets because it's almost impossible to deport them. How many Canadians have died because the Charter protects criminals from being properly dealt with? Because foreigners can't be properly deported?

What are you talking about? Charter applies to Canadian citizens. How do you deport a citizen?

[BC_chick]

All cultural groups coming to Canada or aleady flourishing in Canada are now funded and promoted as being equal of every other ethnic, cultural or racial group in Canada.

In the good-old days the government conducted affairs based on a citizen hierarchy. Back then Catholics ( French, Irish, Italian, and so on) were the "undesirables." Sounds like you want to bring back the lines of the hierarchy, but merely redraw them.

[geoffrey]

What are you talking about? Charter applies to Canadian citizens. How do you deport a citizen?

Unfortunately, that's no longer true. The SCC has effectively extended most Charter rights to anyone within Canada, regardless of their citizenship. You'll note the differences in the wording between 'every person' and 'every citizen' throughout.

[BC_chick]

What are you talking about? Charter applies to Canadian citizens. How do you deport a citizen?

Unfortunately, that's no longer true. The SCC has effectively extended most Charter rights to anyone within Canada, regardless of their citizenship. You'll note the differences in the wording between 'every person' and 'every citizen' throughout.

True, good point. But still, the only time a person cannot be deported is when they are citizens. Argus's point about fatal crimes resulting from an inability to deport people still doesn't have anything to do with the Charter.

[geoffrey]

True, good point. But still, the only time a person cannot be deported is when they are citizens. Argus's point about fatal crimes resulting from an inability to deport people still doesn't have anything to do with the Charter.

No, your right here. Interesting, many of the gang members tend to be the children of immigrants from what it seems. That's purely anecdotal, and I'm not going to back that up, but I really have a hard time believe that deportations would prevent most of the crimes.

They obviously have no known (serious) criminal records if they are permanent residents... so what do we base this random deportation forumla on?

[BC_chick]

so what do we base this random deportation forumla on?

That's a whole other can of worms. All I'm saying is to leave the Charter out of the equation.

[myata]

I can read his (Harper's) reaction this way: he's unhappy with the Charter because it greatly limits his ability to change the social makeup of this country even if he could get his desired majority. There are freedoms and rights in it which he won't be able to take away with a single vote in the parliament. That was, without doubt, the main reason the Charter was brought in in the first place. But to someone who does not understand, and possibly, despises some of those freedoms, the very existence of this document must cause great frustration.

[geoffrey]

Boooogey man.

There are many valid criticisms of the Charter, saying all those that oppose it want to take away our freedoms is ridiculous.

For example, where are my property rights in the Charter?

All the rights listed are really subjective. Why not the right to life of a fetus? Perhaps because the majority doesn't believe in that... but you have to understand that all those rights are only there because of the will of the majority to put them there.

It's hardly a protection from the majority document when the majority sets, and can alter, the terms of the arrangement.

[myata]

No just makes it a lot harder to take away the rights that the majority decided as being fundamental, on a whim of political situation. Which makes some really unhappy.

[mikedavid00]

True, good point. But still, the only time a person cannot be deported is when they are citizens. Argus's point about fatal crimes resulting from an inability to deport people still doesn't have anything to do with the Charter.

No, your right here. Interesting, many of the gang members tend to be the children of immigrants from what it seems. That's purely anecdotal, and I'm not going to back that up, but I really have a hard time believe that deportations would prevent most of the crimes.

They obviously have no known (serious) criminal records if they are permanent residents... so what do we base this random deportation forumla on?

It's obvious you are in 'defend the immigrant mode' becuase life is good for you personally so everyone around the world should come here and join in. Forget about the employment and job creation statistics. Let's all 'feel good about immigrants'.

I would wager that about 50% of all people living in Canada are immigrants or children of immigrants so yes most youth involved in city gangs are immigrants or children of immigrants.

You're not going to make me go look up the numbers and prove myself right are you? =)

Also, countless crimes have been commited from people who have overstayed their visa's or are here on false refugee claims. I can go on and on regarding welfare fraud, murders, suicides, and all sorts of other things.

I've said this a million times and I'll say it again:

Canada is the easiest country in the world to come to. It's the easiest system to cheat, the gives you the easiest benefits, and not only this Canada ensures that you keep your ethnic bagage and do ensure that you do not assimilate with society.

[Argus]

Foreign criminals and terrorists walk the streets because it's almost impossible to deport them. How many Canadians have died because the Charter protects criminals from being properly dealt with? Because foreigners can't be properly deported?

What are you talking about? Charter applies to Canadian citizens. How do you deport a citizen?

The SCC rewrote the Constitution to extend it to everyone in Canada, even illegally. That gives them multiple avenues of appeal for every decision. Don't like the decision of the refugee panel? Not a problem. You can appeal it in the courts of literally years, all appeals paid for by Canadian taxpayers, and live here in the meantime on welfare with all social services picked up by us. It can take years to deport someone, even a convicted criminal, if he fights it in the courts. And why wouldn't he? There are numerous examples of people under deportation order for years commiting violent crimes, including murder. And let us not forget those terrorist suspects that were held for years, now released by judges' orders, even though the judges themselves felt there was solid evidence they were, at the least, associates of terrorists. They're still here because they won't leave, and the judges, quoting the Charter, will not allow us to deport them because their home countries do not have the proper respect for human and civil rights, and might mistreat them.

It is virtually impossible to deport anyone to countries deemed human rights abusers, no matter what those people do here. There are Iranian rapists and drug dealers wandering the streets because the judges won't let us deport them.

[Argus]

True, good point. But still, the only time a person cannot be deported is when they are citizens. Argus's point about fatal crimes resulting from an inability to deport people still doesn't have anything to do with the Charter.

No, your right here. Interesting, many of the gang members tend to be the children of immigrants from what it seems. That's purely anecdotal, and I'm not going to back that up, but I really have a hard time believe that deportations would prevent most of the crimes.

They obviously have no known (serious) criminal records if they are permanent residents... so what do we base this random deportation forumla on?

What are you talking about? There are thousands of foreigners who have been ordered deported for a wide variety of criminal convictions who are living in Canada either while they play out their long string of taxpayer-funded appeals through the courts, or because their home countries are known for human rights violations and the judges of the SCC decided we could not deport people to such places.

One of the favourite ways to extend your stay is after you've run out of appeals, you marry someone, and then you can launch a whole new series of appeals based on you being the spouse of a "canadian", and then if that doesn't work you have a kid and make a new series of claims based on the kid's rights. Or, after all this has played out, you launch another appeal on "compassionate grounds" since you've now been here for like ten years and it would be unfair to send you back.

[geoffrey]

I would wager that about 50% of all people living in Canada are immigrants or children of immigrants so yes most youth involved in city gangs are immigrants or children of immigrants.

You're not going to make me go look up the numbers and prove myself right are you? =)

Yup. I am. Because that is pure BS.

Canada is the easiest country in the world to come to.

Untrue. We don't accept anymore than the average.

It's the easiest system to cheat, the gives you the easiest benefits, and not only this Canada ensures that you keep your ethnic bagage and do ensure that you do not assimilate with society.

Look at France, they have a similar problem with ethnic baggage in the suburbs of Paris.

The cost of immigration may be steep, but we can't function without it. There are no Canadian workers willing to get off their ass anymore. We have a labour shortage in Alberta, and no one is willing to come here to work, so we need to go foreign. I work with many first generation immigrants and I have no problem with any of them... they hardly seem the gangster type.

[Argus]

Canada is the easiest country in the world to come to.

Untrue. We don't accept anymore than the average.

You're quite mistaken. We accept far more than average, and, so far as I know, more than anyone on Earth. We certainly, on a per capita basis, accept more than the US. And many countries don't accept any immigrants or refugees. And our standards for immigration are, again, so far as I know, lower than any other country on Earth. People come here who can't get into the US or Australia or England or France.

[ScottSA]

The cost of immigration may be steep, but we can't function without it. There are no Canadian workers willing to get off their ass anymore. We have a labour shortage in Alberta, and no one is willing to come here to work, so we need to go foreign. I work with many first generation immigrants and I have no problem with any of them... they hardly seem the gangster type.

What does it say about us as a nation that we need immigration to survive? Isn't that something worth fixing BEFORE we start inviting the third world here? Is it appropriate to commit ethnic suicide?

The cost of floodgate immigration is the destruction of Canada, its people and its culture. It's all very well to celebrate "colourful street festivals", "diversity" and "vibrancy" and all the happy happy words that go with hiding one's head in the sand, but reality will one day intrude.