CCRF, Sections 29 and 16 to 23, tyranny of the majority?


Machjo
#1
Simple question here. Are Sections 29 and 16 to 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms just a grab for entitlements from Canada's religious and ethnic majorities?
 
DaSleeper
#2
No!!
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Simple question here. Are Sections 29 and 16 to 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms just a grab for entitlements from Canada's religious and ethnic majorities?

Are you saying that those people in Canada of certain religious affiliation and/or cultural heritage are to be without rights?
 
Machjo
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Are you saying that those people in Canada of certain religious affiliation and/or cultural heritage are to be without rights?

Are you saying that those religious communities not mentioned in Section 29 are without rights?

And what about those not covered under Section 23?
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#5
Damn. So much for my right to fill out my driving license paperwork in Klingon.
 
Machjo
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

Damn. So much for my right to fill out my driving license paperwork in Klingon.

They has nothing to do with ensuring a common language if that is what you're referring to; in fact, they actively encourages language duality rather than a common language. And Section 16 has nothing to do with language.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Are you saying that those religious communities not mentioned in Section 29 are without rights?

No

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

And what about those not covered under Section 23?

What about them?

Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

Damn. So much for my right to fill out my driving license paperwork in Klingon.

Not only is it your right, you are also entitled to have an army of Klingon translators follow you around to translate you every wish and desire to the community at large
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

No



What about them?



Not only is it your right, you are also entitled to have an army of Klingon translators follow you around to translate you every wish and desire to the community at large

I want to live in a country that's officially bilingual in English and Pirate. The stopsigns would say:

STOP
Arrr, matey, back yer tops'ls
 
Goober
Free Thinker
+1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Are you saying that those religious communities not mentioned in Section 29 are without rights?

And what about those not covered under Section 23?

Would have been nice to have a link and the articles posted.
Or repost the thread, beg The Big L to delete thisun.
Last edited by Goober; Jan 26th, 2014 at 03:17 PM..
 
WLDB
No Party Affiliation
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Would have been nice to have a link and the artifices posted.
Or repost the thread, beg The Big L to delete thisun.

The Charter isnt all that hard to look up.
 
Machjo
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

No

So then removing Section 23 should not infringe on anyone's rights but only unfair entitlements, right?


[quote]What about them?]/quote]

Well, if their rights aren't infringed by not being included, then ours should'nt be infringed by removing Section 23, right?



Quote:

Not only is it your right, you are also entitled to have an army of Klingon translators follow you around to translate you every wish and desire to the community at large

Where does it say that in the Constitution? The closest I can see to that effect is Section 23 that guarantees that even if you're an English-Canadian living in Quebec city, you stil have a right to send your child to school in English, and same for a French-Canadian in Victoria.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

The Charter isnt all that hard to look up.

Makes it easier is all.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

I want to live in a country that's officially bilingual in English and Pirate. The stopsigns would say:

STOP
Arrr, matey, back yer tops'ls

That would be waayyy cool.

Count me in to help market the idea for the next referendum

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

So then removing Section 23 should not infringe on anyone's rights but only unfair entitlements, right?

It would infringe

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Well, if their rights aren't infringed by not being included, then ours should'nt be infringed by removing Section 23, right?


Are they bitching about it?

If not, then it might be only you that is all up in arms aboot it
 
Zipperfish
No Party Affiliation
#14
Freedom of relighion should really be changed to "freedom to wear funny hats" because that's what most of teh court cases seem to revolve around.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#15
http://nides.bc.ca/Assignments/Canad...nstitution.htm
The most important parts of Canada's written Constitution include the following:

the Quebec Act of 1774, which guaranteed the use of the French language and civil law in Quebec;

the Constitutional Act of 1791, which created elected assemblies in Quebec and Ontario;

the British North America Act of 1867, which created the basis of the federal system and laid down the division of powers between federal and provincial governments. This Act was renamed the Constitution Act, 1867 in 1982;

decisions of the Supreme Court;

the Statute of Westminster of 1931, which recognized Canada's full independence within the Commonwealth. It stated that no law made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom would extend to any Dominion, except at the request of that Dominion;

the Acts that created new provinces after Confederation, for example, the Manitoba Act (1870) and the Alberta and Saskatchewan Acts (1905);
 
Machjo
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Would have been nice to have a link and the articles posted.
Or repost the thread, beg The Big L to delete thisun.

Sorry.

Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Sorry.

Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982

I was not being nasty in my post. Nothing for you to be sorry about.
If certain rights were not in the Charter it would never have passed.
 
Machjo
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Are they bitching about it?

If not, then it might be only you that is all up in arms aboot it

As for Section 29, the UN High Commission for Human Rights has officially criticized it:

United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Jurisprudence - Canada

The Ontario Greens have also opposed it, among others.

As for the other sections, Scott Reid (Conservative MP) criticizes it in his book 'Lament for a Notion', both on civil libertarian and economic grounds. The Fraser institute has also published a report showing its costs, and Valerie Galley has also criticized it on discriminatory grounds against indigenous peoples:

speakingmytruth.ca/downloads/AHFvol2/22_Galley.pdf

Should I go on?
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#19
The one right we need and don't have is the one to NO to increased taxation.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+2
#20
What a waste of time... More bitching that the Seperate School system is funded by - wait for it - the Catholic members of that community.

To further this absurdity, this is a UN based complaint... Those fukkers are as useless as teats on a bull, yet here we are with another waste of bandwidth on this tired old topic
 
Machjo
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

The one right we need and don't have is the one to NO to increased taxation.

I don't know about that. In cases of national disasters or emergencies, it could cause problems. I could see including the following in the constitution to counteract human nature though:

No government can pass any law that could possibly raise the expenditure to revenue ratio without a two thirds supermajority except when there is no federal debt, the Bank rate is at 0%, and the inflation rate is in a negative figure.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

What a waste of time... More bitching that the Seperate School system is funded by - wait for it - the Catholic members of that community.

To further this absurdity, this is a UN based complaint... Those fukkers are as useless as teats on a bull, yet here we are with another waste of bandwidth on this tired old topic

And these self proclaimed centrists always seem to try to push their beliefs on everyone....when in reality if taxpayers didn't want separate schools in Ontario "I don't know about other provinces" the only thing they have to do when they pay their municipal taxes is check the box for Public school supporter...
Don't tell me what to do...........
 
Machjo
#23
Just to clarify, funding for all school systems is pooled. When you check off which school board you want to vote in, that is all it covers, not funding.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
+1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

As for Section 29, the UN High Commission for Human Rights has officially criticized it:

United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Jurisprudence - Canada

The Ontario Greens have also opposed it, among others.

As for the other sections, Scott Reid (Conservative MP) criticizes it in his book 'Lament for a Notion', both on civil libertarian and economic grounds. The Fraser institute has also published a report showing its costs, and Valerie Galley has also criticized it on discriminatory grounds against indigenous peoples:

speakingmytruth.ca/downloads/AHFvol2/22_Galley.pdf

Should I go on?

The UN on Human Rights. Not credible. Not at all.

Membership of the Human Rights Council

Current Membership of the HRC

urrent Membership of the Human Rights Council, 1 January - 31 December 2014

by regional groups
by year

COUNTRY TERM EXPIRES ON

Algeria


2016

Argentina


2015

Austria


2014

Benin


2014

Botswana


2014

Brazil


2015

Burkina Faso


2014

Chile


2014

China


2016

Congo


2014

Costa Rica


2014

Côte d’Ivoire


2015

Cuba


2016

Czech Republic


2014

Estonia


2015

Ethiopia


2015

France


2016

Gabon


2015

Germany


2015

India


2014

Indonesia


2014

Ireland


2015

Italy


2014

Japan


2015

Kazakhstan


2015

Kenya


2015

Kuwait


2014

Maldives


2016

Mexico


2016

Montenegro


2015

Morocco


2016

Namibia


2016

Pakistan


2015

Peru


2014

Philippines


2014

Republic of Korea


2015

Romania


2014

Russian Federation


2016

Saudi Arabia


2016

Sierra Leone


2015

South Africa


2016

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia


2016

United Arab Emirates


2015

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland


2016

United States of America


2015

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)


2015

Viet Nam


2016
 
Machjo
#25
Irrelevant. It doesn't take a genious to figure out that laws that favour one particular group violate the human right to equal treatment before the law.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Just to clarify, funding for all school systems is pooled. When you check off which school board you want to vote in, that is all it covers, not funding.

It is still the taxpayers that decide....do you think that if nobody voted for separate school board that they would build them schools......


So suck it up buttercup....you're outvoted ...live with it!!
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Irrelevant. It doesn't take a genious to figure out that laws that favour one particular group violate the human right to equal treatment before the law.

Should a Constitution be easily changed?
These rights were guaranteed at the time to protect minorities. Guess we were ahead of the ball.
 
Machjo
#28
We must defend entitlements of course.

Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Should a Constitution be easily changed?
These rights were guaranteed at the time to protect minorities. Guess we were ahead of the ball.

Roman catholics and Protestants are the most dominant religious groups in Canada today.

And the French and the English are likewise the most dominant ethno-linguistic communities.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

We must defend entitlements of course.



Roman catholics and Protestants are the most dominant religious groups in Canada today.

And the French and the English are likewise the most dominant ethno-linguistic communities.

The Law.Avoided my question.
 
Machjo
#30
No, a constitution should not be easily changed. That said, what do we do about the Constitution entrenching the tyranny of the majority?
 

Similar Threads

4
Liberty and Tyranny
by Walter | Dec 8th, 2013
32
How to deal with DHS tyranny.
by petros | Jul 16th, 2013
2
The tyranny of therapism
by mrmom2 | Jun 28th, 2005
no new posts