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?
CCRF, Sections 29 and 16 to 23, tyranny of the majority?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
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?
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.
Are you saying that those religious communities not mentioned in Section 29 are without rights?
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
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:
So then removing Section 23 should not infringe on anyone's rights but only unfair entitlements, right?
That would be waayyy cool.
Count me in to help market the idea for the next referendum
It would infringe
Are they bitching about it?
If not, then it might be only you that is all up in arms aboot it
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. :lol:
http://nides.bc.ca/Assignments/Canada/Paper12/Constitution.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);
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);
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.
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?
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
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