Should the Bill of Rights 1689 be compulsory reading in compulsory education?

[Machjo]

Seeing that the Bill of Rights 1689 is among the most important legal documents affecting Canadians today, should it be compulsoy reading as a prerequisite to high school graduation?

For those who haven't read it, here it is:

Bill of Rights (c.2) - Statute Law Database

Of course I could see schools teaching a version using a modernized spelling, but otherwise it would seem that this document ought to be compulsoy reading in high school as a founding document of our laws.

Any thoughts on this?

Or even the following amended version would be better than nothing:

English Bill of Rights

And besides, the entire document is about 5 pages long, and the abridged version, about 3 pages long. Certainly teachers could find time over a 12 year curriculum to fit 5 pages in there for among the most important legal documents affecting us today.

 

[JLM]

Seeing that the Bill of Rights 1689 is among the most important legal documents affecting Canadians today, should it be compulsoy reading as a prerequisite to high school graduation?

For those who haven't read it, here it is:

Bill of Rights (c.2) - Statute Law Database

Of course I could see schools teaching a version using a modernized spelling, but otherwise it would seem that this document ought to be compulsoy reading in high school as a founding document of our laws.

Any thoughts on this?

Or even the following amended version would be better than nothing:

English Bill of Rights

And besides, the entire document is aout 5 pages long, and the abridged version, about 3 pages long. Certainly teachers could find time over a 12 year curriculum to fit 5 pages in there for among the most important legal documents affecting us today.

It can't be any worse than that instrument our illustrious Prime Minister of the day brought in about 30 years ago.

 

[Machjo]

It can't be any worse than that instrument our illustrious Prime Minister of the day brought in about 30 years ago.

You haven't read it, have you. The Bill of Rights 1689 is in no way replaced by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Though it is true that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms reitirates some aspects of the Bill of Rights 1689 and adds new rights on top of that, the Bill of Rights 1689 also imposes various restrictions on the Monarchy, which are not reitirated in the CCRF. This document is not just a historical artifact, but continues to stand today as the foundation block of our modern Monarchy, and essentially stands above the BNA Act when we consider that it, along with a few other documents, lays the foundation blocks of our constitutional monarchy, upon which the BNA Act, itself equal to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and in some ways ranking even above it when we consider that its provisions for certain religious groups cannot be touched by the CCRF, stands!

We could argue that it is not among the most important legal documents applicable to Canada today, but the most important document. It stands above the BNA Act, the CCRF, and every other Canadian Law, and cannot even be changed without the consent of all other Commonwealth Realms!

 

[Colpy]

You haven't read it, have you. The Bill of Rights 1689 is in no way replaced by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Though it is true that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms reitirates some aspects of the Bill of Rights 1689 and adds new rights on top of that, the Bill of Rights 1689 also imposes various restrictions on the Monarchy, which are not reitirated in the CCRF. This document is not just a historical artifact, but continues to stand today as the foundation block of our modern Monarchy, and essentially stands above the BNA Act when we consider that it, along with a few other documents, lays the foundation blocks of our constitutional monarchy, upon which the BNA Act, itself equal to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and in some ways ranking even above it when we consider that its provisions for certain religious groups cannot be touched by the CCRF, stands!

We could argue that it is not among the most important legal documents applicable to Canada today, but the most important document. It stands above the BNA Act, the CCRF, and every other Canadian Law, and cannot even be changed without the consent of all other Commonwealth Realms!

Good Lord!

You don't want Canadians to actually discover that they have a RIGHT to keep arms, do you?

As prescribed by law, but a RIGHT, not a priviledge.

Yes it should be taught. Along with a whole lot of other history on the development of western civilization into the greatest society ever known on earth.

And the alternatives.......

Then maybe we might raise a generation willing to lift a finger to save themselves and their offspring from the darkness.

 

[Tonington]

Good Lord!

You don't want Canadians to actually discover that they have a RIGHT to keep arms, do you?

Maybe Canadians should be taught this stuff, but not by Colpy. The distinction he leaves out is no royal interference in the freedom to have arms as suitable to their conditions and "as allowed by law." In other words, if it's legislated firearms restrictions, then that's fine. Just as taxes must be legislated, and not decreed by the monarch. This part of the Bill of Rights also identifies this as a right of protestants.

 

[TenPenny]

I kinda like this part:

Subjects’ Arms.
That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

 

[geiseric]

The idea of a citizen militia keeping barbarians at the gate this day and age is nothing short of amusingly reactionary.

 

[Trotz]

The idea of a citizen militia keeping barbarians at the gate this day and age is nothing short of amusingly reactionary.

Reactionary; perhaps, but I wouldn't underrate the validity of a citizen militia in defending the sovereignty of a nation. During the Winter War, Finland with a hastly organized militia were able to hold off the entire Soviet Armed Forces and it didn't hurt that most of the citizenry had previous knowledge of and access to firearms.

We may consider ourselves "Pacifists", but most people in the world still otherwise consider Canadians to be "Shock Troopers".

 

[geiseric]

Finland. That's funny. I hope for all our sakes that whoever we end up resisting is as inept as the Russians were. If I recall correctly, their rifles froze up and their worst enemy was their own tanks.

From what I've seen in another thread there's a lot of folks that think our friends to the South have enough onhand to put up a good fight. Well if that's the case we're already not so bad off since proportionally Canadians own as many if not more firearms than them. So the Firearms Act may be annoying but take comfort in knowing that so far it hasn't gotten in the way of keeping the dream alive.

 

[petros]

That's not our Bill of Rights. Our's came August 10 1960.

Jeeeesus!

Good Lord!

You don't want Canadians to actually discover that they have a RIGHT to keep arms, do you?

As prescribed by law, but a RIGHT, not a priviledge.

Yes it should be taught. Along with a whole lot of other history on the development of western civilization into the greatest society ever known on earth.

And the alternatives.......

Then maybe we might raise a generation willing to lift a finger to save themselves and their offspring from the darkness.

LOL...too bad that's not our Bill of Rights.....

Aren't you the guy who claims to have studied history? Whose did you study?

 

[The Old Medic]

This has absolutely NO bearing on Canada whatsoever. It predates the formation of Canada as a country, and it has no legal reference at all in Canadian law.

 

[Machjo]

I kinda like this part:

Subjects’ Arms.
That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

Yup. Kind of like the separate school system protected in the British North America Act.

The reason I think the Bill of Rights 1689 ought to be taught has nothing to do with whether I agree with it or not, but rather with the fact that it is the highest law in the land. Other discriminatory parts of the Bill include restrictions on the monarch being or marrying a Catholic.

The issue though is not with whether we agree with this Bill or not, but rather with whether it legally applies to us, which it does. Perhaps teaching it in school might actually wake people up to the fact that it needs a slight upgrade.

That's not our Bill of Rights. Our's came August 10 1960.

Jeeeesus!

LOL...too bad that's not our Bill of Rights.....

Aren't you the guy who claims to have studied history? Whose did you study?

Neither the Canadian Bill of Rights nor the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have ever replaced the bill of Rights 1689. It had been fully patriated by Canada and each of the Commonwealth Realms. Had it not been the case, the Queen would not be ours today. The Bill of Rights 1689 continues to have full legal applicability in Canada today and cannot be changed except with the agreement of all the Commonwealth Realms, including Canada, the UK, Australia, new Zealand, and Jamaica, etc. without risk of separating from the Crown. In that sense, it stands supreme even above the British North America Act, let alone the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The issue here is not with whether we agree with this bill or not, but rather with knowing the highest law of the land. The first requirement before we can adequately either defend or challenge or change that Bill is to know it.

This has absolutely NO bearing on Canada whatsoever. It predates the formation of Canada as a country, and it has no legal reference at all in Canadian law.

Seeing that it's the very foundation of Canada's constitutional monarchy even today, and continues to have full legal and constitutional authority in our courts even today right here in Canada, I'd say it definitely has an impact on our lives. It doesn't matter that it predates Canada; it's been fully patriated.

If you'd like to replace that Bill of Rights with a new Bill redefining the role of the monarchy, that's fine. But how will you know waht to change without first knowing how our current Bill stands. Again, this particular Bill of rights defines our current constitutional monarcy, not to be confused with the later Canadian bill of Rights and then the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

[Unforgiven]

I would love to see this used in court as a reason to have a hand gun in Toronto. heh heh heh

 

[Machjo]

I would love to see this used in court as a reason to have a hand gun in Toronto. heh heh heh

It wouldn't work for me; I'm not a Protestant. The good news though is that since I'm not Catholic, I could marry a future Queen without her having to step down.

 

[petros]

Neither the Canadian Bill of Rights nor the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have ever replaced the bill of Rights 1689.

Wanna bet?

 

[Tonington]

Wanna bet?

Can I get in on that bet too?

 

[petros]

It's safer than betting against the Leafs.

 

[Tonington]

Probably not as much fun though.

 

[Machjo]

Wanna bet?

Where do they ever deal with the rules regulating the selection of the Monarchy? Sure some parts might be overridden, but most of its still does apply, especially with regards to the monarchy, simply because the newer Bills don't even touch upon the selection process for the Monarchy. For instance, where do you think we find the law dictating that the Monarch must be Anglican and can't marry a Catholic? The Bill of Rights 1689, not the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a totally separate document dealing with a totally different purpose for the most part except for a few overlapping elements.

 

[FiveParadox]

That's not our Bill of Rights. Our's came August 10 1960.

Jeeeesus!

LOL...too bad that's not our Bill of Rights.....

Aren't you the guy who claims to have studied history? Whose did you study?

This has absolutely NO bearing on Canada whatsoever. It predates the formation of Canada as a country, and it has no legal reference at all in Canadian law.

Wanna bet?

Can I get in on that bet too?

Sorry, guys, but Machjo is quite correct.

Section 129 of the Constitution Act, 1867 provides that any laws that were in effect in the British colonies at the time of Confederation (even those enacted by the Parliament of Great Britain, or the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) remain in effect unless repealed by the Parliament of Canada. So, Canadian law includes a snapshot of the laws that existed at the moment that the Constitution Act, 1867 came into force, unless otherwise ordered by our federal Parliament.

Matters within the English Bill of Rights, 1689 that relate to the monarchy (as well as those in the Act of Settlement, 1701) are to be taken literally, as they are entrenched in our constitutional order by the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, s. 129 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Statute of Westminster, 1931. The matters in the bill of rights relating to civil rights and our constitutional framework are referenced by other entrenched constitutional documents and, therefore, are foundational to our own constitutional structure.

The difference here, though, is how the provisions in the English Bill of Rights, 1689, are held in Canadian law. The provisions relating to monarchy are enforced exactly as-is, because they are explicitly called upon by the amending formula of the Constitution Act, 1982, and other documents. The provisions relating to civil rights and our constitutional structure, though, are constitutional references; they form a lens through which our judicial deliberations should be guided, but these are principles, and vague principles, at that. The rights enumerated in the English Bill of Rights, 1689 do not trump other constitutional documents, but rather frame how they might be interpreted where there is some conflict with other elements of constitutional law.

Addendum -- Oops, it looks as though I've strayed a bit from the actual question. Yes, I think that the English Bill of Rights, 1689, should be a compulsory element of the education system; I'm not saying that it should be read verbatim (as there are few who could comprehend the archaic form of English with any reasonable efficiency), but the provisions of the document that relate to our constitutional monarchy--something so foundational to our governing system--should absolutely be taught and tested. Reference to, and perhaps a brief discussion of, the civil rights component of the document would be desirable, but since they are only foundational in Canadian law, a discussion of some basic principles would be adequate.