Tory Charter of Rights attitude 'shocking'


Liberalman
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post

420 rally???

The herbal smokes
 
petros
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Steyn savages the Charter : Prime time : SunNews Video Gallery (external - login to view)

Ezekiel 8:16
He then brought me into the inner court of the house of the LORD, and there at the entrance to the temple, between the portico and the altar, were about twenty-five men. With their backs toward the temple of the LORD and their faces toward the east, they were bowing down to the Sun in the east.
 
mentalfloss
#33
Charter of Rights turns Canada into a 'constitutional' trendsetter

Forget, if you will, the prediction that Canada is fast becoming an energy superpower, able to influence on the world.

The question legal scholars are asking themselves these days is whether Canada is a "constitutional superpower," primarily on the back of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

According to several authorities, the charter, which turns 30 on Tuesday, April 17, has been influencing not just Canadian law but jurisprudence and the drafting of constitutions around the world.

In a forthcoming study that analyzes the content of the world's constitutions, titled, "The Declining influence of the United States Constitution," its authors observe that, "a stark contrast can be drawn between the declining attraction of the U.S. Constitution as a model for other countries and the increasing attraction of the model provided by America’s neighbour to the north, Canada."

The study is by law professors David Law of Washington University in Saint Louis and Mila Versteeg of the University of Virginia and will be published in the June issue of the New York University Law Review. David Law was born in Vancouver and grew up in B.C.

One chapter — "Is Canada a constitutional superpower?" — says that "among common law countries, Canada has served as a constitutional trendsetter."

To reach this conclusion the authors analyzed 729 constitutions drafted between 1946 and 2006 and found that the U.S. Constitution, the oldest national constitution still in force, "no longer serves as the primary source of inspiration for constitution-making."

However, they also found that, "from the enactment of the Bill of Rights in 1960 through the dawn of the 1980s, the overall global constitutional trend was one of increasing similarity to the Canadian constitution."

Their findings are consistent with the work of other scholars about the Canadian charter's significant global impact. It has been described as the leading influence on Israel's basic laws and the bill of rights of Hong Kong, South Africa and New Zealand.

Another study found that "the decisions of Canadian courts are cited by New Zealand judges far more than those from any other jurisdiction."

Look to Canada

The waning of the U.S. Constitution's influence has been the focus of some debate in the U.S. in recent months, particularly following an interview with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Al Hayat TV in Egypt on January 30.

Ginsburg was on an official visit to Egypt and Tunisia to help those countries with their transition to democracy following the so-called Arab Spring.

When asked about whether Egypt should look to other's countries' constitutions in drafting their own, she responded, "I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012."

She suggested Egypt turn to Canada's charter, as well as South Africa's Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

In the nineties, Israel turned to Canada's charter when it drafted its basic laws on human rights.

At the time, Aharon Barak was a member and then the president of the Israeli Supreme Court. Earlier he had been Israel's attorney general. In his book, The Judge in a Democracy, he wrote that, "Canadian law serves as a source of inspiration for many countries around the world."

Israel does not have a written constitution. And Barak led what he called a constitutional revolution to give human rights supremacy in Israeli law and to give courts the power to overturn laws that are inconsistent with these basic laws.

In this initiative, Canada's charter was an important reference, he has said.

Today in Israel there is a debate about government plans to give the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, the power to overturn an Israeli high court decision that might overturn a given law as unconstitutional.

Canada's charter also figures in that discussion. This time it is Section 33, the sometimes controversial notwithstanding clause that gives Canada's federal and provincial governments the powers to override parts of the charter for up to five years

Israel affairs analyst Shira Herzog told CBC News in an interview from Tel Aviv, that the notwithstanding clause "has been referenced as a source for this kind of legislation." While the notwithstanding clause was born out of compromise to achieve a constitution, Herzog views the proposed Israeli law as designed to weaken the mandate of the supreme court.

The South Africa experience

South Africa also looked to Canada's charter when drafting its rights laws in the 1990s.

Partly that was because Canada and the U.S. define the concept of equality very differently in their respective laws, according to lawyer and rights activist Marilou McPhedran.

In an interview with CBC News, she said that "the Canadian charter served the founding of a democratic South Africa much better because one of the primary challenges was to find a way to incorporate a huge variance of diversity" in race, culture and religion, while deeply entrenching the core value of equality.

McPhedran was chief commissioner of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission and is now the principal of the University of Winnipeg Global College.

So when they were trying "to create a nation where they could live together and accommodate differences and respect differences, there was a real turning to Canada," she said.

McPhedran took part in the South African government's ten-year review of their constitution on behalf of International Women's Rights Project.

She also notes that, in the process of drafting their constitutions, both Canada and South Africa were influenced by women's activism, resulting in strong equality provisions in the law.

She was one of the leaders in the campaign to include women's rights in the Canadian charter and also founded the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, known as LEAF, which has been an important intervener in many charter cases.

Nathalie Des Rosiers, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, notes that South Africa has "gone a little farther" than the Canadian charter by recognizing socio-economic rights in its bill of rights.

South Africa's bill is also different in that it includes human dignity as one of the country's founding values.

While concurring with the general view that Canada's charter has had a significant international impact, McPhedran notes that in earlier days that impact was furthered by the efforts of the federal government and the Canadian legal community to assist many post-conflict states with drafting their constitutions.

But that was in earlier days, she notes, when the government provided "much more support than what we see today."

Charter of Rights turns Canada into a 'constitutional' trendsetter - Politics - CBC News
 
Liberalman
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post

Charter Celebration Rally / Rassemblement pour la célébration de la Charter

Tuesday April 17, 2012
7:30PM EDT

Live (external - login to view)


Looks like the Liberals are the only ones that will mark the event.

You can watch it online

I watched the Canadian Charter of Rights celebrations on the Liberal web site and it was good, the message was simple that this document is for all Canadians and I just have to think that our Conservative federal government missed another good opportunity and with their quest to get more free trade agreements they are sending the wrong message that Canada as a country is not that important.
 
taxslave
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Here's another perfect case example. If the right to be naked is offset by an enormous statistical jump in rape - then we would have to find a more granular approach to that right.

Wouldn't that be rather like punishing the victim? A more appropriate response would be harsher penalties for rapists.
 
JLM
+1
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by relicView Post

Can you imagine what a nut like harper would do without any limitations ? Some of you underestimate what a smarmy sob that cat is.

Seems like a pretty typical politician to me................worse than some, better than others. The problem I'm having right is trying to identify ones who are better, while keeping taxes in check.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Here's another perfect case example. If the right to be naked is offset by an enormous statistical jump in rape - then we would have to find a more granular approach to that right.

Granular approach!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????? Like maybe drag his bare *** over some finely crushed glass?
 
taxslave
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Seems like a pretty typical politician to me................worse than some, better than others. The problem I'm having right is trying to identify ones who are better, while keeping taxes in check.



Granular approach!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????? Like maybe drag his bare *** over some finely crushed glass?

I misread that .I thought it said glandular, as in castration.
 
JLM
+1
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

I misread that .I thought it said glandular, as in castration.

That could probably be arranged too.
 
Colpy
+1
#39
Tony Kondaks: This Charter Doesn't Deserve a Birthday Celebration (external - login to view)
 
Cliffy
-1
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Tony Kondaks: This Charter Doesn't Deserve a Birthday Celebration (external - login to view)

Hmm! All your references are from Cons. What have they got against human rights? What have you got against human rights? Is it because a Liberal brought them into existence? Or is it just Trudeau that gives Cons a limp dick?
 
Colpy
+4
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Hmm! All your references are from Cons. What have they got against human rights? What have you got against human rights? Is it because a Liberal brought them into existence? Or is it just Trudeau that gives Cons a limp dick?

I don't have a thing against human rights. In fact, my respect for human rights is the reason I have nothing but scorn for the Charter......heres why:

1. The Charter is famed as a "living document" that is flexible and changes with the times.
A real Bill of Rights is a DEAD document, unchangeable except through a difficult amendment process, and always interpreted in light of the intentions of those who authored the document. A document that is changeable, open to interpretation, is mushy, ansd no defense.........cotton, if you will, used as armour instead of cold hard unyielding steel.

2. The Charter sets out special rights for special groups.
That does not even require comment, it is so ludicrous.

3. The Charter pretends rights are granted by gov't, instead of being inalienable truths.........a dangerous view indeed!

4. The Charter enshrines a method to remove rights.....the notwithstanding clause.

The Charter is a damned bad joke, a monument to the infinite ego and ignorance of that arsehole Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

we were better off without it.

And I like the concept of written constitutions.
 
Cliffy
#42
My personal take is that because neither the constitution or the charter were put to a referendum by the people, neither has any legal authority. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think Quebec ratified the constitution so it really isn't a legal document that binds the country. Meech Lake and Charlottetown were failures and since Mulroney shelved it, it is not worth the paper it is printed on. I think that one of the reasons it is worthless is because Canada was transformed from a country to a corporation about that time and is now traded on the New York stock exchange. We do not live in a democracy and the government is not much more than a board of directors. The PM is not even the CEO of this corporation.
 
damngrumpy
#43
In an open society we have a constant conflict reconciling rights and freedom with
the prevailing opinions of the day. The Conservatives don't like the charter and the
reason is simple, the charter gives rights to people that cannot be altered by the
simple application of law, they are subject to a challenge as rights are enshrined
in the constitution.
The Conservatives want to deal with law and order as they want it to be while every
one else wants to deal with law and order in accordance with reality.
As such Harper wants you to have rights on his ideological terms and we want rights
as defined by the charter.
 
petros
#44
It's the property issue that pisses them off.
 
Machjo
+1
#45
I was just thinking of a business model. We would print undesirable Articles of the Charter onto rolls of toilet paper and call it Charterpaper, or CP for short. Any takers?
 
JLM
+1
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

In an open society we have a constant conflict reconciling rights and freedom with
the prevailing opinions of the day. The Conservatives don't like the charter and the
reason is simple, the charter gives rights to people that cannot be altered by the
simple application of law, they are subject to a challenge as rights are enshrined
in the constitution.
The Conservatives want to deal with law and order as they want it to be while every
one else wants to deal with law and order in accordance with reality.
As such Harper wants you to have rights on his ideological terms and we want rights
as defined by the charter.

And I don't like the Charter because it gives criminals more rights than their victims, which is also one of many reasons I had absolutely no use for Mr. Trudeau, another is squandering the money of his subjects.
 
petros
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

And I don't like the Charter because it gives criminals more rights than their victims, which is also one of many reasons I had absolutely no use for Mr. Trudeau, another is squandering the money of his subjects.

How so?
 
JLM
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

How so?

You mean how much so? About $400 billion in debt. Don't tell me you liked the A$$hole!
 
petros
#49
I was talking about the rights issue.
 
JLM
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I was talking about the rights issue.

And what is right (correct) about them?
 
Machjo
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

I was just thinking of a business model. We would print undesirable Articles of the Charter onto rolls of toilet paper and call it Charterpaper, or CP for short. Any takers?

Come to think of it, that would still include at least two articles that come to my mind, and maybe a couple more beyond that, just to make sure not all squares have the same article otherwise it could get boring.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I was talking about the rights issue.

Official Bilingualism for one. Just Google:

Official Language policies of the Canadian Provinces costs and benefits in 2006 pdf

I like Scott Reid's proposal of regional bilingualism (i.e. official bilingualism in local communities where numbers warrant), which is reasonable.
 
petros
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

And what is right (correct) about them?

You don't want them?
 
WLDB
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post


3. The Charter pretends rights are granted by gov't, instead of being inalienable truths.........a dangerous view indeed!

4. The Charter enshrines a method to remove rights.....the notwithstanding clause.

The Notwithstanding clause is my main problem with the document. It effectively means 'you have these rights unless we say you don't'. Trudeau should never have agreed to it. It made the whole thing useless.

As for the 'inalienable truths' portion that would be a philisophical argument. The government/state tends to have a monopoly on force and they usually dont care to argue about such things.
 
petros
#54
It's no different in the US where the Constitution can be suspended.
 
Colpy
#55
From a man that understands real human rights.....

"The most important minority group in any society is the individual, and what matters is that Canadian citizens have equality before the law as Canadian citizens," .........Mark Steyn


Why Mark Steyn won't be celebrating the charter anniversary - Politics - CBC News
 
Colpy
#56
The Charter is worse than useless......

Quote:

The Court of Appeal did at least correct one error made by the lower court: It correctly held that the bylaw violated citizens’ rights to freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Freedom of expression includes the right not to express oneself in a particular language. “Freedom consists in an absence of compulsion,” they wrote, quoting the Supreme Court of Canada.
But then, astonishingly, they said the violation was justified under Section 1 of the Charter — the section that allows governments to violate fundamental freedoms if the violations are “reasonable limits … demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

The language police come to Ontario | Full Comment | National Post
 
gerryh
+1
#57

Why? because he's a fu cking useless ***.
 
Colpy
+1
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Why? because he's a fu cking useless ***.

If by "useless ***" you mean a brilliant and insightful commentator on world events, and a tireless defender of liberty and free speech, then I would agree.



My post immediately below yours proves he is completely correct about the Charter.
 

Similar Threads

5
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
by passpatoo | Feb 16th, 2007
10
Harper and the Charter of Rights
by cyberclark | Jan 18th, 2006
3
Constitution and Charter of Rights.
by Andem | Aug 13th, 2002
no new posts