Article 17 of UDHR in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[Machjo]

what's the matter? You suddenly don't like vouchers?

In a constitution?

Now what I could see being added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would be Article 16(3) of the UDHR:

Article 26.

• (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

While school vouchers are one way of achieving this, there may be better ways to do so too. So no, I would not support specifying any kind of right to school vouchers in a constitution, but could see UDHR 26(3) being added in as a more general right.

 

[cranky]

wtf is a school voucher for? put some clothes on your kid, and send him to school, whats the big deal?

 

[Corduroy]

Then this might reassure you.

Finally, the inclusion of property rights protection in the Charter would mean that the government could not disregard these rights unless it could justify its actions and satisfy the onus set forth in s. 1 of the Charter, which stipulates that:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
​

By virtue of this section, a person who felt that his or her property rights had been infringed by legislation would have to establish a prima facie case; once this had been established, the onus would shift to the enacting body to demonstrate that the legislation was a reasonable limit upon rights and freedoms, and was justified in a free and democratic society.

Doesn't reassure me at all. In fact, I was going to include that part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in my post pointing out that it's probably the same "reasonable". Ambiguous language designed to let the government or the court make up any argument it wants. That first clause in the Charter essentially negates the whole thing (never mind the notwithstanding clause).

What is the purpose of the Charter? To legally enshrine our rights. Against what? Government attacks on those rights. But the very first section of the Charter (the one you quoted) says that the guarantee it supposedly gives is limited by what is "reasonable" by law. Who determines the law? The government.

So the Charter guarantees our rights against government infringement unless the government makes a law when it wants to infringe on our rights.

In a system like ours, where there is no real separation of powers, even language not designed with loopholes doesn't guarantee rights. The Constitution Act of 1982 supposedly created a separation where none existed before, but the Charter completely neuters the courts' power in challenging the government on any important rights even before nominally giving it that power (rest assured, language rights are still the holiest of holies). Of course, one need only look to the history of the US Supreme Court to see how even a separation of powers fails to defend civil liberties when the state is little more than collusion of big business interests.

 

[Machjo]

wtf is a school voucher for? put some clothes on your kid, and send him to school, whats the big deal?

This wouled be for a separate thread, but I'll explain it here:

Ontario:

You're offered one or a few choices of public schools to send your child to or you pay out of pocket, unless you're Catholic where you also have a choice Catholic schools.

Sweden:

You get a school e-voucher you can cash in at any participating voucher school.

Which would you say comes closest to fulfilling UDHR 26(3)?

 

[petros]

Ontario:

You're offered one or a few choices of public schools to send
your child to or you pay out of pocket, unless you're Catholic where you also
have a choice Catholic schools.

Just like in Regina. When you pay your municipal taxes they ask which school board do you wish to pay your school taxes to? Seperate School Board or Catholic School Board. Private schools (as long as they follow provincial curriculm) are funded but you'll pay for Admin which because they don't have a board is funded by the parents of the student.

 

[captain morgan]

He still doesn't get it Petros. It's clear that his position has to do with his position on Catholicism and nothing to do with the education system.

 

[Machjo]

He still doesn't get it Petros. It's clear that his position has to do with his position on Catholicism and nothing to do with the education system.

NO. I actually support the right of the monarch not only to marry a Catholic, but to even adopt the Catholic Faith himsel. Do you?