Does Canada need a US-style Bill of Rights?

[Machjo]

so, if the majority of Canadians want to change the agreements made with FN's, then you have no problem with that since it is the majority.

As per the rules. Since the treaties are legally recognized as international treaties, any modification would require agreement between both signatories (i.e. the FN in question and the Canadian government). But if the agreement to modify the treaty were mutual, then yes, just like any contract, it can e modified based on mutual consent of all signatories concerned.

In the case of modifying the Canadian constitution, there is a provision in the constitution itself that was agreed on in how to change it based on a required supermajority.

And so based on that, I do hope one day we can modify the constitution to either extend the privileges granted Catholics and Protestants to all religious communities or (my preference) none of them. That said, I'd also insist it be done according to the agreed-upon rules.

 

[gerryh]

That said, I'd also insist it be done according to the agreed-upon rules.

In that case, this whole conversation is moot.

 

[Machjo]

In that case, this whole conversation is moot.

Not really. My main point is that I also find the agreement to have been unjust. Legal, yes, and so we ought to respect it. That does not change the fact that by discussing it I hope to remind people of it so that perhaps next election in Ontario fewer will vote to defend it. I realize that when even the NDP keeps quiet about it that it would be political suicide for any party to speak out against it. Both the Greens and the PCs tried to remedy this issue, and both were creamed. I just hope one day in the future that will change,a nd that by talking about it we're raising awareness.

 

[Trotz]

All a moot issue,
once Harper gets his majority he can virtually reshape Canada into his own image. After all it had been done already by Pearson and Trudeau!

Of course there will be bitching and hollering but Canadians have a short memory. Most in the country can't remember what they ate yesterday; nevermind those born before the 1960s, even remembering we had the Canadian Red Ensign as our flag until 1957 or "O Canada" becoming the anthem in 1980.

As long as Stephen Harper doesn't ban hockey and the Hillbilly beer (Kokanee and Molson) he can do anything he wants and the masses couldn't care.

 

[The Old Medic]

The problem with not having a written form of a "Bill of Rights" is that it can easily be overridden by Parliament at any time.

That can not happen in the US, because the Courts would throw out any law that violates the Constitution. And, unlike in Canada, the Congress can not overrule the Supreme Court.

Sadly, in Canada, Parliament CAN overrule the Supreme Court at any time. They have done it repeatedly, (See the Brenner decision and its aftermath as just one of many examples.)

That is why, in reality, there are no real "rights" for the Canadian people, other than those that Parliament allows.

 

[damngrumpy]

Why in hell would we want to go to the expense of throwing out the present law to replace it
with yet another set of laws? There would need to be some rules to govern how we speak
to each other? What would we replace it with? Questions questions, that is exactly what
would happen and you think the language laws add expense now.
The truth of the matter is, officially we have enshrined language rules to govern how we
speak to one another. The problem is we would spend billions more to change things now.
Remember how ticked people were when weights and measures were changed? I am still
ticked but I realize that it would cause to much confusion and too much money to change it
back. I still use acres quarts gallons, and English as my only language. Just because
there are language laws does not mean I have to let it rule my life. French, English, who cares?
In other communities minorities continue to use their native tongue and that will go on as long
as we have immigrants. Within one or two generations we have the children and grand kids of
those immigrants speaking English or French. The cycle continues and we are none the worse
for it. A US Bill of Rights? We are just as free as they are and we are not afraid of our own
shadow. We have the charter of rights and freedoms which is just as detailed as any and just
maybe too much so. No we do not need a US Bill of Rights, they need to lay to rest the so called
Patriot Act, which now trumps their Bill of Rights anyway.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Somehow I don't think there is much point in adopting a US style bill of rights. I might favour such a document if there was any indication that the US was more democratic than Canada, but it isn't. In fact so far as freedom of speech is concerned the US is probably less democratic - just witness what happened to Americans who very rightly opposed G.W. Bush over the invasion of Iraq. Many of them were vilified by the media and were told to leave the country; while others had their livelihood threatened. Nor is this a particularly recent phenomenon; there are many examples of Americans who spoke out against the policies of their governments being economically and socially ostracized in the US or dragged before government committees and forced to explain themselves. This is not the sort of Bill of Rights I would want in Canada.

 

[Machjo]

Seems reasonable to me.

And BTW, I agree with your opinion about the special treatment of the RCC. The richest faith on the planet, should pay for their own schools.

I'd honestly have no issue with a Swedish-style school voucher programme. If we had that in Ontario, then a Catholic school that met all the requirements to participate in the voucher programme could accept vouchers just like any other school. The difference though is that then there would have to be enough Catholics to make it worthwhile to open that school from a business standpoint, and that all religions would be treated equally.

Again, as you've obviously understood, it has nothing to do with opposition to the Catholic Faith per se, but more with its privileged position.

Another option would be to go to a single public school system for all. Though they go to oposite ends of the spectrum, they do have one thing in common in that they follow an all-or-nothing philosophy. Either all religious schools are equally entitled to it or none are. The idea that one is and the others not ought to be indefensible by anyone who believes in the principle of equality.

Then again, that's just Gerryh.

 

[CDNBear]

I'd honestly have no issue with a Swedish-style school voucher programme. If we had that in Ontario, then a Catholic school that met all the requirements to participate in the voucher programme could accept vouchers just like any other school. The difference though is that then there would have to be enough Catholics to make it worthwhile to open that school from a business standpoint, and that all religions would be treated equally.

Again, reasonable. I would like to see the requirement of Baptism removed as well. That seems exclusionary and discriminatory, to me.

Again, as you've obviously understood, it has nothing to do with opposition to the Catholic Faith per se, but more with its privileged position.

That wasn't hard to grasp. And I'm a product of the RCC education system.

Another option would be to go to a single public school system for all. Though they go to oposite ends of the spectrum, they do have one thing in common in that they follow an all-or-nothing philosophy. Either all religious schools are equally entitled to it or none are. The idea that one is and the others not ought to be indefensible by anyone who believes in the principle of equality.

I agree.

Then again, that's just Gerryh.

He's just a hard case frustrated with what he interprets as an attack on his faith.

 

[gerryh]

Again, reasonable. I would like to see the requirement of Baptism removed as well. That seems exclusionary and discriminatory, to me.

Removed from what?

 

[CDNBear]

Removed from what?

To attend a school system my taxes pay for.

 

[gerryh]

To attend a school system my taxes pay for.

See...... this is where the fu cking idiots that really don't know what the hell they are talking about should just shut the fu ck up.

You don't have to be Catholic, let alone baptized to attend a Catholic school that is publicly funded. :roll:

 

[CDNBear]

See...... this is where the fu cking idiots that really don't know what the hell they are talking about should just shut the fu ck up.

You don't have to be Catholic, let alone baptized to attend a Catholic school that is publicly funded. :roll:

Ya, that's why my neighbour is trying to find his daughters Baptismal certificate.

I asked him straight out, if she had to be Baptized. He said yes. I was under the assumption, as you have stated here, that it wasn't necessary. Somebody somewhere, has it wrong.

 

[gerryh]

Ya, that's why my neighbour is trying to find his daughters Baptismal certificate.

I asked him straight out, if she had to be Baptized. He said yes. I was under the assumption, as you have stated here, that it wasn't necessary. Somebody somewhere, has it wrong.

and there's the difference. He's registering her as a Catholic, with a Catholic family.

 

[CDNBear]

and there's the difference. He's registering her as a Catholic, with a Catholic family.

There's a difference?

And you do realize I still have to pay for a school system I do not believe should exist right?

 

[Machjo]

Removed from what?

He probably meant from students attending a state-funded Catholic school. And of course I doubt he was referring to any privately-funded Catholic school.

I could see a voucher system along the following lines:

1. It cannot be "topped-up" (i.e. participating schools cannot charge additional fees),
2. It cannot select pupils on any other than a first-come-first-served basis,
3. It must hire teachers trained to the same standards.
4. It must guarantee the freedom of religion of each pupil equally.

Now I know that based on these requirements, most religious schools would huff and puff and choose to bow out. However, the choice would be theirs. Any school willing to abide by these rules could participate, and if not, then they must find their own source of funding.

By the way, some are not aware that some Catholic schools in Ontario, disagreeing with some of the rules the Ministry of Education has placed on them, have in fact bowed out from the separate school system and do operate as private catholic schools funded privately. This would be no different. If a school disagrees with the rules imposed, it would always be free to bow out and find its own funding.

But I know, the concept of equality is difficult for some to grasp.

Ya, that's why my neighbour is trying to find his daughters Baptismal certificate.

I asked him straight out, if she had to be Baptized. He said yes. I was under the assumption, as you have stated here, that it wasn't necessary. Somebody somewhere, has it wrong.

And even if Gerryh is right, let's change it around a little:

The province will fund Muslim schools only, but not of any other religion. But hey, you don't have to be Muslim to attend, though you will be expected to attend classes on the Qur'an and the Ahadith.

But since you don't have to be Muslim, no problem, right.

There's a difference?

And you do realize I still have to pay for a school system I do not believe should exist right?

Do you live in Ontario, CDN Bear? Anyway, I do, and no I don't take kindly to having to fund a school of a religion I don't believe in.

That's not to say I would not be wiling to help within reason. For instance, building an interfaith chapel in a town so as to ensure those of minority religions who can't afford to build their own house of worship can attend is something I'd be willing to pay for. Honestly though, my guess is most of them would then rather just attend in someone's home. But still, in principle that's about as far as I'd go to having my money pay for another religion. World religions in school? That I think could be a useful course to better understand the world we live in. But again, I'd certainly oppose my taxes going towards a particular religion's course, as is the case with catechism in state-funded Catholic schools. Again, I have no issue with privately-funded Catholic schools.

 

[gerryh]

There's a difference?

And you do realize I still have to pay for a school system I do not believe should exist right?

Ya, strange eh, Catholics having to prove they are Catholic to attend a Catholic school, whereas non Catholics don't need to prove bupkiss to attend.


Hmmmmm... here, and in most jurisdictions in Ontario, you have a choice on your tax forms as to where you want your taxes routed to, separate or public. You don't have that choice in your town/municipality/city/whateverthe****youcallit.

 

[CDNBear]

The province will fund Muslim schools only, but not of any other religion. But hey, you don't have to be Muslim to attend, though you will be expected to attend classes on the Qur'an and the Ahadith.

Yep

Do you live in Ontario, CDN Bear?

Yep.

Ya, strange eh, Catholics having to prove they are Catholic to attend a Catholic school, whereas non Catholics don't need to prove bupkiss to attend.

Ya it is.

Hmmmmm... here, and in most jurisdictions in Ontario, you have a choice on your tax forms as to where you want your taxes routed to, separate or public. You don't have that choice in your town/municipality/city/whateverthe****youcallit.

Yes I do.

Are you under the impression that, that actually covers the cost to run a separate school system?

 

[gerryh]

show me some figures

 

[Corduroy]

Canada needs a proper bill of rights, scrap the official languages crap, affirmative action, religious schools, the notwithstanding clause. The US bill of rights is an excellent model. Weed out some of the ambiguity and it's near perfect. But I think it's more likely that Canada joins the United States than the provinces ever agree to a selfless constitution compromise.