The Canadian Charter has worked very well in the opinion of many because it
has been linked to a highly competent, independent, and flexible judiciary.
What that has meant is that not only has the Charter taken on a significance
that it might not have otherwise had but it has also acted as a
counterweight to a political system which is increasingly out of touch with
the population. (This was not an inevitable result of the creation of the
Charter and given a different judiciary it could have gone the other way
entirely.)
The Harper government's regressive use of its 39% elected Parliamentary
majority to politicize a range of areas that should not have been
politicized--the census, environmental protection, civil society advocacy,
Overseas Development Assistance, and so on is almost certainly out of
keeping with the fundamental values of Canadians as a whole who have if
anything, become more socially/normatively progressive over time. The just
concluded election in Alberta which pitted a hard (Harperite) right wing
Wild Rose party, against a centrist Progressive Conservative party saw a
very significant repudiation of Harper and his gang the reverberations of
which will be very long lasting and may result in some interesting
developments both within the Harper government and beyond.
That election is also of more than local interest since the centre of
Canadian economic gravity has in recent times swung significantly to the
resource based prairies (Alberta and Saskatchewan) and Alberta was presented
with a clear choice between a self centred backward/inward looking hard
rightist party and a forward looking/bridge building center party prepared
to take on a nationally constructive leadership role. This is particularly
important for a number of reasons not least of which are:
1. that Harper and his gang have been actively looking to reduce the
role of the central government in favour of the Provinces (where there is
now, or at least soon -- after the upcoming BC election -- will be a centre
to centre left majority
2. there is an upcoming election in Quebec where the separatist Parti
Quebecois would most certainly have been running against Harper and co. as
the hard right representatives of "Canada" and with the Alberta election
will not be as able to do this
3. the upcoming renegotiation of the national Health care agreement
which Harper has been shoving onto the Provinces but where now with a
centrist Alberta government Harper's attempt to gut Canadian medicare will
likely be thwarted.
M
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 6:44 AM
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION; Keith Hudson
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [Ottawadissenters] Re: Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Keith,
The point I would make is that it is good to have a document such as the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in place even if a society is
changing rapidly. I found our charter very useful when I worked on
Aboriginal land claims and self-government a couple of decades ago. Had the
Charter not existed, the case that had to be made would have been much less
certain.
One thing that bothered me when the 30th anniversary of the Charter was
being celebrated recently was the attitude of our present federal
government. The Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, said something like, well,
yes, there is a Charter, but so what, we've moved on since then. It seemed
not only like a refusal to recognize the Charter's fundamental place and
significance, but a desire to suppress its role and place in the affairs of
our nation. Other steps the Harper government has taken also suggest a
shift away from values that have underlain our nation during recent decades.
Examples are imposing limits on the process of assessing the impacts of
large industrial projects, cutting back on the range of data that Statistics
Canada can collect, and the muzzling of scientists who work for agencies
such as Environment Canada. It seems as though we are being moved from an
economically diversified and liberal modern nation to something being driven
from the top to satisfy the purposes of certain interests and regions.
Alberta oil and Saskatchewan potash are rising while what goes on in the
rest of Canada is no longer of much significance. Personally, I'm not happy
with it.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Hudson <mailto:[email protected]>
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME <mailto:[email protected]>
DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION ; Ed Weick <mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 4:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Ed,
I much enjoyed reading your piece. Twenty-odd years ago we had a movement
called Charter 88 in the UK which called for a Bill of Rights. We don't have
a written Constitution apart from a few statutory documents scattered
throughout our history, starting with the Magna Charta of 1215 and, since
1959, formal acceptance of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human
Rights. However, although the findings of the ECHR have so far been accepted
by the British government, there are many grumbles about it and attempts are
made from time to time to change the underlying written Convention. In other
words we have a sort of Constitution but it has nowhere near the authority
as yours or America's because there are still cultural differences in
notions of justice between us and most of the rest of Europe. The reason for
this is that we proceeded to human rights in a largely peaceful stepwise
fashion during the 19th century whereas almost every country of Europe had
experienced violent changes starting with the French Revolution of 1789 and
largely culminating in major revolutions almost everywhere in the notorious
years around 1848. The results of most of these included written detailed
statements of newly gained human rights in much more detail than the UK has
ever done.
The European Court of Human Rights is free-standing and is not directly
linked to the European Union. However, if ever the EU breaks up (which I
think is highly likely once its smaller offspring, the Eurozone, does) then
I would guess that the UK (and some other European countries) would restore
UK case law superiority over the decisions of the ECHR (although mainly
based on the written law of the European Convention some case law is added
from time to time by its topmost judicial layer, the Grand Chamber). I think
there'll also be a renewed campaign for a written Constitution of our own.
I've always been in favour of a written Constitution but in the last few
years I've been less enthusiastic. Modern life is changing very fast.
Constitutions (necessarily) are slow to adapt to new circumstances and
dilemmas. Case law (otherwise known as equity law or common law) is quicker
to adapt even though, in any particularly novel circumstance, case law
decisions may wobble this way and that before settling down into a consensus
which is then followed. Case law can encompass shades of decisions which are
more subtle (and fairer) than written law.
Keith
At 22:56 24/04/2012, you wrote:
Along with the repatriation of the Canadian Constitution, the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms got a lot of attention a few days ago because it all
happened thirty years ago. I was looking through some ancient stuff I'd
written years ago and found the following. You may or may not find it
interesting.
Ed
July 1, 2003,
Canada Day! It was once "Dominion Day", which I still prefer, perhaps for no
better reason than I grew up with it. Yet "Canada Day" may really be better.
"Dominion" suggests that someone is lording it over us, and that is no
longer true.
It was still true when I was a kid in the 1930s and 1940s. Perhaps no one
was lording it over us in terms of telling us what we, as a nation, could
and couldn't do, but the mindset was there. We sang "God Save the King"
before school or movies started, our teachers made us sing about the glories
of the British navy, and we studied British history on the assumption that
Canada had no history without Britain. It all made those of us whose parents
didn't come from the British Isles feel a little second class.
So much has changed over the past fifty years. Canadians now willingly and
openly recognize their diversity. Whether one's forebears came from Britain,
Central Europe, the Caribbean, Africa, or Asia doesn't matter. What matters
is citizenship. If you have that, you are guaranteed equality of treatment
under the law, and you are guaranteed equality of access to services
available to all citizens. And your children no longer have to sing about
the British navy keeping the foes at bay unless they want to.
I like to think that the biggest step in recognizing and defining what it
means to be Canadian was the passage of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Included among our rights
and freedoms as citizens are: freedom of expression; the right to a
democratic government; the right to live and to seek employment anywhere in
Canada; legal rights of persons accused of crimes; Aboriginal peoples'
rights; the right to equality, including the equality of men and women; the
right to use either of Canada's official languages; the right of French and
English linguistic minorities to an education in their language; and the
protection of Canada's multicultural heritage. If you have ever traveled in
countries whose citizens do not have such rights and freedoms, you'll
recognize their importance.
But many countries have rights and freedoms on paper without a good system
of courts to back them up. Here Canada has been fortunate. Its courts, based
on the British system, have always been good. Nevertheless, the existence of
Constitutionally entrenched rights and freedoms, and the need to interpret
what they mean in particular circumstances, has greatly raised our court
system's profile. That the legal system is now in a position of some parity
with the political system has caused politicians more than a little
discomfort. They feel and often publicly argue that power has shifted away
from them, thus impairing their ability to do what they have been elected to
do in a democratic society. I don't agree. Politicians have done some rather
awful things in the past, and there's no guarantee that they wouldn't do
them again in future. In my opinion, any increase in the ability to
challenge arbitrary power is a good thing, and that is what the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms enables us to do.
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com
<http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/>
__._,_.___
Reply
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20Charter%20of%20Rights%20and%20Free
doms> to sender | Reply
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20Charter%20of%20Righ
ts%20and%20Freedoms> to group | Reply
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ottawadissenters/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJydWk1Z25oBF
9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1MjA5MDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MzUxMgRtc2dJZAMxODIyMQ
RzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzEzMzUzNjE0MjQ-?act=reply&messageNum=18221>
via web post | Start
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ottawadissenters/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMWpvNHEzBF
9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1MjA5MDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MzUxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsaw
NudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzMzUzNjE0MjQ-> a New Topic
Messages
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ottawadissenters/message/18216;_ylc=X3oDMTM3N
m5haGV1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1MjA5MDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MzUxMgRtc2dJZ
AMxODIyMQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzMzUzNjE0MjQEdHBjSWQDMTgyMTY-> in
this topic (2)
Recent Activity:
Visit
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ottawadissenters;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdmY0bXJvBF9TAzk
3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1MjA5MDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MzUxMgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2h
wBHN0aW1lAzEzMzUzNjE0MjQ-> Your Group
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNHBkb3U2BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE1M
jA5MDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MzUxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTMzNTM2MTQyN
A--> Yahoo! Groups
Switch to: Text-Only
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change Delivery
Format: Traditional> , Daily
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email Delivery:
Digest> Digest . Unsubscribe
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe> .
Terms of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=15209059/grpspId=1705083512/msgI
d=18221/stime=1335361424/nc1=3858796/nc2=5028925/nc3=3848585>
__,_._,___
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
