Talk:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms/Archive 1

message: Could someone please explain what this section of the article is attempting to explain? The idea of extending rights into areas that are not explicit in the Charter is not new, out of the ordinary, or exclusive to the lower courts. Constitutional interpretation since Confederation has followed the "purposive interpretation" doctrine which has always asked the courts to read into constitution beyond its exact wording. "Originalist" constitutional interpretation never had much traction is Canadian law, so I'd question how controversial the issues described in this section really are.
The same-sex marriage issue, in constitutional terms alone, is not a stretch or controversial by any means. Sexual orientation, along with a handful of other grounds, has been read into section 15 -- a practice that has been around since the first days of the Charter -- thus making laws which discriminate on this ground unconstitutional. As well, there's not much of a debate on who has the authority to legislate matters in relation to marriage either.  Constitution clearly states that the feds have authority over "Marriage and Divorce".
As for the Sandra Bell v. City of Toronto comment. I'm having trouble following this one too. I'd suggest that controversies regarding specific interpretation of certain sections of the Charter be kept in the article for that particular section and not on the main page.
I think a criticism section is fine but it should be a little more coherent than what is there now. I'd suggest removing this section until something better comes along. Any thoughts? --PullUpYourSocks 00:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extension of Rights 

message: By the way, in case anyone is wondering as to whether the subarticles (eg. section 1, 2, 3, etc) should be merged into this one, I ran a test merge, using Show Preview, and a merged article would be too long.  Like the US Constitution has articles for its Amendments and Articles, those can stand.  CanadianCaesar 23:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Charter section articles

message: I have neither the time nor the expertise to fix things, but the bit about the Canadian Bill Of Rights is wrong.  As I understand it, the CBoR imposes binding "manner and form" requirements on federal statutes, and courts can (and do) find that laws enacted in contravention of those requirements are of no force. 24.108.233.15 07:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian Bill Of Rights

message: I'm wondering why sections 4 and 5 were ever included in a "Charter of Rights and Freedoms". These aren't "Rights and Freedoms", they're constitutional requirements for the maintenance of the Canadian system of government. As such they should have been ammended to the main body of the "Constition Act", not sloppily included in a "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" at all, as they have nothing to do with "Rights and Freedoms". Loomis51 07:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they're meant as rights, in a sense that, we have a right to a government that doesn't go past 5 years and doesn't consult with the legislative branch.  Anything less would be dictatorship.  CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 08:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand what you are saying. The provisions appear to describe the structure of part of the democractic system in canada and don't seem to convey rights directly to individuals per se, much like many of the sections in the Constitution Act, 1867. However, in its defence I think they can be seen as appropriate. The democratic section as a whole ensures that people not only get the right to vote but they get the right to vote on a regular basis by ensuring that the government actually does something once elected and eventually leave. The right to vote would be very hollow without the other sections. I also suspect that the provisions were put in the Charter in order to allow for a broader set of remedies. In theory the Court could order an election under section 24(1), but I don't think that's possible under section 52. In the end, I wouldn't go so far as to say sections 4 and 5 are entirely inappropriate for the Charter, but I think they could fit in either document. -PullUpYourSocks 15:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections 4 and 5

message: Should the picture of the Charter itself be at the top of the page?  The contents can be put down later.Habsfan|t 01:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the template should stay on top so it doesn't jump around when you go from article to article.  CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While CanadianCaesar has a good point, I don't think the template jumping around would matter too much - I think the article would look better with the charter displayed first thing. Ouuplas 00:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggested that three months ago.--Anchoress 19:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)#Neither, the title of "legal or constitutional documents" should not be italicized. Personally I find it awkward to see Charter italicized every time, the capital-C is enough. Anyone disagree? --Mathew5000 07:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics 

message: Is it just me, or is there an abundance of Canadian content on Wikipedia, especially as the featured article.  I'm not complaining, being Canadian myself (so maybe I am just noticing something cognitive that isnt there), but does anyone else seem to notice this as well?  Especially when comparing the relative size of Canada's population to other English speaking countries.  Please, no one take offense, I'm just making an observation.
:As far as legal articles go, there are many more American featured articles- in fact this is the only Canadian one.  American legal featured articles include: Article One of the United States Constitution, Dred Scott v. Sandford, Equal Protection Clause, Federalist No. 10, First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Lawrence v. Texas, Roe v. Wade, Section summary of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, Separation of powers under the United States Constitution, Supreme Court of the United States, Texas Ranger Division, Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution, United States Bill of Rights, United States Constitution, USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle A. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it just me... 

message: I can't believe that this article got to FA status with the following statement:
... the Charter has attracted both passionate support from liberals and criticisms by opponents of increased judicial power.  
I removed the word "liberals" with the edit summary: "Not only liberals support the Charter." Someone then substituted the word "progressives." That too is misleading.  All polls indicate that the Charter has broad-based support in Canada. True there is opposition to it and that is reflected in the second half of the sentence. 
I've substituted the former wording with the following statement: 
... the Charter has attracted both broad support from a majority of the Canadian electorate and criticisms by opponents of increased judicial power.
If we cannot agree on this, I would suggest that the sentence be removed entirely until we can agree on appropriate wording here. Sunray 07:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable to me. --PullUpYourSocks 13:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The debate is not really about the charter (which enjoys support across the board, AS WRITTEN), but the living tree doctrine, in other words, it's the ever broadening interpretation of the charter that is the issue. Deet 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support for Charter

message: I think the reasons why Quebec did not agree to the constitutional changes and still does not today is not very well known in English-Speaking Canada, probably because of the climate of confrontation between Ottawa and Quebec on everything involving constitutional and national questions. 
Normally, I thought it would be easy to find good factual, 100% neutral and boring informations on this topic online, but it seems the materials from the Journal des débats available from the website of the Quebec National Assembly only include recent stuff (between 1992 and today) and old stuff (archives between 1867 and 1933). That's not convenient... Can anyone check to see if maybe I overlooked something? (http://www.assnat.qc.ca/)
What is available in both English and French from the CBC/Radio-Canada website only scratches the surface but is a start.
* http://archives.radio-canada.ca/IDD-0-17-982/politique_economie/rapatriement_constitution/
* http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-73-1092/politics_economy/Patriation/
In 2001, the governement of Quebec published a document entitled Québec's Positions on Constitutional and Intergovernmental Issues from 1936 to March 2001. It is available in English translation here:
* http://www.saic.gouv.qc.ca/institutionnelles_constitutionnelles/table_matieres_en.htm
The point of view I am familiar with is this one:
1. Section 16 to 22 were specifically designed to impose Ottawa's POV on language matters, effectively preventing Quebec from implementing its language management policy which is based on the territorial principle and not the personality principle. 
2. Quebec was willing to abandon its constitutional veto in exchange for the ability to retract from any federal program with full financial compensation (Opting Out), but ended up losing the first and not getting the second. 
3. The ability of one province to have full control over what the constitution defines as "exclusive provincial jurisdictions" cannot be worked around without making a mockery of the principles federalism.
3. Despite differences in the interpretation of the facts between the PQ and the Quebec liberals, both agree on the fundamentals (Quebec as a nation, Ottawa pushing for a unified nation-state against the principles of federalism etc.), hence the reason that Quebec still does not agree to the constitutional move of 1982. -- Mathieugp 04:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On Quebec's rejection of the Canada Act 1982

message: I didn't see a mention of where the original document is kept.  I think this should be included somewhere in the article.  Anyone know, and can add?   --Mathew5000 15:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is the document kept?