Section_Twenty-seven_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

Reviews
Shared by: zzzmarcus
Categories
Tags
Stats
views:
1
rating:
not rated
reviews:
0
posted:
5/26/2009
language:
UNKNOWN
pages:
0
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Section Twenty-seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section Twenty-seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Part of the Constitution Act, 1982. preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians. [ ] Preamble Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms 1 Fundamental Freedoms 2 Democratic Rights 3, 4, 5 Mobility Rights 6 Legal Rights 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 Equality Rights 15 Official Languages of Canada 16, 16.1, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Minority Language Education Rights 23 Enforcement 24 General 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 Application of Charter 32, 33 Citation 34 Section Twenty-seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a section of the Charter that, as part of a range of provisions within the section 25 to section 31 bloc, helps determine how rights in other sections of the Charter should be interpreted and applied by the courts. It is believed that section 27 "officially recognized" a Canadian value, namely multiculturalism.[1] The section reads, “ 27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the ” Purpose When the Charter was enacted in 1982, constitutional scholar Peter Hogg observed that this section did not actually contain a right; namely, it did not say that Canadians have a right to multiculturalism. The section was instead meant to guide the interpretation of the Charter to respect Canada’s multiculturalism. Hogg also remarked that it was difficult to see how this could have a large impact on the reading of the Charter, and thus section 27 could be "more of a rhetorical flourish than an operative provision."[2] In Canada, multicultural policy had been adopted in 1971 following the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, a government body set up in response to the grievances of Canada’s French-speaking minority (concentrated in the province of Quebec). The report of the Commission advocated that the Canadian government should recognize Canada as a bilingual and bicultural society and adopt policies to preserve this character. Freedom of religion Section 27 has been referred to by the courts. The Court of Appeal for Ontario in Videoflicks Ltd. et al. v. R. (1984) argued that section 27 should receive "significance" from the courts, and that the section could reinforce freedom of religion (section 2). As this court put it, if a law limits the free exercise of religion, then the law is also of no use in promoting multiculturalism, since it effects a "part of one’s culture which is religiously based." Hence, section 27 demands that governments must respect and tolerate various religions, even if this means that some cultural groups may be exempted from certain things the government compels the people to do, even if this proves to place "inconveniences" on the government. This line of 1 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Section Twenty-seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms supporting minority culture. This would be particularly true if there was any inequality between how cultural groups are funded.[3] thinking was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. (1986). The Supreme Court also referred to section 27 in the landmark Charter case R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. (1985), in which the guarantee of freedom of religion in section 2 of the Charter was used to invalidate laws that required businesses to be closed on Sundays, the Christian Sabbath. As the Court noted, the Parliament of Canada requiring Canadians to observe "the day of rest preferred by one religion" contradicted multiculturalism and section 27. Aboriginal rights In various cases, courts have refused to use section 27 (or section 25) to give First Nations a right to have a certain number of seats on a jury in a trial. The courts have instead said that section 27 supports the current practice that anyone can be asked to serve on a jury, since moving Canada toward a scenario in which one race could monopolize a jury could be a threat to multiculturalism.[4] Freedom of expression Section 27 was applied by Chief Justice Brian Dickson in a different way in the Supreme Court case Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor (1990). In this case, Dickson found section 27 could reinforce limits on freedom of expression (in section 2), specifically hate speech. Section 27, along with section 15 of the Charter (the equality rights), would suggest fighting racial and religious discrimination would be a sufficient objective under section 1 of the Charter for limiting free expression under section 2. Despite this, section 27 does not indicate that there are built-in limits in freedom of expression based on multiculturalism. Limits are measured in section 1. In R. v. Keegstra, also decided in 1990, the Court wrote that using sections 15 and 27 to limit the scope of freedom of expression contradicted "the large and liberal interpretation given the freedom of expression in Irwin Toy" and at any rate "s. 1 of the Charter is especially well suited to the task of balancing." References External links • Overview of section 27 case law in the Canadian Legal Information Institute. • Fundamental Freedoms: The Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Charter of Rights website with video, audio and the Charter in over 20 languages Notes [1] Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Human Rights Program. Canadian Heritage. URL accessed on 20 November 2005. [2] Hogg, Peter W. Canada Act 1982 Annotated. Toronto, Canada: The Carswell Company Limited, 1982. [3] Tarnopolsky, Walter S. "The Equality Rights." In The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Commentary, eds. Walter S. Tarnopolsky and Gerard-A. Beaudoin (Toronto: The Carswell Company Limited, 1982), 442. [4] http://canlii.ca/ca/com/chart/s-27.html Equality rights Legal scholar Walter Tarnopolsky speculated in 1982 that section 27 could probably be most relevant to the interpretation of the section 15 equality rights. As he wrote, section 15 already protects ethnic origin and religion, but section 15’s guarantee of "equal benefit of the law," combined with section 27, could lead to governments financially Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Twenty-seven_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms" Categories: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 2 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Section Twenty-seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms This page was last modified on 15 December 2008, at 18:42 (UTC). All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) taxdeductible nonprofit charity. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers 3

Related docs
Anti-Ukrainian_sentiment
Views: 3  |  Downloads: 0
premium docs
Other docs by zzzmarcus
Winneshiek_County__Iowa
Views: 1021  |  Downloads: 3
Winner-take-all
Views: 859  |  Downloads: 2
Winnebago_County__Iowa
Views: 731  |  Downloads: 0
Winnebago_County__Illinois
Views: 613  |  Downloads: 0
Winnebago_-tribe-
Views: 755  |  Downloads: 1
Winn_Parish
Views: 592  |  Downloads: 0
Wings_Over_Vietnam
Views: 980  |  Downloads: 2
Winfield_S._Hancock
Views: 594  |  Downloads: 0
Windsurfing
Views: 1197  |  Downloads: 1
Windsor_Locks
Views: 583  |  Downloads: 0
Windsor_Locks__Connecticut
Views: 540  |  Downloads: 0
Windsor_County
Views: 551  |  Downloads: 0
Windsor_County__Vermont
Views: 505  |  Downloads: 0
Windows_Presentation_Foundation
Views: 697  |  Downloads: 4
Windows_on_the_World
Views: 656  |  Downloads: 1