Talk:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Mark Steyn case

While the article paints this lovely picture of free speech rights today the Canadian conservative author Mark Steyn is having to defned himself against the Canadian Government over a book he wrote. The book was a best seller, and excerpted in one of Canada's largest magazine. Apparently neither popularity, truthfulness, or the importance of the political questions being discussed in the article and book provide any protection against the group-rights grievence process led by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

It would be nice to see both the controversy discussed in the article, and the lofty claims for the Charter being the equal of the US Bill of Rights "downsized" to reflect reality, rather than the preening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.253.72 (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well said. This article is very far from neutral, and ignores the fact that the Charter spawned "Human Rights Tribunals" where defendants are denied legal due process, must pay for their own lawyers, and virtually always lose, whereas the complainants are provided with free legal counsel, and can file complaints merely for being "offended" by something someone said or wrote. Also, Canadians refer to people who are right of centre as "conservatives", with the term "right-wing" being reserved for extremists, so this article portrays the Charter as being criticized by extremists. There are many Canadians only slightly right of centre who are appalled by what they perceive as partisan judicial activism, and by the court's description of the Charter as a "living tree": a "charter" is supposed to be carved in stone, not something that is to be constantly re-interpreted as the seasonal fashions change.77Mike77 (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thatcher Cabinet discussions

Today's story about the Thatcher Cabinet potentially having difficulty getting the Charter through the UK Parliament because of a lack of provincial support should be incorporated, but I don't have time right now to do it myself. -Rrius (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

There is also no mention of the discussion concerning the elimination of the Westminister tradition of the supremacy of Parliament, and re-conferring that supremacy to a panel of unelected judges. A strong minority of Canadians have grave concerns about unelected judges trumping democracy in Canada, and the Charter is not universally loved in Canada in the way that this cheerleading article presents it. Concern about "judicial activism" is a very hotly-discussed topic in Canada.77Mike77 (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

"Canada Act 1982" and "Constitution Act, 1982" in need of merging into one article.

"Canada Act 1982" and "Constitution Act, 1982" in need of merging into one article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolutely Certainly (talk • contribs) 23:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Um, why? The Charter is a huge subject on its own, and is only part of the Constitution Act, 1982. Singularity42 (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC) Sorry misread the OP's request. Agree with Joeyconnick below. Also, how is this relevant to this article? Singularity42 (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Canada Act 1982 is the British legislation, and the Constitution Act, 1982 is the Canadian legislation, so no. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

They’re separate pieces of legislation and should have their own articles. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Royal Coat of Arms of Canada.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)