logo
#

Latest news with #CharterOfRights

51st state? No thanks, says B.C. MLA after receiving U.S. senator's ‘nonsense' pitch
51st state? No thanks, says B.C. MLA after receiving U.S. senator's ‘nonsense' pitch

CTV News

time4 days ago

  • Politics
  • CTV News

51st state? No thanks, says B.C. MLA after receiving U.S. senator's ‘nonsense' pitch

The B.C. legislature is pictured as people walk in downtown Victoria, B.C., on Wednesday, April 23, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick VICTORIA — A British Columbia legislator says he went from 'disappointed' to 'enraged' after receiving a pitch from a Republican state senator for Canada's four western provinces to join the United States. Brennan Day, with the Opposition B.C. Conservative Party, says his office had to first confirm the authenticity of the 'nonsense' letter from Maine Sen. Joseph Martin after receiving it last week. He says the most shocking part of the letter was its attack on Canadian institutions, like the Charter of Rights, federalism, multiculturalism, and the dismissal of those cornerstones as 'political baggage.' Day says Martin needs to look at 'how heavy his luggage' is, and his party is 'hauling around wheeled trunks' of baggage in the United States where the Constitution is 'being torn up by Republicans.' Day says it's not clear why Martin wrote him, but suspects it might be 'some of the rhetoric' coming out of Alberta that led him to believe British Columbians would also be interested. Martin's pitch says if B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba were to seek admission to the United States, it must be as full American states. He says entry would not be in the form of annexation, but adoption, and the welcoming home of 'kindred spirits who were born under a different flag.' This report by Wolfgang Depner, The Canadian Press, was first published Aug. 15, 2025.

Michael Higgins: Challenge to Saskatchewan pronoun law a waste of time, money and effort
Michael Higgins: Challenge to Saskatchewan pronoun law a waste of time, money and effort

National Post

time12-08-2025

  • Politics
  • National Post

Michael Higgins: Challenge to Saskatchewan pronoun law a waste of time, money and effort

People hold pride flags while attending a rally against the Saskatchewan government's legislation on pronouns in schools, in front of Saskatchewan legislature in Regina, on Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2023. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Heywood Yu It is tempting to dismiss a court challenge over a Saskatchewan pronoun law as a waste of legal resources and time, a squandering of taxpayers' money and a misreading of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS Enjoy the latest local, national and international news. Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events. Unlimited online access to National Post. National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE ARTICLES Enjoy the latest local, national and international news. Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events. Unlimited online access to National Post. National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors And yet one person interviewed by the CBC said that because of the law she had 'kids come up to me saying they were afraid that they were going to die, basically, because of their homes being unsafe.' Well, clearly, if teenage boys and girls feel they are going to die because parents aren't using their preferred pronouns then obviously no expense should be spared. This newsletter tackles hot topics with boldness, verve and wit. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays) By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again On Monday, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decided to prolong this travesty of justice by sending a challenge over the provincial government's pronoun policy back to a lower court. The government passed its pronoun law using section 33 of the Charter (the notwithstanding clause.) Nobody is challenging that the government didn't have the right to do that. Also, the court case started over the government's original policy (before it passed a law.) That policy has been repealed so that part of the case is entirely moot. However, the appeal court said the original judge did have the right to declare whether he thought Charter rights had been limited — but he didn't have to. The judge can use his discretion about whether to make a declaration or not. So the appeal court is saying the Saskatchewan government has done nothing wrong but a judge still has the right to scold it if he believes the Charter has been infringed in some way. No one should be surprised if the headline on this article is: Judges uphold judge's right to chide government. And all this legal brouhaha is because the Saskatchewan government — quite sensibly — believes that schools shouldn't be in the business of allowing young children to impulsively change their pronouns without telling their parents. In 2023, the Saskatchewan government agreed on a policy that teachers and schools must get written consent from parents before using the preferred pronoun of a student under 16. Premier Scott Moe said at the time that the policy was about 'the rights of a parent to ensure they are involved in their child's decision.' When a non-profit group called the UR Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity at the University of Regina launched a court challenge over the policy, the government put the pronoun policy into law and coupled it with the notwithstanding clause. UR Pride claimed that the government's policy was infringing students' Charter rights under Section 7 (everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person) and Section 15 (every individual is equal before and under the law.) The group now also claims that Section 12 (everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment) has been infringed.

Free speech is the right to say horrible things
Free speech is the right to say horrible things

Globe and Mail

time06-08-2025

  • Politics
  • Globe and Mail

Free speech is the right to say horrible things

Parks Canada revoked its permit for MAGA preacher and singer Sean Feucht to perform at York Redoubt National Historic Site in Halifax, citing 'heightened public safety concerns.' The City of Charlottetown also cited public safety concerns in revoking its permit. Moncton did the same, saying in a statement, 'the concert would be non-compliant with the City's Code of Conduct in City Facilities' – which ironically enough prohibits discrimination based on religious belief. In revoking the permit for the Quebec City concert, a spokesman for the city complained: 'The presence of a controversial artist was not mentioned when the contract was signed.' Government officials cited any number of rationales for denying Mr. Feucht a public venue. But the real reason, of course, was that they did not want him to speak. There is a word for that action: censorship. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not just protect speech that government officials agree with. Rather, it is the reverse. Unpopular speech, wrong-headed speech, even speech that is despicable: that is where the Charter's protections are needed. Even for fundamentalist preachers who assail commonly held Canadian beliefs. Robyn Urback: Did we really have to make this D-list MAGA singer famous in Canada? Mr. Feucht, 41, has been a preacher for more than 20 years, though you may not have heard of him until very recently. He embraces the concept of Christian nationalism. 'We want God to be in control of everything,' he preached in 2023. 'We want believers to be the ones writing the laws.' He began to attract notice during the pandemic, when he infuriated officials by holding religious gatherings in opposition to lockdown restrictions. He has railed against abortion rights and the rights of sexual and gender minorities. He is devoted to U.S. President Donald Trump, who has praised his ministry. Mr. Feucht drew little notice on this side of the border until he began a Canadian tour in July, with concerts mostly scheduled at public venues. Complainants demanded the permits for the concerts be cancelled or denied, citing his MAGA connections and beliefs, and federal and civic officials from Halifax to Winnipeg swiftly complied. When an evangelical church in Montreal decided to host a concert despite it being banned, the city fined the church $2,500 for failing to obtain a permit. But as the city made clear, it was Mr. Feucht's presence that was the problem. 'This show runs counter to the values of inclusion, solidarity, and respect that are championed in Montreal,' said a spokesperson for Mayor Valérie Plante. 'Freedom of expression is one of our fundamental values, but hateful and discriminatory speech is not acceptable in Montreal.' Senator Kristopher Wells tweeted that Mr. Feucht has 'no Charter right to have his shows hosted at public facilities, which must be safe and discrimination-free spaces that uphold community standards.' The senator should brush up on constitutional law. The Charter does not mention 'safe and discrimination-free' public facilities or 'community standards.' It does state that: 'Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.' Of course, the Charter lays out legal limits to those freedoms. And the Criminal Code prohibits hate speech. To our knowledge, Mr. Feucht has not said anything during his Canadian tour that rises to the level of criminal hate speech. If so, the remedy is clear: criminal charges, not prior restraint. Nor have federal officials refused him entry to Canada on one of many the admissible grounds. As for the 'community standards and wellbeing' that the City of Vaughan, north of Toronto, cited in rescinding Mr. Feucht's permit, we would all do well to remember that Vaughan and other communities contain houses of worship representing faiths that embrace at least some of what Mr. Feucht preaches. Popes, for example, have often spoken in Canadian public spaces despite the opposition of the Roman Catholic Church to abortion and same-sex marriage. If anyone finds Mr. Feucht's preachings offensive, there is an excellent way to show displeasure: through legal, peaceful protest. Or by simply ignoring him.

Opinion: Chief Justice Richard Wagner forgets that criticizing judges is part of democracy
Opinion: Chief Justice Richard Wagner forgets that criticizing judges is part of democracy

National Post

time18-06-2025

  • Politics
  • National Post

Opinion: Chief Justice Richard Wagner forgets that criticizing judges is part of democracy

Article content If legal commentators are permitted to scrutinize the reasoning of judges, then it is entirely legitimate for elected officials to do so, as well. After all, the rule of law mandates that each branch of the state remains within its allocated bounds. Where a court exceeds its proper constitutional role, or is in danger of doing so, then elected officials have a right, and a constitutional duty, to contest these uses of official power. Article content Consider the case that provoked Premier Ford's comments, which involved a court challenge to his government's decision to remove bike lanes in some Toronto neighbourhoods. Whether or not their removal was appropriate, it is hard to conceive of bike lanes as a 'fundamental right' contemplated by the framers of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At best, the question is one of urban planning: a dispute over transit infrastructure, about which reasonable people can disagree. It is entirely consistent with Canada's constitutional order that these questions of policy should be left to the politically accountable government of Ontario. In discharging its unique constitutional role in our democracy, Queen's Park is entitled to assert its priorities over those of cycling advocates. Article content Unfortunately, none of these considerations prevented Justice Paul Schabas of the Superior Court of Ontario from issuing a preliminary injunction, effectively stopping the government from implementing its priorities. In so doing, Justice Schabas summarily dismissed the elected branches' constitutional function, asserting that 'the government does not have a monopoly on the public interest.' Instead, the learned judge contended, it was for the court to exercise its own judgment as to which public interests the government could and could not pursue. Article content Next, consider the numerous cases in which Canadian courts have struck down mandatory minimum sentences as unconstitutional, or departed significantly from public sentiment in sentencing criminal offenders. In one emblematic case, the Supreme Court of Canada declared a six-month mandatory minimum for child luring to be 'cruel and unusual punishment' contrary to the Charter, claiming that it would 'shock the conscience of an informed public.' More recently, the Provincial Court of British Columbia has been criticized for a decision to impose no jail time upon an offender who possessed what the court characterized as a 'relatively modest' collection of child pornography. In these circumstances, it is entirely unsurprising that officials and informed citizens should raise questions about the intelligent exercise of judicial power. Article content Article content A constitutional democracy that prizes our courts as forums of reason cannot have it both ways. It cannot profess public confidence in the judiciary, while insisting that judicial decisions be shielded from public criticism. Central to judicial responsibility is the task of offering reasoned justifications for one's decisions. Those reasons are an invitation to the public to examine and critically appraise the cogency of a judge's decision-making. Article content There is little reason to think, then, that elected officials are acting inappropriately, much less unconstitutionally, in expressing reasoned disagreement with judicial rulings, or in proposing solutions to perceived problems with those decisions. To the contrary, such criticism is precisely what the rule of law requires, and bearing it with composure is a constitutional duty of the judicial role. Article content

Man who killed four members of Ontario Muslim family appealing convictions: doc
Man who killed four members of Ontario Muslim family appealing convictions: doc

National Post

time07-06-2025

  • National Post

Man who killed four members of Ontario Muslim family appealing convictions: doc

A court document shows a man convicted of murdering four members of a Muslim family and seriously injuring another in what the judge deemed to be an act of terrorism is appealing his convictions on three grounds. Article content A lawyer representing Nathaniel Veltman filed a new notice of appeal in February, nearly a year after Veltman filed an initial inmate notice of appeal. Article content Article content The document says Veltman is challenging his convictions and seeking a new trial on grounds that the trial judge erred in admitting the 'ideological evidence,' and in admitting his statements to police, which it says were obtained in breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Article content Veltman was sentenced in February 2024 to life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years after he was convicted of four counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted murder for hitting the Afzaal family with his truck on June 6, 2021, while they were out for a walk in London, Ont. Article content Article content Forty-six-year-old Salman Afzaal; his 44-year-old wife, Madiha Salman; their 15-year-old daughter, Yumna; and her 74-year-old grandmother, Talat Afzaal were killed in the attack. The couple's nine-year-old son was seriously hurt but survived. Article content Pomerance ruled the murders, committed by a self-described white nationalist, were an act of terrorism. The case was the first time Canada's terrorism laws were put before a jury in a first-degree murder trial. Article content

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store