9 ms·

The first amendment to the US constitution does not apply to Canada. Unless you believe US law is globally binding. (That said, Canada does have their own free

by tjohns 4y ago

The first amendment to the US constitution does not apply to Canada. Unless you believe US law is globally binding. (That said, Canada does have their own freedom of speech, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.)

version_five 4y ago
Canada's charter of rights and freedoms isn't worth the paper it's printed on, especially in Quebec where the government actively pre-empts it (it has a clause that allows this, explaining why it's worthless) when it doesn't line up with their ideology.
- acover 4y ago
  We grant you this right, not withstanding any desire we have to take it away.
  - refurb 4y ago
    No to mention the rather flippant suspension of Charter Rights during the Trucker Convoy.
    - tonyarkles 4y ago
      One of the most frustrating things about that whole situation with the Emergencies Act is the people simultaneously shouting "they have to use it, it's the only way for them to have the power to shut it down!" and "no one's rights are being violated!" I found the final report on the whole EA invocation to be reasonable. It found that the use of the EA was warranted, but also made it crystal clear that a) other people could look at the same facts and come to a different conclusion, and b) that the only reason it got to the point where it needed to be invoked was due to government incompetence at the municipal, provincial, and federal level.
      - rhaway84773 4y ago
        While I agree with most of your comment, I don’t think the application of emergency necessarily contradicts fundamental rights. For example, a truck may be allowed to park on a road for a while. They are allowed to honk occasionally as needed while driving. This is completely legal. However, that doesn’t mean they have a fundamental right to park private objects in public space and disturb the peace by honking unnecessarily for extended periods of time. Laws allow people to do a lot more than just what fundamental rights allow. Often those laws will never consider scenarios that are not fundamental rights but are possibly hurting the fundamental rights of others, and then for practical reasons, an emergency would be the only way to resolve the situation in a reasonable amount of time. If the emergency was abused to suspend fundamental rights that can be opposed in courts and at the ballot box. Emergencies don’t give the government carte blanche to abuse citizens’ rights. They give government a reprieve to act quickly, and let the legal system get involved later. In most jurisdictions (I don’t know if this is true in Canada, but it’s certainly true in the US, where courts required governments to overturn emergency laws during the pandemic), people can still petition the courts that their rights were suspended illegally. Emergency laws don’t eliminate rights. They suspend them and courts absolutely have the ability (at least in the US) to get involved and penalize the government if it finds the suspension of rights are unwarranted. I don’t believe any Canadian court has found that to be the case in the truckers blockade, which probably reflects that fundamental rights were not suppressed.
        tonyarkles 4y ago
        > Emergency laws don’t eliminate rights. They suspend them and courts absolutely have the ability (at least in the US) to get involved and penalize the government if it finds the suspension of rights are unwarranted. One of the key differences between the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the US Constitution is that the charter was an escape hatch right in section 1: > The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. When there’s an allegation that someone’s charter rights have been violated by the government, there’s a 3 part test known as the Oakes test that the courts use to determine whether or not the violation is appropriate per section 1. When an action by the government makes it to court and fails the Oakes test, the courts come up with a remedy. > I don’t believe any Canadian court has found that to be the case in the truckers blockade, which probably reflects that fundamental rights were not suppressed. I believe you are correct, but with a bit of nuance. From what I can tell, the convoy lawyers are somewhat incompetent. I don’t personally have much of a horse in this race, but as a citizen it would have been a really nice outcome for me to have seen some clarity and consistency come out of the Canadian courts on what exactly is or is not acceptable and when one side is doing a terrible job of arguing their case you end up with weak precedent. Beyond the trucker convoy, in the past couple of years we have also had several rail lines and an oil refinery blockaded for many weeks. National, provincial, and municipal police forces have handled these situations very differently, the courts have handled them differently, and the current legislative and precedent situation is very very hazy.
    - rhaway84773 4y ago
      Blockades are not fundamental rights. Honking is not a fundamental right. Situating massive private objects on public property is not a fundamental right. Also, the government declared a state of emergency, the whole point of which is to create a temporary environment where certain rights may be ignored. I don’t see the government of Quebec declaring an emergency because of an epidemic of people flipping the bird before proceeding with legal proceedings against this guy. There’s literally no comparison between the 2 situations. You may disagree with declaration of emergency, and there are ways for the people to protest that. Doesn’t seem like the vast majority of Canadians were interested. There may have been issues with the response to the trucker blockade. But an illegal suppression of fundamental rights wasn’t one of them.
      - refurb 4y ago
        How about donating to a cause? So-called “Freedom Convoy” protesters were ultimately responsible if banks froze their accounts under the Emergencies Act last winter, but the government was not trying to “punish” those who took part, senior bureaucrats said Thursday. The government set a precedent that donating to causes deemed "threatening" is worthy of an emergency freeze on your bank account. Well done. Canada.
        labster 4y ago
        I know, what about our Charter rights to fund terrorists? Seriously, there is a line between civil disobedience and uncivil disobedience, and they crossed it.
        IncRnd 4y ago
        If people don't educate themselves on why the government acts against others, then when the government acts against them, who will listen to their cries?
        refurb 4y ago
        This comment is exactly why we need Charter Rights the government can't easily suspend. The utter lack of understanding of why these protections are needed is astounding. I wonder what they are teaching the kids in school. The government (and voters) won't hesitate to call the opposition "terrorists" and claim donating $5 to a cause is "supporting terrorism" and freeze your bank account so you can't pay rent or buy food. It's really scary. This time it's the other side, next time it's you.
- bawolff 4y ago
  Its not a perfect utopia, but its not nearly as dire as you suggest.
- b112 4y ago
  Sadly, other political bodies do this as well, and it is becoming more common. That clause, I agree, was a mistake. Still, the charter has at least been beneficial in many court cases, and caused many laws to be turfed (many of which, are just dropped forever).
  - 908B64B197 4y ago
    >> especially in Quebec where the government actively pre-empts it It would make sense for Quebec to ignore it since, well, they didn't sign it. Just like the US constitution doesn't apply since, well, Canada didn't sign it. > Sadly, other political bodies do this as well, and it is becoming more common. What makes no sense is the federal government can apparently decide to "suspend the constitution" as it pleases (and did so for peaceful freedom of speech demonstrations by truckers recently).
    - FireBeyond 4y ago
      > and did so for peaceful freedom of speech demonstrations by truckers recently Ahh yes, the "speech" of 160dB ship horns for 22 hours a day for 3 weeks in residential neighborhoods.
      - nucleardog 4y ago
        Yep. If you don’t live in Ottawa, please stop trying to tell us how peaceful and reasonable the attempt at overthrowing our democratically elected government, attended by nazis flying swastikas on our monuments and involving people trying to burn down buildings, was.
        version_five 4y ago
        Lol (Just to be clear, is case anyone doesn't know about this, the above is either an absolutely insane or absurdly dishonest characterization, it's easy to do your own research)
        4y ago
- frenchy 4y ago
  > Canada's charter of rights and freedoms isn't worth the paper it's printed on While this is certainly technically true, the charter is something of a representation of the social contract that already existed between Canadians and their government, and given that we are a country of common law, that does mean something.
  - SECProto 4y ago
    > and given that we are a country of common law, technically, Quebec has civil law [1] for a portion of their legal system. If we're being pedantic :) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_law
- Waterluvian 4y ago
  Violating the Charter was one of the core arguments in this decision. So… no.
  - version_five 4y ago
    Sounds like you've got a clear understanding of the situation
    - Waterluvian 4y ago
      No more clear than simply reading the decision including the parts where the judge states that it would violate Charter rights. “To be abundantly clear, it is not a crime to give someone the finger. Flipping the proverbial bird is a God-given, Charter enshrined right that belongs to every red-blooded Canadian.”
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    Part of the Charter is that the legislature can write that they're going to violate it and it'll be OK
    - Waterluvian 4y ago
      Oh well then throw it all out. Completely useless.
      - mannerheim 4y ago
        I'm just saying, you don't really have freedom of speech if the government can decide to violate it if they feel like it. Edit: I'm apparently rate-limited. Anyway, if words on paper don't mean anything, then bringing up the Charter as evidence that Canadians have free speech is completely irrelevant. Second, the notwithstanding clause isn't a theoretical possibility. > I find my American friends sometimes freak out over the “but they could take your freedoms away!” when they read about stuff like that. Well, yeah they could do anything. Like make secret courts that ignore constitutional freedoms. This is a cute way of pretending the clause is never used.
- jkaplowitz 4y ago
  Outside the specifically legislated scopes where those overrides are in use, or for the parts of the Charter that aren’t subject to the override, courts can and routinely do enforce the charter by invalidating actions or laws. It’s very far from worthless, even if you and I both would rather the override clause didn’t exist. At least, the overrides expire after 5 years if not re-legislated for a new 5 years, so politicians can’t enact them once and then permanently flee accountability.
  - fsckboy 4y ago
    is there any merit to the complaint that some recent legislation in Canada has turned purview of some free speech matters over to "human rights tribunals" which, the complaint alleges, do not accord the same robust due process rights defendants have in courts?
    - jkaplowitz 4y ago
      I don't know what particular complaint you're referring to, but I've seen decisions by Canadian human rights tribunals get challenged in courts, and none of the laws governing Canadian human rights tribunals invoke the legislative option to override to Charter free speech rights, so I think whoever filed that complaint is misunderstanding the reality of the situation.
- jpambrun 4y ago
  This charter and the constitution was imposed unilaterally, and adopted at night without the presence of Quebec representatives. So.. can't really blame us for not being in love with it..
  - version_five 4y ago
    Can't blame Quebec for disagreeing that people are entitled to basic freedoms? (I'd encourage people to read the charter and Quebec's concerns, Quebec objects to it because it doesn't allow them to discriminate against foreigners, there's not some legitimate concern) Some background https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/28/quebec-canada-nation-legault-constitution/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/28/quebec-ca...
    - rhaway84773 4y ago
      Unfortunately people agreeing to sacrifice their own rights in favor of more government overreach as long as it’s marketed as hating on the other (usually immigrants, but also, for example, black people in the US) is not unique to Quebec, and is distressingly popular across the world.
    - jpambrun 4y ago
      Unbound rights means french will disappear along with a culture. For long and still today, french speaking citizens in Quebec earn less than the English minority. The plan was always to assimilate us, and it's mostly working, but you can't blame us for pushing back.
  - rhaway84773 4y ago
    An alternative way of stating this is that the Quebec government was unilaterally required to give its citizens rights. The people of Quebec may be unhappy with the mechanism but surely the principle of protecting people from government overreach should not be in dispute.
    - jpambrun 4y ago
- brailsafe 4y ago
  True, but we also have the UN charter, which is also worth fuck all
- FpUser 4y ago
  Got nothing to do with Quebec in particular. Every Canadian province and feds can invoke Not Withstanding Clause which is basically fuck you and your rights.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    I think the point is that quebec has a longer history of invoking the notwithstanding clause, where in other provinces it is slightly more taboo. And even when invoked in other provinces, it often ends up not really being used (either turns out not to be needed, law not brought into force, or law declared unconstitutional despite notwithstanding clause).
SllX 4y ago
So actually it is, but not in the way that it applies to other countries. The First Amendment is a a flat limitation of Congressional power, not a rights grant. So in that way, it is globally binding as it applies to laws that the United States Congress may make as they pertain to e.g. US citizens residing in Canada, or really even Canadians at home or in the US.
908B64B197 4y ago
> That said, Canada does have their own freedom of speech, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So basically the same amendment, covering the same rights and inspired by the same document (pretty sure the US constitution came first) just under a different name.
- bawolff 4y ago
  Its not the first amendment to the canadian constitution (hello manitoba) and the specifics of the rights granted and their limitations are different [sometimes very different than usa. E.g. gay marriage and abortion]. Additionally prior to the charter canada had some limited freedom of speech from the implied bill of rights, so its not like it introduced it.
- SonicScrub 4y ago
  The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was inspired by documents such as the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Other international influences included the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The concept of individual freedoms existed in Canada long before the Charter was put pen to paper, as it inherited its culture from European origins, where elightenment ideals had been evolving since the 17th century. So the Charter and the US Constitution are similar (but do differ in a few important areas) because they are derived from the same set of values.
mannerheim 4y ago
Not really freedom of speech if the legislature can just decide not to care about it.

by tjohns 4y ago

version_five 4y ago

Canada's charter of rights and freedoms isn't worth the paper it's printed on, especially in Quebec where the government actively pre-empts it (it has a clause that allows this, explaining why it's worthless) when it doesn't line up with their ideology.

acover 4y ago
We grant you this right, not withstanding any desire we have to take it away.
- refurb 4y ago
  No to mention the rather flippant suspension of Charter Rights during the Trucker Convoy.
  - tonyarkles 4y ago
    One of the most frustrating things about that whole situation with the Emergencies Act is the people simultaneously shouting "they have to use it, it's the only way for them to have the power to shut it down!" and "no one's rights are being violated!" I found the final report on the whole EA invocation to be reasonable. It found that the use of the EA was warranted, but also made it crystal clear that a) other people could look at the same facts and come to a different conclusion, and b) that the only reason it got to the point where it needed to be invoked was due to government incompetence at the municipal, provincial, and federal level.
    - rhaway84773 4y ago
      While I agree with most of your comment, I don’t think the application of emergency necessarily contradicts fundamental rights. For example, a truck may be allowed to park on a road for a while. They are allowed to honk occasionally as needed while driving. This is completely legal. However, that doesn’t mean they have a fundamental right to park private objects in public space and disturb the peace by honking unnecessarily for extended periods of time. Laws allow people to do a lot more than just what fundamental rights allow. Often those laws will never consider scenarios that are not fundamental rights but are possibly hurting the fundamental rights of others, and then for practical reasons, an emergency would be the only way to resolve the situation in a reasonable amount of time. If the emergency was abused to suspend fundamental rights that can be opposed in courts and at the ballot box. Emergencies don’t give the government carte blanche to abuse citizens’ rights. They give government a reprieve to act quickly, and let the legal system get involved later. In most jurisdictions (I don’t know if this is true in Canada, but it’s certainly true in the US, where courts required governments to overturn emergency laws during the pandemic), people can still petition the courts that their rights were suspended illegally. Emergency laws don’t eliminate rights. They suspend them and courts absolutely have the ability (at least in the US) to get involved and penalize the government if it finds the suspension of rights are unwarranted. I don’t believe any Canadian court has found that to be the case in the truckers blockade, which probably reflects that fundamental rights were not suppressed.
      - tonyarkles 4y ago
        > Emergency laws don’t eliminate rights. They suspend them and courts absolutely have the ability (at least in the US) to get involved and penalize the government if it finds the suspension of rights are unwarranted. One of the key differences between the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the US Constitution is that the charter was an escape hatch right in section 1: > The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. When there’s an allegation that someone’s charter rights have been violated by the government, there’s a 3 part test known as the Oakes test that the courts use to determine whether or not the violation is appropriate per section 1. When an action by the government makes it to court and fails the Oakes test, the courts come up with a remedy. > I don’t believe any Canadian court has found that to be the case in the truckers blockade, which probably reflects that fundamental rights were not suppressed. I believe you are correct, but with a bit of nuance. From what I can tell, the convoy lawyers are somewhat incompetent. I don’t personally have much of a horse in this race, but as a citizen it would have been a really nice outcome for me to have seen some clarity and consistency come out of the Canadian courts on what exactly is or is not acceptable and when one side is doing a terrible job of arguing their case you end up with weak precedent. Beyond the trucker convoy, in the past couple of years we have also had several rail lines and an oil refinery blockaded for many weeks. National, provincial, and municipal police forces have handled these situations very differently, the courts have handled them differently, and the current legislative and precedent situation is very very hazy.
  - rhaway84773 4y ago
    Blockades are not fundamental rights. Honking is not a fundamental right. Situating massive private objects on public property is not a fundamental right. Also, the government declared a state of emergency, the whole point of which is to create a temporary environment where certain rights may be ignored. I don’t see the government of Quebec declaring an emergency because of an epidemic of people flipping the bird before proceeding with legal proceedings against this guy. There’s literally no comparison between the 2 situations. You may disagree with declaration of emergency, and there are ways for the people to protest that. Doesn’t seem like the vast majority of Canadians were interested. There may have been issues with the response to the trucker blockade. But an illegal suppression of fundamental rights wasn’t one of them.
    - refurb 4y ago
      How about donating to a cause? So-called “Freedom Convoy” protesters were ultimately responsible if banks froze their accounts under the Emergencies Act last winter, but the government was not trying to “punish” those who took part, senior bureaucrats said Thursday. The government set a precedent that donating to causes deemed "threatening" is worthy of an emergency freeze on your bank account. Well done. Canada.
      - labster 4y ago
        I know, what about our Charter rights to fund terrorists? Seriously, there is a line between civil disobedience and uncivil disobedience, and they crossed it.
        IncRnd 4y ago
        If people don't educate themselves on why the government acts against others, then when the government acts against them, who will listen to their cries?
        refurb 4y ago
        This comment is exactly why we need Charter Rights the government can't easily suspend. The utter lack of understanding of why these protections are needed is astounding. I wonder what they are teaching the kids in school. The government (and voters) won't hesitate to call the opposition "terrorists" and claim donating $5 to a cause is "supporting terrorism" and freeze your bank account so you can't pay rent or buy food. It's really scary. This time it's the other side, next time it's you.
bawolff 4y ago
Its not a perfect utopia, but its not nearly as dire as you suggest.
b112 4y ago
Sadly, other political bodies do this as well, and it is becoming more common. That clause, I agree, was a mistake. Still, the charter has at least been beneficial in many court cases, and caused many laws to be turfed (many of which, are just dropped forever).
- 908B64B197 4y ago
  >> especially in Quebec where the government actively pre-empts it It would make sense for Quebec to ignore it since, well, they didn't sign it. Just like the US constitution doesn't apply since, well, Canada didn't sign it. > Sadly, other political bodies do this as well, and it is becoming more common. What makes no sense is the federal government can apparently decide to "suspend the constitution" as it pleases (and did so for peaceful freedom of speech demonstrations by truckers recently).
  - FireBeyond 4y ago
    > and did so for peaceful freedom of speech demonstrations by truckers recently Ahh yes, the "speech" of 160dB ship horns for 22 hours a day for 3 weeks in residential neighborhoods.
    - nucleardog 4y ago
      Yep. If you don’t live in Ottawa, please stop trying to tell us how peaceful and reasonable the attempt at overthrowing our democratically elected government, attended by nazis flying swastikas on our monuments and involving people trying to burn down buildings, was.
      - version_five 4y ago
        Lol (Just to be clear, is case anyone doesn't know about this, the above is either an absolutely insane or absurdly dishonest characterization, it's easy to do your own research)
        4y ago
frenchy 4y ago
> Canada's charter of rights and freedoms isn't worth the paper it's printed on While this is certainly technically true, the charter is something of a representation of the social contract that already existed between Canadians and their government, and given that we are a country of common law, that does mean something.
- SECProto 4y ago
  > and given that we are a country of common law, technically, Quebec has civil law [1] for a portion of their legal system. If we're being pedantic :) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_law
Waterluvian 4y ago
Violating the Charter was one of the core arguments in this decision. So… no.
- version_five 4y ago
  Sounds like you've got a clear understanding of the situation
  - Waterluvian 4y ago
    No more clear than simply reading the decision including the parts where the judge states that it would violate Charter rights. “To be abundantly clear, it is not a crime to give someone the finger. Flipping the proverbial bird is a God-given, Charter enshrined right that belongs to every red-blooded Canadian.”
- mannerheim 4y ago
  Part of the Charter is that the legislature can write that they're going to violate it and it'll be OK
  - Waterluvian 4y ago
    Oh well then throw it all out. Completely useless.
    - mannerheim 4y ago
      I'm just saying, you don't really have freedom of speech if the government can decide to violate it if they feel like it. Edit: I'm apparently rate-limited. Anyway, if words on paper don't mean anything, then bringing up the Charter as evidence that Canadians have free speech is completely irrelevant. Second, the notwithstanding clause isn't a theoretical possibility. > I find my American friends sometimes freak out over the “but they could take your freedoms away!” when they read about stuff like that. Well, yeah they could do anything. Like make secret courts that ignore constitutional freedoms. This is a cute way of pretending the clause is never used.
jkaplowitz 4y ago
Outside the specifically legislated scopes where those overrides are in use, or for the parts of the Charter that aren’t subject to the override, courts can and routinely do enforce the charter by invalidating actions or laws. It’s very far from worthless, even if you and I both would rather the override clause didn’t exist. At least, the overrides expire after 5 years if not re-legislated for a new 5 years, so politicians can’t enact them once and then permanently flee accountability.
- fsckboy 4y ago
  is there any merit to the complaint that some recent legislation in Canada has turned purview of some free speech matters over to "human rights tribunals" which, the complaint alleges, do not accord the same robust due process rights defendants have in courts?
  - jkaplowitz 4y ago
    I don't know what particular complaint you're referring to, but I've seen decisions by Canadian human rights tribunals get challenged in courts, and none of the laws governing Canadian human rights tribunals invoke the legislative option to override to Charter free speech rights, so I think whoever filed that complaint is misunderstanding the reality of the situation.
jpambrun 4y ago
This charter and the constitution was imposed unilaterally, and adopted at night without the presence of Quebec representatives. So.. can't really blame us for not being in love with it..
- version_five 4y ago
  Can't blame Quebec for disagreeing that people are entitled to basic freedoms? (I'd encourage people to read the charter and Quebec's concerns, Quebec objects to it because it doesn't allow them to discriminate against foreigners, there's not some legitimate concern) Some background https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/28/quebec-canada-nation-legault-constitution/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/28/quebec-ca...
  - rhaway84773 4y ago
    Unfortunately people agreeing to sacrifice their own rights in favor of more government overreach as long as it’s marketed as hating on the other (usually immigrants, but also, for example, black people in the US) is not unique to Quebec, and is distressingly popular across the world.
  - jpambrun 4y ago
    Unbound rights means french will disappear along with a culture. For long and still today, french speaking citizens in Quebec earn less than the English minority. The plan was always to assimilate us, and it's mostly working, but you can't blame us for pushing back.
- rhaway84773 4y ago
  An alternative way of stating this is that the Quebec government was unilaterally required to give its citizens rights. The people of Quebec may be unhappy with the mechanism but surely the principle of protecting people from government overreach should not be in dispute.
  - jpambrun 4y ago
brailsafe 4y ago
True, but we also have the UN charter, which is also worth fuck all
FpUser 4y ago
Got nothing to do with Quebec in particular. Every Canadian province and feds can invoke Not Withstanding Clause which is basically fuck you and your rights.
- bawolff 4y ago
  I think the point is that quebec has a longer history of invoking the notwithstanding clause, where in other provinces it is slightly more taboo. And even when invoked in other provinces, it often ends up not really being used (either turns out not to be needed, law not brought into force, or law declared unconstitutional despite notwithstanding clause).

SllX 4y ago

So actually it is, but not in the way that it applies to other countries. The First Amendment is a a flat limitation of Congressional power, not a rights grant. So in that way, it is globally binding as it applies to laws that the United States Congress may make as they pertain to e.g. US citizens residing in Canada, or really even Canadians at home or in the US.

908B64B197 4y ago

> That said, Canada does have their own freedom of speech, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So basically the same amendment, covering the same rights and inspired by the same document (pretty sure the US constitution came first) just under a different name.

bawolff 4y ago
Its not the first amendment to the canadian constitution (hello manitoba) and the specifics of the rights granted and their limitations are different [sometimes very different than usa. E.g. gay marriage and abortion]. Additionally prior to the charter canada had some limited freedom of speech from the implied bill of rights, so its not like it introduced it.
SonicScrub 4y ago
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was inspired by documents such as the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Other international influences included the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The concept of individual freedoms existed in Canada long before the Charter was put pen to paper, as it inherited its culture from European origins, where elightenment ideals had been evolving since the 17th century. So the Charter and the US Constitution are similar (but do differ in a few important areas) because they are derived from the same set of values.

mannerheim 4y ago

Not really freedom of speech if the legislature can just decide not to care about it.