Charter of Rights

It's a Legal Maze for Canadian Authorities Abroad

This commentary by Prof. Ed Morgan was first published in The Globe and Mail on May 27, 2009.

Canadians may be surprised to learn a few things about our constitutional law.

First, the military owes no duty toward detainees arrested by us and turned over to a foreign state for custody.

Second, our intelligence service does owe a duty toward prisoners taken into custody by a foreign state and turned over to us for interrogation.

Third, our diplomats are obliged to intervene with a foreign legal system that fails to live up to our domestic standards of punishment.

And fourth, our police are free to comply with a foreign legal system that fails to live up to our domestic standards of search and seizure.

When it comes to the powers of the Canadian government abroad, each new court ruling makes us wonder if the judges took the time to read the last one. How did this confused state of affairs come to be?

Canadian Educators Need Education on Hate Speech

This commentary was first published in the National Post on March 22, 2010.

Educate yourself about Canada’s hate laws, the Provost of the University of Ottawa told conservative pundit Ann Coulter in advance of her visit. Campus authorities apparently fear Coulter’s reputation for provocative views. They would remind her that unlike in the United States, hate speech is outlawed here and our defamation laws are strictly enforced.

Well, there’s nothing wrong with education, but as long as we’re encouraging it for our guests we might also think about educating ourselves.

As all of our university officials know, the willful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group is a crime. The problem is that the offence – or, rather, the specter of the offence – is used more as a threat to silence speakers than as a basis for actual prosecutions. The threat is easy to invoke and is often effective in chilling the very debate that campus life is supposed to foster. Our universities encourage diversity in their student and faculty bodies, but as the Coulter case demonstrates, they often bridle at too much diversity of opinion.

Minister Kenney’s Ban on Face Coverings is Ultra Vires

Not only is Minister Kenney’s ban on face coverings a gratuitous insult to Muslim women, it’s ultra vires.

In the wake of all the publicity about the Minister of Immigration’s decree that no one shall be allowed to go through the citizenship ceremony with her face covered, I thought I'd find out how the ban on face coverings was authorized in law. It appears that the ban is buried in the Operations Manual on citizenship ceremonies.  The Operations Manual provides guidance to citizenship bureaucrats (including Citizenship Judges) about how to interpret and apply the law -- the Citizenship Act and the Citizenship Regulations.  Since they are only guidelines, they do not have the force of law, and are invalid to the extent that they contradict the statute or the regulations.

You can find the citizenship manual here (PDF) (see s. 6.5). The manual contains an elaborate set of instructions about how citizenship officials shall respond if a woman is both uppity and oppressed enough to show up with her face covered.

Foreign Affairs: A Delicate Balancing Act

This article by Prof. Ed Morgan was originally published in The Lawyers Weekly, April 13, 2012.

When it comes to conducting foreign affairs, it is well established that the constitution puts the weight of responsibility on the federal government. But in recent years, the courts have deviated from that rule as often as they have invoked it.

In the Afghan prisoners case, the Federal Court of Canada explained that the government owes no constitutional duty when, after questioning, the military turns detainees over to a foreign government. The judgment presumed that Canadian forces require flexibility, and enjoy the discretion to deviate from domestic rules when they deal with an allied state and prisoners of war.

Prof. Audrey Macklin - "The government has not kept its word in the Omar Khadr case"

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

In a commentary in the Toronto Star, Prof. Audrey Macklin takes the federal government to task for its lack of action in bringing the Omar Khadr case to its promised resolution ("The government has not kept its word in the Omar Khadr case," July 17, 2012).

Read the article on the Toronto Star website, or below.

Prof. Kent Roach reflects on the impact the Charter has had on Criminal Law

Monday, April 16, 2012

On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Prof. Kent Roach reflects in the Ottawa Citizen on the impact of the Charter on Criminal Law ("The government v. the Charter," April 14, 2012).

Read the full commentary on the Ottawa Citizen website.

Read the latest Asper Centre "Outlook" newsletter

Monday, April 30, 2012

The David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights has published the Spring 2012 issue of its newlsetter Asper Centre Outlook. The new issue features an interview with Joseph Arvay, the inaugural Constitutional-Litigator-in-Residence, case comments, and an overview of constitutional cases before the Supreme Court of Canada during this 30th anniversary year of the Charter.

Read the newsletter (PDF).

Prof. Ed Morgan - "The difference between lunchtime prayer and a Jesus T-shirt"

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

In a commentary in The Globe and Mail, Prof. Ed Morgan analyzes the constitutional issues around different forms of religious expression in public schools ("The difference between lunchtime prayer and a Jesus T-shirt," May 9, 2012).

Read the full commentary on The Globe and Mail website.

Dispatch from the IHRP: Mexican Senate passes key legal reforms to end violence against journalists

Monday, April 16, 2012

IHRP co-authored influential report with key recommendations on this issue

by Renu Mandhane, director, International Human Rights Program (IHRP)

 John Ralston Saul speaks with President of the Senate, Senator José González Morfín
John Ralston Saul speaks with President of the Senate, Senator José González Morfín

The Difference Between Lunchtime Prayer and a Jesus T-shirt

This commentary was first published by Prof. Ed Morgan in The Globe and Mail on May 9, 2012.

A public school in Toronto thinks a clergyman can be invited to conduct Islamic prayers at lunchtime on school grounds. As a school trustee explains it, “What we’re doing is what we should be doing as a school board and that is accommodating students’ needs no matter what their religion is.”

A public school in Chester Basin, N.S., thinks a student can be prohibited from wearing a T-shirt with a Christian message on school grounds. As school trustees explain it, “It is expected that students will not wear clothing with messages that may offend others’ beliefs, race, religion, culture or lifestyle.”

Does Canadian law really get such a failing grade?

Whether religious expression is permitted in schools turns on the meaning given to “freedom of religion” and “freedom of expression.” The confusion over this question calls for a review class on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Beginning in the mid-1980s, the courts determined that public schools cannot teach religion in a doctrinal way. While they can, and often do, offer history and social-studies classes that survey world religions, the mandatory separation of church and state prohibits them from teaching religion as it is taught to adherents of that religion – i.e., as a matter of belief rather than general knowledge.

Pages