Talk:Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Untitled

I'd like to get articles on all the important sections of the Charter similar to what the United States Constitution has for its amendments. In this particular case, I think it would be ideal NOT to merge Oakes test article or R. v. Oakes article with this one. This article should be more of a contextual look at the section while the "test" article should be a procedural look at using the section, and the "case" article should be more fact and initial-reasoning oriented. Any comments are welcome. -- PullUpYourSocks 20:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've decided to merge Oakes test with this article. Oakes is such a huge part of section one that there is no point keeping them separate. As well it's more consistant with the other sections (such as section 15) that have the appropriate tests in the article itself. - PullUpYourSocks 29 June 2005 22:59 (UTC)

• Hi PullUpYourSocks, I know you've expressed skepticism as to the Joel Bakan thing, and it sounded a little odd to me too, but I have since learned it is an idea prominent enough to be found in an academic work, and so I re-added it with a clarification that it is only a rumor, and I added references. CanadianCaesar 7 July 2005 22:32 (UTC)
  • As long as it's something that can be substantiated I'm happy. Thanks! -PullUpYourSocks 8 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

GFDL

• Ooh, I guess I should add, for the purposes of GFDL, that while I moved some content here from the main Charter page, with an edit summary on the Charter page but not here, and while the stuff from the Charter page was anon-written, I was that anon, so I didn't think it necessary to complete an edit summary at the time. CanadianCaesar 00:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Author of Oakes Test

I finally tracked down the source of the rumor that Joel Bakan wrote the Oakes test. The book is called "The Charter Revolution and The Court Party", by Morton and Knopff, and honestly, the rumor is far from credible and likely unverifiable. On page 111 the book tells a story about how Dickson assigned a 23-year old Bakan to rewrite the opinion for the Oakes case to which Bakan when home and invented the oakes test while getting drunk on sherry. The source of this story is an "independent anonymous source". So basically it's just gossip. The book itself is far from the main stream. It's probably one of the most critical books of the Canadian legal system and at times makes some pretty outlandish claims. The bakan story was told in the context of the authors claiming that Canada was run by a "jurocracy" and that decisions were almost entirely written by the clerks who would often influence their decisions by their own radical politics. With annecdotes like the bakan story it's hard to put much credibility in the book. Regardless of whether they are right or not, it's best to stick with more mainstream materials. PullUpYourSocks 05:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't have to believe the rumour, but I think in a sense it is notable. The book is whacko, but it's not "far from the main stream"- it was written by academics, with a parallel journal article, which has been commented upon by other academics. Both authors have Wikipedia articles as well. It was my professor, not the bizarre cat lady, who gave me the book, and while even my conservative professor scoffed at it, it is an academic work. We can make the skepticism more blatant, but the article never at any time endorsed that rumour. And I think it's wrong for the article now to assert firmly that Dickson was the author. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 19:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I may not have chose my words carefully enough. I should clarify that the issue is not with the academic integrity of the authors. I may not agree with their politics but I think there is need for their critical approach as much as any other critical philosophy of law. The Charter criticism section that cites their work is good and it is where it should be. But I do have a problem with this particular claim regarding authorship that is, as far as I can see, unverifiable. Other academics may vouch for the story but I don't see any concrete proof of the truth of this claim. I'm not one usually to fight over points like this but this story in particular is far from just an interesting annecdote, it has some very serious implications. The claim that the founding interpretation of probably the most important section of Charter was not written or even concieved of by the judge is a huge statement on the integrity of the justice system. It also seems very contrary to the reputation of Dickson. He one of the most repected Chief Justice's there has been, and it would seem really out of place, and for that matter, highly irresponsible to delegate such an important duty to a clerk. The authority of a court's decision rests almost entirely on the authorship of the decision by the judge. I think it's such a dangerous claim to throw around with out a significant amount of substantive evidence. An "anonymous" source and corroboration from a published article is far from sufficient. I greatly respect your judgement CC, but I feel strongly that this bit of info needs to be excluded. --PullUpYourSocks 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a lot of respect for your judgment as well, PUYS, but perhaps our respect to the Canadian justice system might steer us away from NPOV: Are we here to protect the integrity of the justice system or Mr. Dickson's reputation? Moreover, even if the sources are flawed, I don't consider it within Wikipedia's ability to second-guess them; as a tertiary resource, we have to handle everything as all things being equal. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 22:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

My concern is not based on fidelity to either the judge or the system, but rather only on credibility of the source. I think our disagreement comes down to the issue of whether, as you say, “it is within Wikipedia's ability to second-guess” the source. I would argue that to a limited degree it is. My concern, I think, can be summarized by the policy on verifiability where it states that “[e]xtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. As I pointed out earlier, the story has extraordinary implications to the legal system but has only a weak source to support it (i.e. an anonymous one), and so to me it begs for removal. When reading the anecdote we most go on the faith that the book’s source is both accurate and honest even though the source has been intentionally hidden by the author. For academic literature, this practice is highly unusual and extremely suspect. --PullUpYourSocks 18:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

How about this. I rewrote the criticism section with the source (previously it was unreferenced). I put the Bakan rumour there instead of in the main section about the Oakes test. There, it's in the "fringe" part of the article, where you suggest the book is. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point, but I do find it far more palatable in this form. --PullUpYourSocks 03:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Error

quick change to the last line of the intro paragraph.

It read: "It has also been used to protect the unreasonable interference of government in the lives of people in a free and democratic society by defining these limits."

I think what was meant was :"It has also been used to protect from the unreasonable interference of government in the lives of people in a free and democratic society by defining these limits." I changed it to that...