249 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2020
  2. Oct 2020
    1. Antalet premiumprenumeranter som står för hälften av Spotifys intäkter steg med 27 procent till 144 miljoner jämfört med samma period föregående år. Det var fler än analytiker förväntat sig (142,5 miljoner) enligt Refinitivs sammanställning.
    1. James Bronterre O’Brien, told the people:‘Knaves will tell you that it is because you have no property, you are unrepresented. I tell you on the contrary, it is because you are unrepresented that you have no property …’16

      great quote

    1. he group has become self-described “dignity scholars” who have studied the notions and criteria of dignity in landmark legal cases. In doing so, R2L has used Hypothesis as their “human rights tool” to examine legal evidence and build an argument for legislative change.

      Hypothes.is as a human rights tool! awesome!

    1. They also found themselves unable to sustain and organize in the long term in a manner proportional to the energy they had been able to attract initially and the legitimacy they enjoyed in their demands.

      This reminds me of an excellent example I heard recently on Scene on Radio's Men series which tells the story of a rape which occurred several years prior to the bus boycott that helped to rally the community and make the bus boycott far more successful than it would have been without the prior incident and local reportage.

      The relevant audio begins (with some background) at approximately 22:40 into the episode.

    1. Mutual aid societies were built on the razed foundations of the old  guilds, and cooperatives and mass political parties then drew on the  experience of the mutual aid societies."

      This reminds me of the beginning of the Civil Rights movement that grew out of the civic glue that arose out of prior work relating to rape cases several years prior.

      I recall Zeynep Tufekci writing a bit about some of these tangential ideas in some of her social network writing. (Where's the link to that?)

  3. Sep 2020
    1. Facebook ignored or was slow to act on evidence that fake accounts on its platform have been undermining elections and political affairs around the world, according to an explosive memo sent by a recently fired Facebook employee and obtained by BuzzFeed News.The 6,600-word memo, written by former Facebook data scientist Sophie Zhang, is filled with concrete examples of heads of government and political parties in Azerbaijan and Honduras using fake accounts or misrepresenting themselves to sway public opinion. In countries including India, Ukraine, Spain, Brazil, Bolivia, and Ecuador, she found evidence of coordinated campaigns of varying sizes to boost or hinder political candidates or outcomes, though she did not always conclude who was behind them.
  4. Aug 2020
    1. Facebook has apologized to its users and advertisers for being forced to respect people’s privacy in an upcoming update to Apple’s mobile operating system – and promised it will do its best to invade their privacy on other platforms.

      Sometimes I forget how funny The Register can be. This is terrific.

    1. Facebook is warning developers that privacy changes in an upcoming iOS update will severely curtail its ability to track users' activity across the entire Internet and app ecosystem and prevent the social media platform from serving targeted ads to users inside other, non-Facebook apps on iPhones.

      I fail to see anything bad about this.

    1. "When an OP rejects your edit, please do not edit it back in!" Correspondingly, when a user repeatedly does try to edit, understand that something in your framing isn't working right, and you should reconsider it.
    2. I honestly don't know what you find unclear about this question. I think you initially misread. I edited out your title change because it wasn't what I'd intended and it misled others. I edited in two more sections to clarify. The last section makes it as clear as I can: A single question provokes 1 of 3 responses (not necessarily answers). To chose between them I need to understand acceptable scope of both question and answers. Yes this topic is a muddy one, that's why I'm asking! I want others to help me clarify the unclear!
  5. Jul 2020
    1. Defamation law walks a fine line between the right to freedom of speech and the right of a person to avoid defamation. On one hand, a reasonable person should have free speech to talk about their experiences in a truthful manner without fear of a lawsuit if they say something mean, but true, about someone else. On the other hand, people have a right to not have false statements made that will damage their reputation.
  6. Jun 2020
    1. One of the new tools debuted by Facebook allows administrators to remove and block certain trending topics among employees. The presentation discussed the “benefits” of “content control.” And it offered one example of a topic employers might find it useful to blacklist: the word “unionize.”

      Imagine your employer looking over your shoulder constantly.

      Imagine that you're surveilled not only in regard to what you produce, but to what you—if you're an office worker—tap our in chats to colleagues.

      This is what Facebook does and it's not very different to what China has created with their Social Credit System.

      This is Orwellian.

    1. Zoom, a Silicon Valley-based company, appears to own three companies in China through which at least 700 employees are paid to develop Zoom’s software. This arrangement is ostensibly an effort at labor arbitrage: Zoom can avoid paying US wages while selling to US customers, thus increasing their profit margin. However, this arrangement may make Zoom responsive to pressure from Chinese authorities.
    1. Zoom didn't do this to comply with local law.

      They did this because they don't want to lose customers in China.

      This is just capitalistic greed.

      Shutting down activists over a dictatorship is wrong, and it is actually as simple as that.

  7. May 2020
    1. the data subject has explicitly consented to the proposed transfer, after having been informed of the possible risks of such transfers for the data subject due to the absence of an adequacy decision and appropriate safeguards;
    1. The Right of Withdrawal expires, in the case of a contract for the delivery of digital content which is not stored on a tangible data storage medium, at the point of time when we have begun the performance of the contract after you have expressly agreed that we should commence the performance of the contract before expiry of the withdrawal period and have confirmed that you were aware that with your consent to the commencement of performance of the contract, you lose your right of withdrawal.
    1. "On the contrary, we take this step because our commitment does not allow us to remain a part of a hypocritical and self-serving organization that makes a mockery of human rights." The move comes as little surprise from an administration that frequently has lambasted the 47-member body for a gamut of perceived failures — particularly the dubious rights records of many of its member countries, as well as what Haley has repeatedly called the council's "chronic bias against Israel."
    1. You don’t need to have any reason for exercising this right — you can simply change your mind
    2. Consumers located in the EU are also protected by a default legal 2 year guarantee on products purchased at no additional cost. Here again: 2-years is the statutory minimum
    3. EU consumer law applies to contracts or other legal relationships between consumers (on one side) and professionals, businesses, companies on the other (B2C). It does not apply to B2B (e.g. a supermarket places an order with its fruit supplier) or C2C relationships (e.g. I sell my old bike over eBay).
    4. In the US, there is no one national law in regards to returns/refunds for purchases made online as in most cases, this is implemented on a state-by-state basis, however, under several state-laws, if no refund or return notice was made visible to consumers before purchase, consumers are automatically granted extended return/refund rights. In cases where the item purchased is defective, an implied warranty may apply in lieu of a written warranty
    1. What's terrible and dangerous is a faceless organization deciding to arbitrarily and silently control what I can and can not do with my browser on my computer. Orwell is screaming in his grave right now. This is no different than Mozilla deciding I don't get to visit Tulsi Gabbard's webpage because they don't like her politics, or I don't get to order car parts off amazon because they don't like hyundai, or I don't get to download mods for minecraft, or talk to certain people on facebook.
    2. They don't have to host the extension on their website, but it's absolutely and utterly unacceptable for them to interfere with me choosing to come to github and install it.
    3. It's no less beyond the pale than when apple actively sabotaged people's devices to force them to upgrade or amazon deleted people's already bought and downloaded ebooks. It's completely unacceptable and frankly should fall under consumer rights laws.
  8. Apr 2020
    1. At Brown’s sentencing, Judge Lindsay was quoted as saying “What took place is not going to chill any 1st Amendment expression by Journalists.” But he was so wrong. Brown’s arrest and prosecution had a substantial chilling effect on journalism. Some journalists have simply stopped reporting on hacks from fear of retribution and others who still do are forced to employ extraordinary measures to protect themselves from prosecution.
    2. I could have released this data anonymously like everyone else does but why should I have to? I clearly have no criminal intent here. It is beyond all reason that any researcher, student, or journalist have to be afraid of law enforcement agencies that are supposed to be protecting us instead of trying to find ways to use the laws against us.
    3. This principle equally applies to the laws of our country; we should never violate basic rights even if the consequences aren’t immediately evident.
    1. The patent right is but the right to exclude others, the very definition of “property.” That the property right represented by a patent, like other property rights, may be used in a scheme violative of antitrust laws creates no “conflict” between laws establishing any of those property rights and the antitrust laws.
    1. Thousands of enterprises around the world have done exhaustive security reviews of our user, network, and data center layers and confidently selected Zoom for complete deployment. 

      This doesn't really account for the fact that Zoom have committed some atrociously heinous acts, such as (and not limited to):

  9. Mar 2020
    1. Something else that will never change is the right to freely self-host Matomo On-Premise; this way you can always host Matomo Analytics on your own servers without having to pay for it.
    1. GDPR introduces a list of data subjects’ rights that should be obeyed by both data processors and data collectors. The list includes: Right of access by the data subject (Section 2, Article 15). Right to rectification (Section 3, Art 16). Right to object to processing (Section 4, Art 21). Right to erasure, also known as ‘right to be forgotten’ (Section 3, Art 17). Right to restrict processing (Section 3, Art 18). Right to data portability (Section 3, Art 20).
    1. The main forces that restricted public health police powers were: (1) the advent of civil rights jurisprudence; (2) the rise of patient autonomy and the rapid expansion of state personal health services expenditures; and (3) federal encroachment on state authority.
    1. multiple scandals have highlighted some very shady practices being enabled by consent-less data-mining — making both the risks and the erosion of users’ rights clear
    2. Earlier this year it began asking Europeans for consent to processing their selfies for facial recognition purposes — a highly controversial technology that regulatory intervention in the region had previously blocked. Yet now, as a consequence of Facebook’s confidence in crafting manipulative consent flows, it’s essentially figured out a way to circumvent EU citizens’ fundamental rights — by socially engineering Europeans to override their own best interests.
    1. The French Court of Cassation has decided to reclassify the contractual relationship between Uber and a driver as an employment contract.
    1. Right now, if you want to know what data Facebook has about you, you don’t have the right to ask them to give you all of the data they have on you, and the right to know what they’ve done with it. You should have that right. You should have the right to know and have access to your data.
  10. Feb 2020
    1. To add insult to injury I learn that when Cloudflare automatically detects an anomaly with your domain they permanently delete all DNS records. Mine won't be difficult to restore, but I'm not sure why this is necessary. Surely it would be possible for Cloudflare to mark a domain as disabled without irrevocably deleting it? Combined with the hacky audit log, I'm left with the opinion that for some reason Cloudflare decided to completely half-ass the part of their system that is responsible for deleting everything that matters to a user.

      ...and this is why some companies should not grow to become too big for the good of their customers.

    1. Research ethics concerns issues, such as privacy, anonymity, informed consent and the sensitivity of data. Given that social media is part of society’s tendency to liquefy and blur the boundaries between the private and the public, labour/leisure, production/consumption (Fuchs, 2015a: Chapter 8), research ethics in social media research is par-ticularly complex.
  11. Jan 2020
    1. Damage to water sources that residents attribute to mining, as well as increased demand due to population migration to mining sites, reduces communities’ access to water for drinking, washing and cooking. Women, who are primarily responsible for fetching water, are forced to walk longer distances or wait for long periods to obtain water from alternative sources. The dust produced by bauxite mining and transport smothers fields and enters homes, leaving families and health workers worried that reduced air quality threatens their health and environment.

      Mining is contaminating our water sources and water is one of the most important things for survival.

  12. Dec 2019
    1. Despite the successful resolution, it was still quite unsettling that a domain name could be transferred to another registrant and sinkholed for some perceived violation. I thought there would be more checks in place to confirm that a perceived violation was real before a domain could be transferred.

      This is highly unsettling. A person, organisation, country, or company should not be able to have a domain name transferred from its rightful owner this easily.

  13. Nov 2019
    1. If the apparatus of total surveillance that we have described here were deliberate, centralized, and explicit, a Big Brother machine toggling between cameras, it would demand revolt, and we could conceive of a life outside the totalitarian microscope.
  14. Oct 2019
    1. A former union boss jailed over receiving a coal exploration licence from his friend, former NSW Labor minister Ian Macdonald, was an "entrepreneur" who found a "willing buyer" in the disgraced politician, a court has heard.

      This is a flawed proposition and both misleading and deceptive in relation to the subject matter, considering its prominence in a court media report of proceedings which largely centre on the propriety or otherwise of an approvals process.

      Using a market analogy mischaracterises the process involved in seeking and gaining approval for a proposal based on an innovative occupational health and safety concept.

      In this case, the Minister was the appropriate authority under the relevant NSW laws.

      And while Mr Maitland could indeed be described as a "entrepreneur", the phrase "willing buyer" taken literally in the context of the process to which he was constrained, could contaminate the reader's perception of the process as transactional or necessitating exchange of funds a conventional buyer and seller relationship.

      Based on evidence already tendered in open court, it's already known Mr Maitland sought both legal advice on the applicable process as well as guidance by officials and other representatives with whom he necessarily engaged.

      But the concept of finding a "willing buyer", taken literally at it's most extreme, could suggest Mr Maitland was presented with multiple approvals processes and to ultimately reach his goal, engaged in a market force-style comparative assessment of the conditions attached to each of these processes to ultimately decide on which approvals process to pursue.

      Plainly, this was not the case. Mr Maitland had sought advice on the process and proceeded accordingly.

      The only exception that could exist in relation to the availability of alternative processes could be a situation silimilar to the handling of unsolicited proposals by former Premier Barry O'Farrell over casino licenses which were not constrained by any of the regular transparency-related requirements including community engagement, notification or competitive tender.

      Again, this situation does not and could not apply to the process applicable to Mr Maitland's proposal.

      The misleading concepts introduced from the outset in this article also represent an aggravating feature of the injustice to which Mr Maitland has been subjected.

      To be found criminally culpable in a matter involving actions undertaken in an honest belief they were required in a process for which Mr Maitland both sought advice process and then at no stage was told anything that would suggest his understanding of the process was incorrect, contradicts fundamental principles of natural justice.

  15. Sep 2019
  16. Aug 2019
  17. doc-0k-c0-docs.googleusercontent.com doc-0k-c0-docs.googleusercontent.com
    1. The Bill of Rights lists a number of personal freedoms that the government cannot infringe upon,

      I agree, because in the Bill of Rights it does not state anywhere anything about health care just The American Rights.

    1. Section 2 then begins the real ball game, namely everyone has the following fundamental freedom. The one difficulty we had, as a committee, is with Section 2(b). What do we do with freedom of thought when you have got legislation dealing with have propaganda? How far is it possible to retain such articles as Section 281(1) of the Criminal Code and Section 281(2)? Moreover, you will see we have quoted from Article 20 of the United National Covenant of Civil and Political Rights where propaganda of this kind is regarded as inconsistent with freedom of speech. [Page 87] So we raised the question which seemed to me to be necessary to raise with you, that caution must be exercised, we hope, by the courts in due course, or by you, as draftsmen on how far you are prepared to push the concept of free speech consistent with our experience of hate propaganda. One suggestion we make here-and I do not wish to do anything more than to drop it as a hint, but you may want to have some language that some of the modern constitutions have, which state very starkly and flatly that the advocacy of genocide or group libel is forbidden. But I had the honour to be the chairman of the special committee on hate propaganda in 1965. At that time we came to the flat conclusion that the advocacy of group hatred and genocide was totally inconsistent with the democratic process and no democratic state could tolerate it. Now, whether you want to put that flatly in a constitution is for you to consider; but I think it is for us to bring it to your attention, because it is of importance.

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(b)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), pp. 132.

    2. This Committee did not have a parochial view; this Committee does not pretend that the human rights question belongs to any sector of the Canadian people. It belongs to them all. But, peculiarly enough, there are two or three areas where the Jewish interest happens to be special, and in some cases very sensitive. One is the problem of war criminals, and how that relates to certain protections offered by a charter of rights in the criminal law field. Another is the problem of free speech, and how far that affects such things as hate propaganda

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(b)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), pp. 131-132.

    1. We want to make it very clear, first of all, that in principle we support the entrenchment of a bill of rights in the constitution. We want to see the constitution patriated to Canada and we want to see in that constitution an entrenched bill of rights. However, we do have some concerns. We are not altogether happy with all of the bill of rights. in that connection we are, I suppose, in somewhat the same situation as a number of other groups who have appeared before you. For example, we feel that some of the statements are too vague. Having been a part of the preparation of the brief of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, I can say that I, personally, share some of the concerns that they have in terms of the vagueness of some of the language, and I speak particularly of such words as “fundamental freedoms”, and those kinds of things in which we talk about “natural rights”, et cetera. We would like to see some of these things spelled out. On the question, for example, of freedom of speech, we believe very strongly in freedom of speech, while at the same time, of course, being against censorship. But we would like to see freedom of speech limited only in certain specific ways. In the brief we have indicated, for example, that to a large extent we believe in the doctrine of clear and present danger. We think that freedom of speech should be curtailed where the danger is clear. For example, we have no right to go into a crowded theatre and shout “Fire!” resulting in people being trampled to death as a result of fleeing from a fire which is nonexistent and where there is no danger at all. In a situation like that, obviously, we do not have absolute freedom. But we think this needs to be spelled out a lot more clearly than it is today.

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(b)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), p. 131.

    1. I would like to ask you if you have considered, Ms. Hardy, the notion of freedom of the press as an individual right or collective right? Ms. Hardy: It could be considered both because if you speak of freedom of the press for a newspaper, it includes the whole role of a newspaper in a community as well as the role of an individual reporter or columnist, so that I really feel that there would be no point in having freedom of the press for an individual if you did not have it for the publication for which the individual happened to be working, either perhaps in the electronic media or in the print media. So I would prefer to have it refer to both an individual and collective group. Senator Lapointe: Do you think that editors of papers or radio stations would have to come here also to express their opinion on freedom of the press? Ms. Hardy: We would include them as responsible leaders, presumably in the community, and the value of having responsible leadership is very noticeable now that the Royal Commission on Newspapers is sitting and I think that you have to have the leadership in order to develop followers and principles.

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(b)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), p. 130.

    1. Last March, ProPublica published an extensive investigation that found IBM had fired an estimated 20,000 U.S. employees ages 40 or older in the past five years.
    2. The company started firing older workers and replacing them with millennials, who IBM’s consulting department said “are generally much more innovative and receptive to technology than baby boomers.”
    3. International Business Machines Corp. has fired as many as 100,000 employees in the last few years in an effort to boost its appeal to millennials and make it appear to be as “cool” and “trendy” as Amazon and Google, according to a deposition from a former vice president in an ongoing age discrimination lawsuit.

      IBM has a long history of working against humanity, e.g. when colluding with the Nazis.

  18. Jul 2019
    1. I want to refer you to Section 2 of the resolution which is a Section on fundamental freedoms. It says: Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion, (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion expression, including freedom of the press and other media of information What I want to ask you is, how do you think the word “everyone” would be interpreted as it pertains to everyone has the following freedoms, the freedom of the press, freedom of other media of information. I want to take you back in this country about four of five years when the government across the way introduced legislation, which I supported, concerning Time magazine and Reader’s Digest, to try and Canadianize the magazine industry in this country. I am wondering whether or not if we were to enshrine Section 2 in the constitution as written, Time magazine or Reader’s Digest could have gone to the courts and said: “We have a consitutional right in this country of freedom of expression and freedom of the press and freedom of information, freedom of the media; therefore, the government of Canada [Page 12] and the Parliament of Canada do not have the right to legislate restrictively against our two organizations.” Could it be interpreted in that way? Ms. Crandall: Mr. Nystrom, I think that is the kind of question which an expert should be asked to answer. This is what we are saying now, We have not had an opportunity to look at all sides of these questions to give you any kind of an answer. Again, I am not trying to be difficult. But that is one of the questions which we would like to ask someone who is knowledgeable. Mr. Nystrom: I appreciate the answer. The reason why I ask the question is that the words “everyone” and “citizens of Canada” are used throughout the resolution. I am not a lawyer myself, but it would seem to imply that these could be given a fairly wide interpretation, and I am concerned that we might have in a constitution something that is restrictive where we could not increase Canadian content. Let me ask you the same question again about the electronic media. There is growing concern that we Canadianize radio, television—and the CRTC is concerned about this, about television programs coming in from the United States. There is talk now about a second CBC network in this country. Again, I want to ask you a similar question pertaining to the electronic media. If everybody has the freedom of expression and freedom of the press and other media of information, in your opinion, or perhaps in the opinion of your colleague, do you think we would be able to do this as a Parliament, where the constitution says we are denying a fundamental right to everyone, perhaps NBC, New York, or ABC somewhere in the United States? Ms. Hardy: I think, Mr. Nystrom, that it is very important. I have served abroad for Canada in the Department of External Affairs, in the public affairs field, and I feel that it is very important that we develop a Canadian culture, that we develop an interest in things Canadian and a pride, and I grant that there are very good programs produced by the electronic media of other countries but I think we should be proud of our own heritage and be proud of what we can do. I have just been at a briefing on plans for CBC 2, Tele Deux, and I am very pleased that this is what may be coming along shortly and I would hope that we would not refuse all foreign media offers to assist us in our cultural development, but I think we should certainly give ourselves the chance to be first in the field and to welcome the opportunity and the pride in our own country and in what we can develop ourselves. This is a continuing subject of interest financially as well as culturally, naturally, and I would hope that the media club, which now covers the electronic media representatives as well as the press, would be in the forefront of assisting in developments if possible. Thank you. [Page 13] Mr. Nystrom: I wonder if you could possibly, if you have time to do a written brief to the Committee, to try and seek some advice on those questions, because I agree fully with you that we have to develop a Canadian culture and of course we need some input from other countries around the world because we are part of the global village, we have to have a Canadian identity and it is very important, and I would be very concerned if the way Section 2 is written that perhaps we could be denied through our constitution the right to develop fully the Canadian culture and pehaps you could look at that. I also wanted to ask your interpretation of a couple of other words in Section 2. I wanted to ask you what you think the interpretation in your opinion would be of other media of information. We have singled out here freedom of belief, opinion, expression, including the freedom of the press. I know what the press is, I think, but what would be the interpretation legally, in your opinion, of other media of information, what would that include? Ms. Hardy: I would expect that that would include the electronic journalism. The press is usually referred to as print media. Media is a very broad term that has had to be used because you cannot just refer to the press now because it covers a number of other representatives who inform, through one source or another, and I think the electronic media has an important place now in our culture because communications in this country is an aspect of helping unify the country, I think, by letting us get to know each other, not only through print but through electronic means.

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(b)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), pp. 128-130.

    2. Thank you, Mr. Joint Chairman, for giving the Media Club the opportunity to before this Special Joint Committee. As you will see from our submission, Media Club is concerned with the profession, therefore concern of members is with the proposed entrenchment in a charter of rights and freedoms of a new Canadian constitution, freedom of the press.

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(b)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), p. 128.

    3. Mr. Hawkes: There is another conundrum inside your brief, and in contrast to the testimony we had the other day, They wanted to protect the rights of the fetus, your brief clearly says to us: protect the rights of the woman. There is another group involved in the abortion issue and that is medical personnel. Does your association have a position on their right to refuse to participate in any medical procedure, including the procedure of abortion? Dr. Waters: As far as I know, I am just trying to search my memory now, I think the Canadian Medical Association does have a clause in its Code of Ethics that allows physicians to withhold these services in terms of abortion. I do not think any physician can be expected to perform any act that he finds repugnant, and I am quite sure that, again, I am speaking from memory, that the Canadian Medical Association does respect that. Ms. Pelrine: That clause, however, goes on to say that should the physician, because of personal, moral, religious or ethical beliefs, be unable to perform a particular procedure, he or she is obligated to so inform the patient and to refer the patient to another physician who will perform the procedure. I am certainly prepared to accept that Code of the Canadian Medical Association. Mr. Hawkes: Would the freedom of conscience, which is also contained in this charter, be relevant to that issue? Mr. Kellermann: I think that a doctor might argue that he did not want to perform a particular operation or medical treatment of some kind on the basis of freedom of conscience, but that is fine, I do not think that in any way contradicts the position of CARAL, CARAL’s concern is that there be doctors available for the women who want to choose to have an abortion, and as long as that is guaranteed we are not in any way interested in forcing other doctors to involve themselves in that process. They just do not want other doctors standing in the way of women having that right. Ms. Pelrine: And who indeed would want to submit to any medical procedure performed by an unwilling physician?

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(a)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), pp. 125-126.

    1. In Section 2(b). that section gives the impression that the freedom of the press and the media is an individual right. Well, in fact, as we have already pointed out in our report, the freedom of the press is merely a mode by which the general freedom of expression is exercised, it is not a right of an individual as such.

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(b)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), p. 128.

    2. Now, I put to you that no right is absolute; even the right of free speech is qualified in that perhaps for instance, under the Criminal Code you cannot cause a disturbance in a public place, for example, there are many restrictions to keep our society together without having it turn into anarchy or chaos. I suggest to you, because you are critical of the wording later on in general, that rather than deleted Section l, we might come back with a better worded Section I that meets the requirements of more inspiring wording, and meets the requirements that rights in here are more enshrined and less susceptible to court interpretation. Mr. Paisley: Our concern with Section 1 as written is that it would, in our opinion, completely over-ride the rest of the Charter. Without examining the given Section 1 which is envisaged, it is impossible to say whether our concern would be satisfied or not. We simply take the position that if it remains with the rest of the Charter, it would probably be of no effect at all. Mr. Irwin: Many groups have expressed the view which you are expressing, and some have come back and said that it should be made stronger and not so intrusive. I appreciate the difficulty in not having that here now. Mr. Paisley: May I add to what I have said further. We feel that even if there is no Section I, it does not mean to say that [Page 23] there are going to be unqualified or absolute rights. Experience elsewhere with unqualified rights shows that they are in fact qualified by the courts. There is the statement of the courts in the United States to the effect that the right of freedom of speech does not give a person the right to call “fire!” in a crowded theatre. We believe that if you have the right stated in an unqualified fashion it would be interpreted in a reasonable way by the court. That is the reason why we suggest it is unnecessary to have this sort of introductory limitation clause as proposed.

      §1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), pp. 92-93.

    1. Senator Austin: Under section 2, where you see Subparagraph (b), reference to freedom of thought, including freedom of the press and other media of information, Minister, is it the intention to in any way enlarge the present rights as they are so indistinctly understood of the press and other media in Canada? Is it, for example, now open to argue as to protection of sources in the hands of journalists and press and electronic media people? [Page 79] Mr. Chrétien: I do not know how the Court will interpret that, but we are dealing here, we are formalizing the guarantee that exists traditionally in this society concerning the freedom of the press and other media. What will be the interpretation of the Court in terms of the sources of information and so on, it would not be for me, I do not know what the Court will decide or if there will be some different circumstances that will have to be analyzed by the Court before rendering a judgment. Senator Austin: Your attempt here was to be neutral? Mr. Chrétien: As tnuch as possible.

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(b)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), pp. 127-128.

    2. Mr. McGrath: I am saying that your charter is meaningless in the light of what is said in Section 1 of Schedule B when you make it subject to the reasonable limits as are generally accepted in a free and democratic society with a parliamentary system of government.

      §1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), p. 96.

    3. Surely that makes everything that follows redundant because a free and democratic society would have within it in a parliamentary system freedom of conscience and religion. Ours does; it operates under the practices and conventions and traditions of the British Parliamentary System. It seems to me that you have fallen into the same trap here as the Canadian Bill of Rights because you are going to exclude all the very commendable rights and freedoms that you have set out in Section 2 of Schedule B. It either means that they apply or they do not apply. What are the reasonable limits as are generally accepted in a free and democratic society.

      §1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), p. 96.

    4. I want to ask the Minister in particular about clause one of this proposed Charter of Rights and Freedoms because I suggest that in its present wording it is a gaping hole in the Charter which really makes the alleged rights and freedoms which are supposed to be protected completely illusory; and in fact if this section one is permitted in its present form that in many ways we will be in a worse position in this ggttntry than had this particular Charter not been implement- Mr. Minister, first of all with respect to clause one I would like to ask you who would determine what is generally accepted as a limitation on these rights and freedoms, and what test would they apply? Would it be a numerical test? Mr. Chrétien: It will be the court who will decide. The way I understand the courts to operate, the precedents will determine the next move. It will be the court because we are not giving them other tests than these. Mr. Robinson: How will it be determined what is generally accepted? Will that be in terms of numbers, if the majority of Canadians accept particular limitations? Would this be your understanding of that provision? Mr. Chrétien: I do not want to pass judgment for what the court will say but I do think there is some, as I explained earlier, there is some historical situation, trends in society, that they can measure; whether it be in terms of numbers and so on. Of course, we are putting a charter there for one reason, to protect the minorities against the abuses of the majority. We have improved fantastically over the past 50 or 75 years in Canada in terms of tolerance in our society and so on and they will have the test of what is reasonable in their minds in [Page 28] relation to those rights that are there. I do not see them turning back the clock; it will be in terms of progress and in terms of protection.

      §1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), p. 85.

    5. Mr. Tassé: That is the test that the Court would have to apply and that is the whole purpose of the Charter of Rights. In fact, when you entrench a charter of rights like this one you are saying that Parliament and the legislature will constrain themselves when they legislate.

      §1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), p. 84.

    6. we have a Charter of Rights but this text is a limit; it is an indication to the court how to interpret the charter in relation to the different legislation because if you do not put those words there it could lead to all sorts of change by the courts that will not give them any limits of interpretation. As said by my Deputy Minister there is some legislation that has been well established in the Canadian society that are recognized, and we have to make sure that the courts do not destroy all the previous work of the evolution of our society. Otherwise we will be in great legal difficulty, so they will have to apply the test of reasonableness in their decisions. I do think the Charter of Rights has its own limits, as you will find out when you are studying it, section by section.

      §1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), p. 85.

    7. Mr. Roger Tassé (Q.C., Deputy Minister): In effect, Mr. Chairman, that Section 1 is meant to bring forward the concept that these rights that are spelled out in the Charter, [Page 15] those you have mentioned and the others, Mr. McGrath, are not absolute rights. If you just take, for example, the freedom of expression, there are limits to the freedom of expression that already are spelled out in the Criminal Code and that will continue and should continue when a Charter of Rights like this is entrenched. What the Section is meant to do is to bring that concept not only to the legislatures but also to the judges because in effect the judges when they are faced with cases where government action or parliamentary action, legislative action is being tested and being challenged, in effect they have to decide whether limits, restrictions, that may have been imposed, because again these rights are not absolute, are reasonable ones. That is only what Section 1 is intended to do, that in effect the judges, when there are challenges brought before them, wherein effect people would claim that their rights have been unfairly or unreasonably restricted that in coming to a conclusion when they are so challenged that in effect the courts will have to take for granted that there are some limitations that may well be reasonable and legitimate in the kind of society in which we live.

      §1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), p. 84.

    1. One of the things that concerns me about our deliberation is our tendancy to look to the American experience, both in discussing jurisprudence, and it, concerns me a little because I think we are a unique country and our constitution has got to reflect our unique character. We have the built-in advantage, I think at this stage, as some members opposite have pointed out, of amending to some degree our constitution. We have the advantage of one hundred and some years of history, our own history not the American history, and it seems important to me that somehow we balance in this constitution the problems between individual rights and collective rights, such fundamental freedoms of association and religion.

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(a)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), p. 127.

    2. Professor Magnet: But the jurisprudence in the United States to which you refer arises under a constitutional guarantee to nondiscrimination and also to a constitutional guarantee which prevents the establishment of religion. In this proposed resolution there is no antiestablishment clause, and therefore, it simply reflects the Canadian theory which has been true throughout the history of this country that the basic Confederation pact protects certain denominational reasons. Indeed, you might say establishes, but certainly we would not think an antiestablishment clause would be possible in Canada.

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(a)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), p. 127.

    1. Do you think that in Section 2, taking Section 2(b), freedom of thought, belief, and opinion or Section 2(a) freedom of religion, will that protect parties in hospital who have been pressured into assisting an abortion if this is entrenched? Dr. DeVeber: I would hope not. I really cannot answer your question but I would think it is a genuine concern. Miss Campbell: Perhaps you did not quite understand. I was looking for a clause in the Bill of Rights or in the proposal that would allow persons to refuse to assist, and you may have misinterpreted it. Dr. DeVeber: I think that is an excellent idea. I would be in favour of putting that clause in. Miss Campbell: Particularly if Section 1 over-rode any statute. So you could see that freedom of religion perhaps being, or belief that the . . . Dr. DeVeber: I think belief is more important because there are more and more doctors I know who are against abortion on demand, not on religious grounds, but just because they believe it is wrong. So it would be beliefs of any kind. Mr. Cooper: May I make a comment here? When the present Criminal Code, the present abortion law was going through the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee [Page 42] there was an attempt made to insert a conscience clause. Now, the then Minister of Justice, Mr. John Turner, said that this would not be necessary. He could not conceive of any doctor or nurse being required to take part in an abortion. Experience has shown since then that he was dead wrong.

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(a)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), pp. 124-125.

    2. Mr. Black: It seems to me that the value of including freedom of conscience as well as freedom of religion is that it makes clear that people can have very deeply held beliefs that they might not call religious beliefs, but which are equally fundamental to them, and using the phrase “freedom of conscience” it gives them rights as well as people who deeply hold religious beliefs. It seems to me that the possibility that the Supreme Court of Canada or any other court would interpret that in a way which would hinder law enforcement is nonexistent. I cannot imagine the court giving it any such interpretation.

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(a)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), p. 116.

    3. You have referred, as other witnesses have, to Section I, which has been pointed out would permit the proclamation of the War Measures Act in the same terms as in 1970, and will permit the internment of Canadians of Japanese origin and the confiscation of their property. Would it be fair to say you would agree with the suggestion of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association that if Section 1 is not rewritten and perhaps if there is not a remedies section—I believe those are the two sections you have pointed out as having perhaps the gratest weaknesses in the proposed charter—and indeed, we would perhaps be better off not giving the Canadian people the illusion that they have certain rights, but rather that we would be better off without this Charter, if those sections are not in fact amended? Mr. Black: The other way in which, perhaps, you could put it, is that if we do not amend the section, Section 1, we would not have an entrenched charter, even if we were to enact this document. Section 1 imposes such severe limitations on the whole concept of an entrenched charter of rights that it has to be removed to give any effective force to entrenchment.

      §1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), pp. 94-95.

    4. Now, it is obvious there can be circumstances in which the rights listed in the Charter would have to give way. In times of serious crisis threatening the existence of the nation, such as invasion, insurrection, large scale natural disaster, a temporary emergency limitation on our fundamental rights might be necessary. This is obvious. In fact, it is so obvious and so widely agreed, that, given the difficulties in drafting an acceptable limitation clause, it might well be wiser to leave one out. We cannot now foresee all the situations that might justify temporary emergency limitations. It might therefore be best to let the courts decide in particular cases when the facts of an emergency are known. However, if there is to be a limitation clause, it must indicate clearly that most contingencies that face the nation are to be dealt with by ordinary means which respect the rights guaranteed in the Charter. It must indicate clearly that limitations are justified only in times of “public emergency which threatens the life of the nation”, and then only “to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”. Here we use the language of the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 4, Section 1, to which Canada is a signatory. We recommend this language to you for your consideration. Further, if there is to be a limitation clause, it must clearly indicate that limitations on the Charter justified by public emergency are temporary. We would argue for the inclusion in a general limitation clause of four subsections, the first requiring prompt Parliamentary authorization of the invocation of special powers under emergency legislation, such as the War Measures Act. Second, requiring regular renewal of this authorization if the powers are not to lapse; Third, allowing a small number of members of either House to force review of the authorization; And fourth, allowing any innocent person damaged under the special powers to seek compensation in a special tribunal.

      §1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), pp. 93-94.

    5. Section 1 of the proposed Charter has come under strong attack and quite deservedly so. At a previous hearing, someone called it the Mack Truck Section. We call it the bathtub section because it makes it much too easy for our leaders and lawmakers to pull the plug on human rights and freedoms and if it is included in the Charter the Charter itself will be worth very little. Section 1 at present says: . . . the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits as are generally accepted in a free and democractic society with a Parliamentary system of government. It will be hard to think of any statement more dangerously vague than this. What is meant by reasonable limits and how is this decided and which democractic society and Parliamentary system are we talking about. Such language opens the door to entrenched present injustices merely because they are widely accepted in supposedly free and democratic societies, and moreover ties Canadian law to the laws and customs of other countries over which Canadians have no control; and to me this is most ironic. We are talking about patriating our constitution and while we are doing this we are proposing to be tied to precedents, set in other countries. it is hard to see what this has to do with producing a Canadian constitution or a Canadian Charter.

      §1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), p. 93.

    6. Our next item deals with Section I which we call the Mack Truck clause because a person could drive one right through it. We do not intend to dwell at length on this section which creates such loopholes in the legislation. Suffice it to say that we join with the continents of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and other groups in condemning Section 1. I would just like to summarize a few of our objections. There are two main points. First, Section I applies at all times, it is not limited to emergency situations. Secondly, the standards of reasonable limits that are generally accepted in a democratic society appears to us to allow virtually any legislation passed by a majority in Parliament or a legislature. Apart from concerns regarding the basic rights and freedoms which we share with other groups, we are concerned that this clause may have the effect of completely negating the protection provided by Section 15 on equality of rights.

      §1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), pp. 86-87.

    1. Mr. McGrath: Then how do we avoid getting into the kind of situation which has developed in the United States where, for example, in certain instances, the Lord’s Prayer recited in the classroom has been ruled by the courts to be unconstitutional? I say that as one who comes from a province which has, by law, a denominational system of education which is publicly funded. That law is enshrined in the constitution of Canada by virtue of the terms of union between Newfoundland and [Page 10] Canada, and indeed, is threatened by the provisions of the bill now before us. You have referred to that, though not in a specific way, and I will come back to that later on. Mr. Hammel: But what is the question? Mr. McGrath: The question is: if we are to entrench a Charter of Human Rights in the constitution, how do we avoid the situation whereby the courts of this country will, in fact, be almost in a position of a parallel legislature in terms of defining new laws by the constitution; for example. you could be restricted as to your hiring practices; as to your conduct in the classroom. I have cited the instance in the United States where the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer has, in certain circumstances, been declared unconstitutional. That is a dilemma I find myself in I am very much in favour of fundamental human rights being protected by law, but I have this dilemma. Mr. Hammel: I think whatever approach is taken, whether the statute approach or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms one, I think we simply have to recognize that there are individual rights, and then there are, in our case, organized group rights. In this case, we are dealing with denominational group rights, although, for example, as a Roman Catholic I do not in any way tend to judge anyone’s right to freedom of conscience, I do feel that when he does not abide by what the Roman Catholic religion teaches, then he is no longer a Roman Catholic, and, therefore, does not have the rights of the group. So I think we have to approach it from that particular point of view, that there are certain group rights which are at least equal to, or, perhaps, supreme over some individual rights. I do not think we can simply make it sound as if the individual rights are total.

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(a)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), pp. 126-127.

    1. Mr. Nystrom: My second and last question, Mr. Chairman, concerns another area where l have admired your organization- the whole question of the conscientious objector. You mentioned this morning, if I heard you correctly, two possibilities: one. enshrining in our constitution that no one should be compelled to take human life against one’s conscience, and you also referred to another option, which is in Federal Republic of Germany, that basically you enshrine that it pertains only to military service. I gather that you prefer the first option, which is more sweeping, that one of you mentioned earlier, the possibility of problems concerning policemen in their work, and firefighters in their work, and getting into the whole abortion controversy and euthanasia and so on. You did mention, I believe, two options: that no one should be compelled to take human life against one’s conscience, and the other option being what is enshrined in the German Republic which, I gather, says the same thing but as it pertains only to military service. Mr. Janzen: We would prefer the more general one in regard to taking human life. Mr. Nystrom: If the Committee or the government in its wisdom did not want to be as sweeping, the second would also cover a very important point, would it not? Mr. Janzen: We would be grateful for what there is.

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(a)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), p. 124.

    2. Mr. Epp: Could I ask you, in page 5, taking your position a little further, you argue that the same rights should be extended to persons working in hospitals, people in the medical field. specifically people who because of conscience cannot accept the taking of life through abortion. Do you feel that the clause that you propose would in fact given them that protection they seek? Mr. Janzen: We are not sure about that. As it stands here we say it might have some implications for that concern, and I think it would suggest something in that direction but we are not sure of that and we have not sought a specific legal opinion. It is a concern to us that we recognize that that is not something on which we have complete clarity. Mr. Epp: Do you have practical demonstration of members of your organization. adherents to your organization of churches that form your constituency. that people have been put into that position, namely of performing medical acts which contravene their conscience and specifically their position that they do not have the right to take life in that form? Mr. Janzen: l do not know of specific personnel from our community. I do know that in the 1977 Badgley report there is [Page 51] some rather strong testimony from doctors and so on who werer subject to considerable pressure and that is the reference for it here.

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(a)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), pp. 123-124.

    3. A conscientious objector clause in the Charter might have implications for areas other than military service. People in police work or in medical work sometimes have to face the question of taking human life, too. The areas of euthanasia and abortion are examples but because of technological and other changes the number of areas may increase. In 1969, when the abortion issue was debated in Parliament, along with other amendments to the Criminal Code, it was emphasized that medical personnel would not be forced to be involved with them. Because of this, a conscientious objector clause, which was considered at the time. was viewed as unnecessary, However, the government’s Badgley study of 1977 found that some strong pressures are brought to bear on medical workers. [Page 48] We believe the right to abstain from the taking of human life should be extended in the area of abortion as well.

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(a)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), p. 122.

    4. Mr. W. Janzen (Director General, Ottawa Office, Mennonite Central Committee, Canada): Thank you. This concern is somewhat different than the one which Mr. Nigh has explained. lf that one could be covered with a clause like, “No one shall be compelled against his conscience to take human life,” then the second one might be covered with a simple affirmation of freedom for religion without specifying that it be for individuals or for groups, thus leaving that question to be decided when problems in relation to that arise. As it is worded at the present time in the proposal, it is cast in explicitly individual terms and we are concerned that that might create difficulties which perhaps are not foreseen at the present time or even considered desirable. The written brief refers to several such difficulties and l will not go over that material, but l would say that these difficulties can arise also in relation to communities other than the Amish or Old Order Mennonites or Hutterites which are referred to in the brief. We know that for generations and centuries the phenomenon of people going off unto themselves for religious reasons to live a bit more as a community unto themselves is an experience that has been present in our civilization and probably will be present. and we would like to have that freedom respected. We are a bit concerned that by casting the provision for freedom of religion in individual terms there might be seine difficulties, as explained in the brief. We could go on and talk further about community rights and collective rights and some aspects that relate to the concerns of the native people as well, but I do not think at this point we would want to go into that. I would point out, however, that in a number of other constitutions or bills of rights the provision for freedom of religion is not as individual as it is in the one that is being proposed. I refer to the I960 Canadian Bill of Rights and there is a simple affirmation of freedom for religion without specifying the way it shall apply. The one to which Mr. Nigh has referred also is general on that point. The American constitution, although generally an individualistic document. is general on that point. It does not specify that it is exclusively for individuals and so on. So what we are asking basically is two clauses: one is a clause that would say something to the effect that no one shall be compelled against his conscience to take human life, and the other one would be at simple affirmation of freedom for religion without specifying that it be for individuals or communities, thus leaving that to the wisdom of the legislatures or the courts to deal with those problems as they might arise.

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(a)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), pp. 122-123.

    5. Our spiritual forefathers where the anabaptists of western Europe. Over 400 years ago they felt compelled to take a stand against the taking of human life in any form and to many of them it was contrary to their understanding of the teaching of scripture. For their beliefs and practice they suffered cruelly; many died. When our forefathers came to Canada around 200 years ago they appealed for and were promised exemption from military duty. The history of these negotiations which are very much abbreviated are contained in paragraphs on pages 3 and 4 of the brief which you have had in your hands. In World War I, the severe test of these provisions came. In the spring of I918 the German forces made one last gigantic assault on the Western Front and for a while it looked as if the Allied front would break. It was under the stress and desperation of that time that exemptions which had been written through Order in Council by government were cancelled and the young men of our churches had their faith and their convictions severely tested; many served periods in jail. I had hoped to bring along today a very close friend of mine who was my bishop for many years. Mr. B. J. Swalm who is 84 years of age. but he had other commitments and was not able to come. He could articulate his experiences during this war. One thing I remember, while he served as my bishop in the Niagara Area was that when he was visiting our area he would ask me to drive past St. Catharines Jail where he spent several months during World War I. Bishop Swalm was one of the founders of this organization, the Mennonite Central Committee. The experience in World War II was different and here I can speak from personal experience. because I was of draft age at that time and young men of my age were being called into service. My spiritual training and upbringing, church teachings, taught me participation in war was wrong but I had to make a decision at that time that I had to know what I believed personally and I had to make a personal decision. I went through weeks of study and soul-searching which reinforced my teaching and brought me to the decision that I could not take a human life. or be part of a life-taking organization. Now, in the Second World War, because of early representation to government by the leaders of our churches, an alternative service program was developed whereby our young [Page 47] men could serve in non-military forms of service such as reforestation, road-building, fire-fighting, agricultural work and some in ambulance and hospital work on the front lines. As l came through those years and in perspective I have two strong feelings. First of all I have a deep respect for the boys, for the integrity of the boys who were my friends and are still my friends. who did not feel as I and went into military service. and we today wish to acknowledge our deep respect for those who disagree with us in this area. The second was a great appreciation which I also hold today for a country where conscience is recognized and where opportunity was given for alternative forms of service of national value, and service that was helpful to society. I an thankful for a country where the right to be different is recognized: where a minority view does not endanger or dehumanize. So it is for this reason that we feel now in the formulation of a constitution in peaceful times apart from emotional pressures of a wartime society, that we include a clause in the constitution that would recognize the right of conscience that would lead one to abstain from the taking of human life. We are making this presentation today from our own experience and perspective as stated in the brief. which is prepared by Mr. Janzen and which I have briefly summarized. We believe in light of past experience and differences of interpretation and application of past government decisions that a clear and brief. concise statement in the constitution would be helpful and we urge the inclusion of such in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I might just call your attention to the statement that is written in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany; “No one may be compelled against his conscience to render war service involving the use of arms.”

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(a)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), pp. 121-122.

    1. Mr. McGrath: My question is, does Section 2 of the Charter in any way threaten the tax exempt privileges that you now enjoy as a church, in terms of any question that could be placed before the courts; because freedom of religion means freedom not be exposed to religion in certain circumstances, in other words, no religion in terms of interpretation can be construed as a religion, for the purposes of this section. Mr. Smith: Mr. Chairman, it had not occurred to us that this section would in any way threaten our tax exempt status, at least it had not occurred to me, and I do not see any inherent meaning in this. I think along with other sections of the Charter that the possibility for amendment could indeed threaten any of these sections and thereby affect the question before us.

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(a)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), p. 118.

    2. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or the “Mormon Church’, is a Christian organization with roots in Canada which go back to the early 1830s. There are at present approximately 85,000 members of the Church in Canada, with congregations in every province and the territories. We deeply appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee and to comment on some aspects of the proposed resolution respecting the constitution. At the onset, we wish to make it clear that as a church we take no position on the purely political aspects of the proposed resolution; our members are totally free to think and act according to their own individual wishes on those matters. Believing as we do that churches have a responsibility to provide and safeguard a moral framework in which their members can exercise their beliefs, we wish, however, to address some of the possible moral implications of the resolution. Our basic concerns relate to the potential impact of certain proposals within the resolution on the sanctity and strength of the family, on protection provided by society to women and children, on the relationships between courts and legislatures in making legal policy, and on the inviolability of fundamental freedoms. We can perhaps best illustrate these concerns by examining specific sections of the proposed resolution. In doing so, we wish only to point out concerns, not obvious and totally identifiable dangers. Indeed, it is in the vagueness of the wording of certain portions of the proposed resolution that the [Page 8] greatest dangers lie, because it is impossible to tell exactly what is meant or what was contemplated by the draftsmen. Section 2 of the proposed resolution deals with fundamental freedoms. We applaud the apparent intention of the proposals, believing as we do that “no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property and the protection of life”. Yet we must admit to an uneasiness about the extent to which the proposed resolution actually safeguards the essential freedom it so laudably espouses. Part V of the proposed resolution provides provedures for amending the constitution, either as a result of legislative resolutions or by referendum. These amending procedures apparently do not ensure that legislative action cannot sweep away those fundamental freedoms outlined in Section 2. We strongly believe that freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion, expression, assembly and association must be very carefully safeguarded; subject only to the reasonable restraints commensurate with a democratic society, they must not be subject to the vagaries, no matter how well intentioned, of legislatures. Past history, our own and others, has taught us the need to place them above legislative action. Unless they are safeguarded, it would be possible, at some time in the future, for legislatures to deny them to one group or another in our society. The procedures for amending the constitution must, we submit, pay particular attention to the absolute need to protect those fundamental freedoms mentioned in Section 2 of the proposed resolution.

      §2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), pp. 113-114.

    3. Section I, which preserves the existing constitutional tradition, must be deleted to fully entrench the Charter. Its meaningless vagueness opens the door to the very abuse to the supremacy of Parliament which the Charter is intended to check. Moreover, special provisions are necessary to instruct judges in the Charter’s interpretation. By deleting Section I of the Charter, there will be removed an obvious peg for argument designed to thwart the Charter’s purposes.

      §1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), p. 95.

    1. I would invite anyone to define what religion means in a comprehensive manner. I think that that term, while we know that certain religions, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism are religions, there will be many borderline cases where we do not know if those groups are religions or not. But that has not precluded the drafters of this Charter form including religion.

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(a)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), p. 116.

    2. Section I should not govern either Section 14 or Section 15. It is our view that there should be no circumstances where the right to an interpreter, which a deaf, blind or just a deaf person may require in court, should ever be taken away. Why is it either in war or emergency that a deaf-blind person on trial should be denied an interpreter to know what the case is against them. It is too basic and a denial of natural justice. Moreover when should unwarranted discrimination be permitted? At wartime? At peacetime? In the case of an emergency? It is hard to imagine a situation where it is justifiable, and therefore we have recommended, as have other groups, that Section 14 and Section 15 be absolute rights, rights not subject to Section 1. Alternatively, if that point of view is not acceptable to the Committee, it is our submission that the wording in Section I is far, far too broad. You have heard all the arguments before, we can only reiterate them, that Section 1—labelled by some as the Mack truck provision—will in fact make the rest of the Charter of Rights a virtually worthless and impotent means of protecting civil liberties, In particular, the generally accepted view of the public with respect to handicapped persons is that they are often not capable of taking care of themselves, not capable of maintaining a job, not capable of self-sufficiency, and therefore the kinds of laws that I have discussed previously that are discriminatory would be under Section I generally accepted in a free and democratic society, passed by these kinds of Parliaments. And accordingly, if Section 1 remains, and if Section 15 is still subject to it, it is our view that Section 1 must be very narrowly constrained to protect minority rights and in particular, handicapped rights.

      §1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), pp. 87-88.

    1. Amazon.com Announces Second Quarter Sales up 20% to $63.4 Billion

      Do note that this page mentions nothing on worker rights nor worker wages.

      See this page on the matter.

    2. Amazon announced that it will hire nearly 12,000 new employees across Europe in 2019, taking its permanent workforce in Europe to nearly 95,000 by the end of 2019. Amazon pledged to upskill 100,000 of its employees across the U.S. by 2025, dedicating over $700 million to provide employees across its corporate offices, tech hubs, fulfillment centers, retail stores, and transportation network with access to training programs that will help them move into more highly-skilled roles within or outside of the company. Programs include Machine Learning University, Amazon Technical Academy, and Career Choice.

      More workers that can practically be enslaved in 55-hour-work weeks and sleep standing up: yeay!

    1. Döpfner: Last week we had Bill Gates for dinner here and he said in a self-ironic manner that he has a ridiculous amount of money and it is so hard to find appropriate ways to spend that money reasonably and to do good with the money. So what does money mean for you, being the first person in history who has a net worth of a three-digit amount of billions. Bezos: The only way that I can see to deploy this much financial resource is by converting my Amazon winnings into space travel. That is basically it.

      Why fix the issues with how many Amazon workers are basically wage slaves, working 55-hour weeks, while falling asleep during work?

      For more information:

    1. Amazon (AMZN) disclosed in a filing Wednesday that the median pay for its employees was just $28,446 in 2017. Put another way: half of Amazon's employees earned less than that amount.
    1. e-purpose.

      Creative Commons covers 4 areas of practice: -re-use: right to verbatim reuse content

      • revise: right to change/ modify the content -remix: right to combine original or revised with new content -redistribute: right to make and share copies of content

      great for expanding, exploring, sharing and remixing content in the educational world.

    1. Mr. Minister, in view of the many representations by distinguished groups, Civil Liberties Association, Mr. Tarnopolsky, Mr. Fairweather and others, in view of their representation, what I found at least to be persuasive representations, that there were certain rights which should never be derogated from, who in fact did you listen to in arriving at your proposed Clause I, which witnesses did you listen to, which witnesses made a recommendation in line with your proposed Clause I that there should be no derogable rights? Mr. Kaplan: Well, I think the government was influenced even by the witnesses with which it disagreed, and we have tried to reflect in the version the cutting edge that we want in the Charter of Rights, a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that will make a real difference to the Canadian people, and I would not want to indicate that any of the witnesses were ignored because that is not the case. Mr. Robinson: Well, there were certainly a few that were not listened to. Thank you.

      §1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), pp. 109-110.

    2. I wonder, though, why it was thought that the appropriate location for a limitations clause was right at the very beginning of the proposed Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, and whether you would be prepared to look at the possibility of moving the limitations clause in whatever form we may finally end up with—and naturally, there may be complications, because if there is a preamble in it it would be inappropriate to do this; but if there is no preamble, on the proposed Clause 1, moving the limitations clause to the end of the proposed Charter? In other words, I believe it would be important symbolically, if nothing else, to start out with the list of fundamental freedoms, the mobility rights and a positive statement of what the rights are, and then at the conclusion of the proposed Charter to indicate what limitations might exist on those [Page 26] rights, rather than starting out with limitations and then a statement of rights. Mr. Kaplan: Well, before directly answering the question, I would like to understand that you are suggesting that the difference is symbolic, and that it does not make any real difference. Mr. Robinson: Certainly, I would not argue that there was any difference in substance in the way this will be interpreted, and I am sure your advisers could confirm that. Mr. Kaplan: I do not think there any real difference either. I think it is purely a matter of style. Our view of the matter was that it was more realistic and useful to the reader to see at once that the rights were not absolute, but that they were constrained. That would be made immediately clear to a person consulting the statute without having to read the first 30 sections to find that what was contained in the proposed Clause 1 was 0really not the whole story. It seems to be more honest. Mr. Robinson: Mr. Minister, if it is agreed that there is no difference in substance—and we are talking about a document, a Charter of Rights which, hopefully, would be widely distributed to school children, to Canadians right across the country, and I would suggest there is a certain symbolic value in setting out those rights and then at the conclusion of those rights indicating what the limitations, if any, may exist in respect of them, as is done in the Diefenbaker