U are a child of the universe- no less than the trees and the stars- u have a right 2 be here....
CHILD OF THE UNIVERSE (Lyrics) Desiderata by Max Ehrmann
Desiderata
Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter;
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.
Keep interested in your career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs; for the world is full of trickery.
But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals;
and everywhere life is full of heroism.
Be yourself.
Especially, do not feign affection.
Neither be critical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is as perennial as the grass.
Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness. Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself.
You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be,
and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.
With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy.
Max Ehrmann 1927
Child Abuse Healing Monument - Toronto Canada- Only one in the world
I served in vietnam and was abused as a kid- the child abuse was harder
Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children
The Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children (CCRC) works to achieve full implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in Canada and globally.
National Child Day: 25th Anniversary of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
This National Child Day is the 25th Anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is a day to renew our efforts to create a society where every child can develop her or his full potential. To celebrate this day, the Coalition is releasing fact sheets that help to explain key rights under the Convention. More will be available over the coming days including French language versions of all fact sheets. Please feel free to download, share, print and distribute these facts sheets.You will find them here.
The CCRC proposes 10 Steps for Children in Canada as a starting point for full implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in Canada and for a government plan of action to fully respond to the 2011 Concluding Observations for Canada by the Committee on the Rights of the Child.
Letter to Prime Minister: Letter to PM on next steps for children’s rights
10 Steps for Children in Canada; CCRC Call to Action: 10 Steps for Children in Canada
For the full report that deals with all rights under the Convention: Canada_CRC Concluding Observations_61.2012. For the report that focuses on sexual exploitation: Canada_OPSC Concluding Observations_61.2012.
Did you know that . . .
- Children endure more violence, exploitation, and abuse than adults in Canada?
- Over 67,000 children are in state care, without a permanent home, and many leave state care at age 16 or 18 without the support that most other youth get from their families?
- Canada has a lower rate of adopting chidren who need homes than many other countries?
- A higher percentage of Canadian children live in poverty than in comparable countries?
- Over 50% of children with disabilities lack access to aids they need because of cost?
- Canada spends much less on early child development than comparable countries do?
- Canada ranks low for inter-generational fairness because of its low level of support for children?
Canada needs to focus on developing the full potential of every child, to help address the challenges of its aging population. That is the central theme of the report. Too many children face obstacles to realizing their full potential.
Specific actions to help vulnerable children are suggested as a top priority. The report also proposes systemic changes to ensure that the best interests of children are considered in all government decisions that affect them.
- News Release: News Release -Children’s Rights – CCRC Alternative Report
- Summary of key points: Key Points about the CCRC Alternative Report
- Full Report in English: CCRC report on rights of children in Canada
- Full Report in French: Mise en oeuvre de la Convention relative aux droits de l’enfant.
- Sections of Report in separate documents, English and French: Pdfs for easy distribution or reference.
The government did not respond by the deadline of July 2. To assist in the review, the CCRC submitted additional information in response to the list of issues. For CCRC response: CCRC Response to List of Issues from UN Committee; CCRC Response to List of Issues on Sexual Exploitation.
The government response was filed less than a week before the hearing. All the reports by both government and civil society organizations are available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/crcs61.htm
Children’s Rights: Canada
Research &
Reports | Guide to Law
Online | Legal
Research Guides | Legal
Topics | Guides to Our
Collections
Canada has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the
Child and one of the two optional protocol to it while signing the other.
Responsibility for implementation is split between the federal government and
the provinces. Canada’s ten provinces have nearly universal health insurance
plans that cover virtually all children and maintain most social welfare agencies.
Another provincial responsibility is education. Children receive tax-supported
elementary and secondary education. Universities charge subsidized tuition.
Minimum ages for employment are yet another provincial responsibility. On the
federal level, there are many criminal laws designed to prevent child abuse.
The number of related offenses and the maximum punishments for them have been
greatly increased in recent years. In its national defense laws, the federal
government now prohibits Canadian soldiers under the age of eighteen from being
deployed in armed conflict. The federal government also created a new juvenile
justice system in 2002 that gives the police and judges more options in
handling cases of juveniles charged with criminal offenses than the previous
law.
(PDF,
115KB)
Introduction
Canada is a constitutional monarchy which has a
Parliament, composed of a Senate and House of Representatives, and ten
provinces which have legislative assemblies. Since Canada’s various
Constitution Acts do not assign the subject of children to either level of
government, it is essentially split, with each level covering children as part
of the jurisdictions conferred upon them. Thus, for example, the
provinces have enacted child labor laws in exercising their powers over most
private sector employment within a province, and Parliament has prohibited
child pornography in exercising its exclusive jurisdiction to enact criminal
laws for the country.
In Canada, the provinces have established ages of
majority for such purposes as determining when a child has the legal capacity
to enter into contracts, is able to purchase restricted products, is free of
parental control, and can exercise full civil rights. In Alberta,
Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, and Prince Edward Island the age of
majority is eighteen, and in British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nunavut, Nova
Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador the age of majority is nineteen.[1]
Quebec's age of majority is set out in its Civil Code.[2] However,
under federal laws, all persons eighteen and older are eligible to vote in
federal elections and may be tried as adults regardless of which province or
territory they live in. Thus, there is no one age of majority for all
purposes of Canadian law.
Implementation of International Rights of the Child
Canada has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the
Child,[3] and
the Optional Protocol to the Convention of the Rights of the Child on the
Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict,[4] and it has
signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on
the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography.[5] Since
Canadian constitutional law does not generally permit the federal government to
legislate over matters that fall under provincial jurisdiction even for the
purpose of implementing an international agreement, Canada makes reservations
to this effect if implementation would require provincial cooperation.
The federal government has had to work with the provinces in implementing
aspects of the original convention dealing with such matters as education and
health care. On the other hand, the conduct of war and criminal law are
matters under federal jurisdiction. Thus, the federal government has been
able to implement the Optional Protocols by amending its statutes that regulate
national defense and create a national criminal code.
Child Health and Social Welfare
In Canada, each province operates its own health
insurance program. Virtually all residents are enrolled in these
programs. Most of the programs are funded through tax revenues, but some
provinces also place a special tax on employers. The federal government
gives financial assistance to the provinces to help defray health care
costs. When the single-payer systems were created in the 1960’s, the
federal government paid approximately fifty percent of the programs’
costs. However, this percentage has declined to around twenty
percent. The decrease has placed a strain on the provincial health care
systems, which has resulted in longer waiting times for medical services.
The current government has increased the federal contributions in an effort to
preserve and improve the universal health care system. Under this system,
patients can choose their own physicians. The vast majority of physicians
bill the health insurance programs for their services and are reimbursed in
accordance with schedules of fees. These physicians cannot engage in the
practice of extra-billing or charging their patients separate additional fees
for expedited services, but physicians can opt out of the system.
Because Canada has provincial health care plans,
virtually all children have health insurance. Hospitals are mostly
operated by municipalities and charitable organizations. The major cities
have hospitals that are devoted to treating sick children. Canadians do
not have to pay special fees to have their children treated at these hospitals.
Statistics Canada reports that the infant mortality rate
for children under the age of one year was 5.3 per 1,000 live births in 2004.[6]
Education
Education in Canada is a provincial responsibility.
The federal government does not have a federal department of education, but it
does operate a limited number of schools on military bases and on Indian
reservations.
Under Canada’s original Constitution Act, 1867, the
rights that previously existed respecting separate denominational schools were
preserved.[7]
Some of these rights differ from province to province and some of them have
been expanded by subsequent legislation. At present, separate
denominational and linguistic schools exist throughout much of Canada. In
the largest cities and many other localities, there are separate Protestant and
Catholic school boards. In practice, most non-Christians attend schools
run by Protestant school boards in which religion is not taught. Because
the Constitution Act guaranteed existing denominational rights, it does not
confer on members of other religions the right to establish a tax-funded school
board. However, provincial laws do allow for the establishment of private
schools. Unlike the Protestant and Catholic school boards, these schools
are not supported by taxes in proportion to the number of students enrolled in
their elementary and secondary school programs. Many provinces also have
separate English and French school boards. Separate language schools
generally exist where the numbers of students who wish to be enrolled in a
minority language program are sufficient to sustain a separate school system.
Universities are also operated by the provinces.
Canada does not have an extensive a system of private universities as exists in
the United States. Tuition at universities within each province varies
only slightly. Provinces have grant programs to assist university students.
Most universities have a primary language of instruction, but a number offer
courses in both official languages, including McGill University, the University
of Ottawa, and the University of New Brunswick.
All students are entitled to virtually free elementary
and secondary education in Canada. In fact, the Province of Ontario has
recently enacted legislation to require students to remain in school until the
age of eighteen.[8]
Previously, children had been allowed to legally drop out of school upon
reaching the age of sixteen. This initiative is part of a larger program
that includes a Can$1.3 billion (about US$1.23 billion) Student Success
Strategy to expand available programs. Ontario has also created 1,000 new
skilled trades training spaces for vocational training.[9] The
new requirement that children remain in school until the age of eighteen is
enforceable with fines against parents who do not enroll their children in
school. However, critics question whether the province will be able to
force students to return to school if they decide to quit after reaching the
age of sixteen.
Canada does not have an extensive system of vocational
schools, but there are several institutes of higher education that emphasize
job-related skills in major cities.
Some provincial laws respecting local secondary schools
contain general language requiring school boards to address special
needs. In Ontario, school boards are required to address the needs of
“exceptional pupils.”[10] More
specific provisions are contained in the Ontarians with Disabilities Act.
This statute applies to schools, universities, and government and requires them
to comply with barrier-free guidelines. The government is specifically
required to consider as a barrier anything that prevents a person with a
disability from fully participating in all aspects of society because of his or
her disability, including a physical barrier, an architectural barrier, an
information or communications barrier, an attitudinal barrier, a technological
barrier, a policy, or a practice.[11]
Schools and universities are not subject to this requirement, but as “scheduled
organizations” they are required to consult with persons with disabilities and
prepare annual accessibility plans. These plans must “address the
identification, removal and prevention of barriers to persons with disabilities
in the organization’s by-laws, if any, and in its policies, programs, practices
and services.”[12]
Accessibility plans must include a report on measures taken; the measures in
place; a list of bylaws, policies, programs, practices, and services to be
reviewed; and measures the organization intends to take in the coming
year. Accessibility plans must be made available to the public. To
help organizations in the preparation of their plans, the government is
assigned the responsibility of preparing more detailed guidelines. In
some cases, two or more organizations are allowed to prepare joint
accessibility plans.
Ontario has passed a new law to replace the Ontarians
with Disabilities Act which has not yet been brought into force.[13] This
law will essentially extend many of the extant rules to the private sector.
Canada’s Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual
punishment.”[14]
Whether this would apply to corporal punishment by teachers is not clear.[15]
However, provincial school district associations have clearly banned corporal
punishment. In Ontario, the guide to school district policies states as
follows:
The use of corporal punishment in any form is strictly
prohibited in the district. No student will be subject to the infliction
of corporal punishment.
Corporal punishment is defined as the willful infliction
of, or willfully causing the infliction of physical pain.
No teacher, administrator, other school personnel or
school volunteer will subject a student to corporal punishment or condone the
use of corporal punishment by any person under his/her supervision or
control. Permission to administer corporal punishment will not be sought
or accepted from any guardian/parent … .
A staff member is authorized to employ physical force
when, in his/her professional judgment, the physical force is necessary to
prevent a student from harming self, others or doing harm to district
property. Physical force shall not be used to discipline or punish a
student. The superintendent shall inform all staff members and volunteers
of this policy.[16]
Child Labor and Exploitation
In Canada, most contracts of employment in the public
sector are covered by provincial labor laws. Each province has its own
restrictions on child labor. The federal government also has enacted prohibitions
on child labor, but these prohibitions only apply to work conducted in federal
undertakings or in a field that is governed by federal legislation such as
aviation, broadcasting, and banking. Federal law does not generally
supersede provincial law. Instead, each level of government regulates
employment in fields within its jurisdiction. At the present time, the
minimum age for employment extends from fourteen in Nova Scotia, Ontario, and
Quebec to seventeen at the federal level and in the territories of the
Northwest, Nunavut, and the Yukon.[17]
Parliament and the provinces have also placed limitations on the type of labor
and the number of hours young people can work. For example, the federal
government has excluded certain categories of dangerous work, providing that
any work performed must be unlikely to endanger health and safety; required all
work to be outside school hours; and prohibited work between the hours of 11:00
p.m. and 6:00 a.m. for minors.[18] In
the largest province of Ontario, minors may not be employed in logging
operations until they are fifteen and may not be employed in factories until
they are sixteen.[19]
Employment in mines and on construction sites are also generally limited to
sixteen and older, but employment in underground mines is generally limited to
those at least eighteen years old.[20]
Parliament and the provinces also share responsibility
for establishing minimum wages within their spheres of competence, but in this
case, the federal government has aligned its rates with each province and
territory in which a person subject to federal regulation is employed.
The federal government does not have a special minimum wage for persons under
the age of eighteen. Registered apprentices are exempt from the minimum
wage provisions if they are paid in accordance with a schedule established for
apprentices by their provincial government. Certain trainees may also be paid
less than the prevailing minimum wage in their province of employment.[21]
Ontario currently has a provincial minimum wage of Can$8.00 per hour (about
US$7.60).[22]
As of February 1, 2007, there is a special rate of $Can7.50 per hour for
students whose weekly hours do not exceed twenty-eight or who are employed
during a school holiday.[23] Other
exemptions for trainees are not limited to persons within a certain age group.
Throughout Canada, employees under the age of eighteen
generally have the same rights as other workers to holidays, union
representation, and overtime pay. Other labor standards also generally
apply to all employees equally.
Canada has a Cadet Corps for persons between the ages of
twelve and nineteen. Persons in the Cadet Corps are involved in physical
training and community service.[24]
Cadets are not eligible for deployment. Canada permits persons between
the ages of sixteen and eighteen to enlist in the armed forces with the consent
of a parent.[25]
However, persons under the age of eighteen cannot be deployed to a theater of
armed hostilities by the Canadian Forces.[26]
Sex and Trafficking of Children
Canada’s Criminal Code contains a number of offenses
related to the sexual exploitation of or the trafficking in children. The
most important of these offenses can be summarized as follows:
1. Sexual interference. Touching a
child under the age of fourteen for a sexual purpose is punishable with a
maximum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment and a minimum sentence of fourteen
days.[27]
2. Invitation to sexual touching.
Inviting a child under the age of fourteen to engage in sexual touching carries
the same penalties as sexual interference.[28]
3. Sexual exploitation. The offense
of sexual exploitation extends the offenses of sexual interference and
invitation to sexual touching to persons who are in a position of trust or
authority over a child between the ages of fourteen and eighteen. The
maximum and minimum sentences for sexual exploitation are the same as for sexual
interference and sexual touching.[29]
4. Child pornography. Any person who
makes, prints, publishes, or possesses child pornography for publication is
liable to a maximum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment and a minimum sentence
of ninety days’ imprisonment. Any person who transmits, distributes,
sells, imports, or advertises child pornography or possesses child pornography
for one of those purposes is liable to the same maximum and minimum
punishments. Any person who possesses child pornography is liable to a
maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment and a minimum of fourteen days’
imprisonment. Any person who knowingly accesses child pornography is
liable to the same maximum and minimum punishments.
The term “child pornography” includes not only pictures,
films, and other visual representations, but also written material which
counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen and audio
recordings that describe sexual activity with a person under the age of
eighteen. It is not a defense to a child pornography charge that the
accused believed the person depicted was eighteen or older, unless the accused
took all reasonable steps to ensure the person was of legal age and that he or
she was not depicted as being under the age of eighteen.
In a controversial 2001 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada
ruled that the country’s child pornography laws were mostly constitutional, but
they could not support the conviction of a person who had been found to have
created visual and written material for his own private use.[30]
Parliament later responded to this decision by enacting a law that states that
no person can be convicted of child pornography if the act that is alleged to
constitute the offense “does not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under
the age of eighteen years.”[31] The law
also now provides that it is a question of law whether any written material or
visual representation advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under
the age of eighteen that would be an offense under the Criminal Code.[32] These
exceptions only apply to material that is not distributed.
5. Parent or Guardian Procuring Sexual
Activity. Any parent or guardian who procures a person under the age
of eighteen for prohibited sexual activity with another person is liable to a
maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment and a minimum sentence of six
months’ imprisonment if the child is under the age of fourteen and a maximum
sentence of two years’ imprisonment and a minimum sentence of forty-five days’
imprisonment if the child is between the ages of fourteen and eighteen.[33]
6. Householder Permitting Sexual Activity.
A householder who knowingly permits his or her premises to be used by a minor
for illegal sexual activities is liable to the same ranges of punishment as a
parent or guardian who procures sexual activity for a child.[34]
7. Corrupting Children. The offense of
corrupting children is very broadly defined. Under it, a person who
“participates in adultery or sexual immorality or indulges in habitual
drunkenness or any other form of vice, and thereby endangers the morals of [a]
child or renders the home an unfit place for the child to be in” is liable to
two years’ imprisonment.[35]
8. Luring a child. Using a computer
to lure a child or a person he or she believes is a child for an unlawful
sexual activity is a relatively new offense that is punishable with up to five
years’ imprisonment. In order to be able to raise mistake as to age as a
valid defense, a defendant must prove that he or she took reasonable steps to
ascertain the age of the person communicated with.[36]
9. Abduction of person under fourteen.
Abducting a child with the intent to deprive a parent or guardian of possession
of that child is punishable with up to ten years imprisonment.[37]
10. Abduction in contravention of a
custody order. Abduction of a child under the age of fourteen in contravention
of a custody order is also punishable with a maximum sentence of ten years
imprisonment.
11. Abduction. A parent who
abducts a child to prevent a parent or guardian to have possession of him or
her is punishable with a maximum sentence of ten years imprisonment even if the
child is not the subject of a custody order.[38]
12. Procuring. Any person who
lives wholly or in part on the avails of a prostitute under the age of eighteen
is liable to a maximum sentence of fourteen years imprisonment and a minimum
sentence of two years imprisonment. Any person who uses violence,
intimidation, or coercion for that purpose is liable to a minimum sentence of
five years imprisonment. Any person who attempts to procure a prostitute
under the age of eighteen is liable to a maximum sentence of five years
imprisonment and a minimum sentence of six months imprisonment.[39]
13. Removing a Child from Canada.
Removing children from Canada for certain illegal sexual purposes is an offense
that is punishable with up to five years imprisonment.[40]
14. Trafficking. Canada has
strict laws prohibiting the trafficking in persons of all ages. Under the
Criminal Code, any person who “recruits, transports, transfers, receives,
holds, conceals or harbors a person…for the purpose of exploiting them or
facilitating their exploitation is guilty of an indictable offense and is
liable to imprisonment for life if they kidnap, commit an aggravated assault,
or aggravated sexual assault against, or cause death to, the victim during the
commission of the offense [and] to imprisonment for up to fourteen years in any
other case.”[41]
Judges may exclude members of the public from the courtroom where it is in the
proper administration of justice, which includes ensuring that witnesses under
the age of eighteen are safeguarded.[42]
In Canada, minimum sentences are fairly rare. The
fact that so many of the offenses described above do carry minimum sentences
indicates that Parliament has taken extraordinary steps to protect
children. In addition to creating a number of offenses that are designed
specifically to punish persons who exploit or abuse minors, Parliament has also
provided that abusing a person under the age of eighteen is to be viewed as an
aggravating factor by judges in sentencing persons convicted of offenses
against children.[43]
Juvenile Justice
In 2002, Parliament enacted a Youth Criminal Justice Act[44] to replace
the Young Offenders Act.[45] The
Preamble to this statute signals that it was intended to create a far more
lenient system for juvenile justice by declaring that:
Canadian society should have a youth criminal justice
system that commands respect, takes into account the interests of victims,
fosters responsibility and ensures accountability through meaningful
consequences and effective rehabilitation and reintegration, and that reserves
its most serious intervention for the most serious crimes and reduces the
over-reliance on incarceration for non-violent young persons.[46]
The Preamble also notes that Canada is a party to the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and that young persons
have rights and freedoms, including those set out in the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms and have “special guarantees of their rights and
freedoms. The Declaration of Principle then contains the following
statements:
The criminal justice system for young persons must be
separate and apart from that of adults and emphasize: 1) rehabilitation and
reintegration: 2) fair and proportionate accountability; 3) enhanced personal
protection to ensure that young persons are treated fairly and that their
rights, including their rights to privacy, are protected.[47]
Special considerations apply in respect of proceedings
against young persons and in particular … young persons have rights and
freedoms in their own right, such as a right to be heard in the course of and
to participate in the process, other than the decision to prosecute, that lead
to decisions that affect them, and young persons have special guarantees of
their rights and freedoms.[48]
Young persons are thus guaranteed the right to be
presumed innocent and to prompt notification of charges brought against
them. The Act also has provisions for prompt trials and, in this
connection, recognizes that young persons have a different perception of time.[49] The
applicability of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to youth criminal justice
means that they are guaranteed the right against self-incrimination and the
right to use French or English in legal proceedings.[50] The
right to a fair trial also guarantees young persons the right to have an
interpreter.[51]
The Youth Criminal Justice Act encourages the use of extrajudicial
measures by the police and the courts to address youth crime.
Extrajudicial measures are designed to be timely, to repair harm, to encourage
families to become involved, to give victims an opportunity to participate, and
to respect the rights and freedoms of young persons.[52]
The Act also provides for the imposition of extrajudicial sanctions such as
placing young offenders in special programs.[53]
In Canada’s youth courts, defendants have the right to
counsel. Defendants found guilty of an offense are liable to a youth
sentence if the judge finds that all the alternatives allowed for by the Youth
Criminal Justice Act are inappropriate. Judges must consider pre-sentence
reports. The maximum sentence a juvenile under the age of eighteen can
receive for one crime is two years and the maximum sentence for multiple crimes
is three years.[54]
However, for first degree murder, a juvenile can be sentenced to up to ten
years in custody, and for second degree murder, he or she may be sentenced to
up to seven years in custody.[55] Also,
for certain violent offenses, a youth can be sentenced to an adult sentence of
more than two years in custody if the judge in the case finds that a youth
sentence would not be sufficient to hold a young person accountable for his or
her behavior.[56]
The Youth Criminal Justice Act contains protections for
the privacy of young persons. Section 110 of the Act generally prohibits
the publication of the names of young persons or information respecting them,
except where they have been convicted of certain very serious offenses or have been
given an adult sentence.[57]
Exceptions are allowed to identify young persons who may be a danger to others
or for the purpose of apprehending a young person.[58]
Concluding Remarks
In 2003, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of
the Child concluded its Thirty-Fourth Session by adopting reports on Canada and
several other countries. The Committee stated that it “was encouraged by
the numerous initiatives undertaken by” Canada. The Committee praised
Canada's National Action Plan for Children and made only a few
recommendations. Among these were that the federal government work more
closely with the provinces on legislation and policy, prohibit reasonable force
in the disciplining of children, and offer more assistance for child
care. The Committee was also concerned with the relatively high rate of
suicide among Canadian youths, particularly in aboriginal communities. To
address this problem, the Committee recommended improvements in the quality of
education. The fact that Canadian law did not come under more extensive
scrutiny attests to the high level of regard for and adherence to the rights of
children in Canada.[59]
Prepared by Stephen Clarke
Senior Foreign Law Specialist
August 2007
Senior Foreign Law Specialist
August 2007
[1] Government
of Canada, Canadian Embassy in France, Age of Majority by Province or
Territory (2007), http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/canada-europa/france/canadaaz/agemajorite-en.asp
(external link) (last visited Aug. 10, 2007).
[2] C.C.Q. 153
(2007).
[3] The
Convention on the Rights of the Child, with a Preamble and fifty-four articles,
was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly Nov. 20, 1989, and entered into force
Sept. 2, 1990. G.A. Res. 44/25, annex, 44 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at
167, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989); 28 I.L.M. 1448 (1989). For an online text,
see the OHCHR Web site, http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm
(external link) (last visited July 23, 2007); it includes the 1995
amendment to art. 43, para. 2 (G.A. Res. 50/155 (Dec. 21, 1995)), which entered
into force Nov. 18, 2002. For an in-depth analysis of Part I of the
Convention (articles 1-41), see Sharon Detrick, A Commentary on the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1999); see
alsoConvention on the Rights of the Child, Amnesty International USA, http://www.amnestyusa.org/Children/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child/page.do?id=1101777&n1=3&n2=78&n3=1272
(external link) (last visited July 24, 2007).
[4] The Child
Soldiers Protocol, comprising a Preamble and thirteen articles, entered into
force Feb. 12, 2002. G.A. Res. A/RES/54/263 of 25 May 2000. For an
online text, see the UNHCHR Web site, http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/protocolchild.htm
(external link) (last visited July 23, 2007).
[5] The Sex
Trafficking Protocol comprises a preamble and seventeen articles. G.A.
Res. A/RES/54/263, May 25, 2000. It entered into force Jan. 18,
2002. For an online text, see the UNHCHR Web site, http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/dopchild.htm
(external link) (last visited July 23, 2007).
[6] Statistics
Canada, Infant Mortality, by Province and Territory, http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/health21a.htm
(external link) (last visited August 7, 2007).
[7] Constitution
Act, 1867, R.S.C. No. 5, s. 93 (Appendix 1985).
[8] Education
Act, c. E-2, s. 21 (1990), as amended by 2006 S.O. c. 28, s. 5(1).
[9] Ontario,
Ministry of Government Services, McGinty Government Helps, Students Stay in
School, http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GPOE/2007/01/16/c6146.html?lmatch=%E2%8C%A9=_e.html
(external link) (last visited Aug. 6, 2007).
[10] Education
Act, R.S.O. c. E-2, s. 2 (1990).
[11] Ontarians
With Disabilities Act, S.O. c. 32, s. 2.
[12] Id.
S. 15.
[13]
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 S.O. c. 11.
[14] Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being
Sched. B. s. 12 to the Canada Act, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.).
[15] Peter Hogg,
Constitutional Law of Canada, 50-2 (1997).
[16] Ontario, School
District Policies, Code JGA, http://www.ontario.k12.or.us/District/NewDistrictPolicies/
Section_J.html (external link) (last visited Aug. 7, 2007).
[17] Canadian
Labour Law Reporter, para. 5112 (C.C.H. Can 2007).
[18] Canada
Labour Standards Regulations, C.R.C. c. 986, s. 10, as amended (1985).
[19] Industrial
Establishments Regulation. R.R.O. No. 851 (1990).
[20] Mines and
Mining Plants Regulation, R.R.O. No. 854, s. 8 (1990).
[21] Canada
Labour Standards Regulations, C.R.C., c. 986 , s. 20 (1978), as amended.
[22] Canadian
Labour Law Reports, para. 6771 (C.C.H. Can. Para. 6771).
[23] Id.
[24] Frequently
Asked Questions (FAQs) - Cadest, Cadets Canada, Apr. 10, 2007, available
at http://www.cadets.dnd.ca/recruit/faq-cadet_e.asp
(external link).
[25] United
Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Declarations and
Reservations to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the
Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict; http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/crc/treaties/declare-opac.htm
(external link) (last visited Aug. 9, 2007).
[26] National
Defence Act, R.S.C. c. N-5, s. 34, as amended by 2000 S.C., c. 13, s. 1.
[27] Criminal
Code, R.S.C. c. C-46 (1985) and c. 19, s. 1 (3d Supp. 1988), as amended
by 2005 S.C. c. 32, s. 3.
[28] Id.
S. 152.
[29] Id.
S. 153.
[30] R. v.
Sharp, {2001] 1 S.C.R. 45.
[31] Criminal
Code, R.S.C. c. C-46, s. 163.1(6), as amended by 1993 S.C. c. 46, s. 2, c. 13,
s. 5, and 2005 S.C. c. 32, s. 7.
[32] Id.
S. 163.1(7).
[33] Id.
S. 170.
[34] Id.
S. 171.
[35] Id.
S. 172.
[36] 2002 S.C.
c. 13, s. 8.
[37] Criminal
Code, R.S.C. c. C-46, s. 281 (1985).
[38] Id.
S. 283.
[39] Id.
S. 212.
[40] Id.
S. 273.3
[41] Id.S.
279.01.
[42] Id.
S. 486.
[43] Id.
S. 718.2(a)(ii.1).
[44] Youth
Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1.
[45] Young
Offenders Act, R.S.C. c. Y-1 (1985).
[46] Youth
Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2000, c. 1, Preamble.
[47] Id.
S. 3.
[48] Id.
[49] Id.
[50] Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being
Sched. B. s. 12 to the Canada Act, 1982, c. 11, §§ 11(c) & 19 (U.K.).
[51] Id.
[52] Youth
Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2000, S. 5.
[53] Id.
S. 6.
[54] Id.
S. 42(14).
[55] Id.
[56] Id.
S. 72.
[57] Id.
S. 110.
[58] Id.
[59] Press
Release, United Nations, Committee on Rights of Child Concludes Thirty-Fourth
Session (Mar. 10, 2003), available at http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/hr4698.doc.htm
(external link).
---------------
Citizenship as a privilege or as a right: should children be given the vote?
At the TEDxWaterloo 2013 Event called chasingHOME I extended an invitation to participate in a conversation about a “crazy” idea: children should be given the vote. Here is the text of my presentation.
1. An invitation
I would like to invite you into a conversation, a conversation about a “crazy” idea. At least I thought it was crazy when I first heard it.
Children should be given the vote.
My first response to this idea was as a parent of three girls. Children already have a good deal of power in the home.
Any mother fumbling through her purse in the middle of the grocery store check-out line does not need—thank you very much—to be plunged into intense negotiations with the three-year old standing in front of the rows and rows of candy bars placed strategically at toddler eye level.
Can you imagine these kids on election day, quietly lined up at polling booths—their purple crayons in hand—waiting to put an X beside the name of a candidate who best represents their interests?
2. Right to vote as privilege
When it comes to voting rights societies have always drawn a clear and very sharp line between those who are capable, and those who are not; between those who are informed, and those who are not; and between those who are responsible, and those who are not.
And it is clear that children are not capable; it is clear that they are not informed; and it is clear they are not responsible.
Their sphere of influence should not extend beyond the home, to acts of politics and the setting of social priorities that affect us all.
It is the capable, the informed, and the responsible individual who has the privileges of citizenship, the first and most important being the right to vote.
This has been clear for a long time.
In 1906 a certain Mr. Samuel Evans, QC, stood up from his seat as an MP in the British House of Commons, took I imagine a small step forward, and in a debate over a proposal by the Labour Party said: “If women were to be entitled to the privileges of citizenship, they ought to perform its duties. Would it be desirable that women should have to go out to battle?”
Mr. Evans, I also imagine, had to raise his voice to be heard because the newspapers of the day reported that his remarks were met by howls of outrage from the many women who packed into the public gallery of parliament that late April day more than a hundred years ago.
3. Right to vote as inherent
I suspect that to Mr. Evans, and to many others, the proposal that women should in principle be given the vote must have sounded crazy: after all they were not capable, they were not informed, they were not responsible.
And indeed the growing women’s movement always had a strong case to argue that women were as capable as any man, as informed, and as responsible.
But on their way to winning the right to vote they also questioned the underlying logic of the conventional wisdom: that citizenship and full participation in society is something that has to be earned.
They articulated a different perception of rights: the right of citizenship was inherent in the worth of every individual, and it was the duty of society to recognize this right, not for individuals to prove they were worthy of it.
4. The age of majority and the elderly
Think of another line that we draw between those who have the right to vote and those who do not: the age of majority. In many democracies citizens under the age of 18 do not have the right to vote.
All democracies draw a line of this sort. Yet, nowhere do we draw a line at the other end of the life cycle: we don’t take the right to vote away from citizens who are deemed in some sense to be too old!
In the later years of her life my grandmother suffered from certain physical and cognitive impairments: impairments so severe that certainly my 12 year old daughter at the time was much more physically and mentally capable than her, more informed, and more responsible.
Yet the idea of taking the right to vote away from anyone over the age of 85 is a crazy idea if we feel that citizenship is a right, rather than a privilege to be earned.
The onus is not on us to prove that we are capable, informed, responsible and therefore worthy of citizenship; but rather we have a right that is inherent to us as citizens, and this right creates a reciprocal duty, a duty that governments have to recognize our rights.
This too was what women were arguing in the 1800s and early 1900s as they mobilized to get the vote. The howls of outrage that greeted Mr. Evans were also, in some measure, demands that the inherent rights of citizenship should be recognized by those who govern us.
5. Convention on the Rights of the Child
The reason that a proposal to give the children the vote might gnaw at us is that it does not sound as crazy if looked at from this perspective.
To be certain children are adults in becoming, but they have at all stages in their lives their own interests and concerns that societies in some sense have an obligation to recognize: concerns about home and well-being in the here-and-now, and concerns about the home they will inherit in the future. These shouldn’t count for nothing in the electoral process.
But just “how” to make them count is a challenging question.
A way to constructively carry this conversation forward might be found in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child gives some guidance.
It articulates the rights of the child in a very broad and comprehensive way, but I would draw your attention to two articles.
Article 12 makes clear that there is a duty upon governments to put policies and mechanisms in place that assure children have the right to express their views.
Obviously, age and maturity come into play, and so in matters of voting it is reasonable to set an age of majority, be it 21, or 18, or even—as is being discussed by some—16. But this is not to say that younger children do not have a right to vote, only that our duty toward them is imperfectly performed.
We need to take some extra steps.
For the elderly we take extra steps. In my country, Canada, during elections polling stations are mobile, going to old age homes on election day in recognition that some of the elderly have physical limitations that compromise mobility.
Other countries, like the United Kingdom, permit voting by proxy: individuals with, for example, health limitations may not be able to vote, but they can give permission for someone else to cast a vote on their behalf.
6. Demeny Voting
Article 5 of the Convention gives us a hint on how we might take these extra steps for children.
It states that parents have the right and duty to give direction and guidance in exercising a child’s rights, and that they should do this in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.
For example, most societies transfer income to parents to keep children from falling into poverty, and it is the parents’ responsibility to spend this on the well-being of children.
The suggestion has been made that we do the same thing by transferring political resources to parents in the name of the child.
So the proposal I would put to you is that we should recognize the right of children to have the vote, but that this right be exercised by giving parents an extra proxy vote for each child under their guardianship.
7. How this would work
My home is made up of five Canadian citizens: my wife and me, and our three daughters—a 21 year old, an 18 year old, and a 15 year old—but if an election were held tomorrow we would have only four votes, my youngest daughter not having her rights recognized because she is younger than 18.
It is proposed that my wife and I be given an extra vote that we would cast in her name: either my wife would do it, or I would do it, or we would each have an extra half vote, or maybe even my daughter would decide who would do it.
This voting scheme has been talked about for almost a century, but more recently it has been called Demeny voting after the Hungarian-American demographer—Paul Demeny—who proposed it in the 1980s.
8. What is wrong with this?
It is quite reasonable to wonder about this.
It can appear to violate the principle of one person–one vote. Some have suggested that people who do not have children may be put at a disadvantage.
Parents may not vote in the interests of their child, and this therefore just privileges some adults over others.
This certainly may be true.
When we give parents extra money for their children, it is probably the case that some of them don’t spend it in the child’s best interests. But we do it anyways because it probably does a lot more good than bad.
Demeny voting is not a perfect scheme, but does that mean we should let the good and feasible fall victim to the perfect but unattainable?
Would it take us closer to one person–one vote?
Of course, if we do not in a fundamental sense accept that children are persons we would not accept the idea at all.
9. What else is wrong with this?
Some children would not want their vote to be cast by their parents.
Some teenagers may be particularly well-informed, better informed than their parents. Why shouldn’t they cast their own vote?
There are also some regrettable cases in which the home is a dangerous place for children. In cases of abuse, or when children leave the home before the age of majority, should parents continue to cast a proxy vote for the child?
For these reasons some have argued that the age at majority should simply be lowered, to say 16 years.
But this still does not recognize the rights of younger children.
And besides if this is how you feel then would not a Demeny voting scheme bring momentum to exactly this.
I can just imagine the look on my 15 year old’s face when she learns that I will be casting her vote for her, and the heated dinner time conversation that might ensue.
But isn’t this a good thing, something that would encourage interest in and engagement in the political system?
9. Conclusion
In 1918 the government of the United Kingdom passed the Representation of the People Act that introduced universal suffrage.
But in a particular way. All men over the age of 21 were given the vote, and those as young as 19 were able to vote if they had actively served in World War I. All women were also given the vote, that is, all women over the age of 30 who were of property—either their own or their husbands.
Well as momentous as this change was, it was not long before parliament passed the Equal Franchise Act, which in 1928 recognized that everyone over the age of 21, regardless of gender and social status, had the right to vote.
The conversation on the right to vote has been between a view of citizenship as a privilege, and citizenship as a right.
In the 19th century this conversation was about extending the franchise without regard to property and social class; in the 20th century it was about extending it without regard to gender; and in our times it may be about extending it without regard to age.
I invite you to participate in this conversation, to participate with a certain wonder about how far it has come, and a curiosity, a curiosity about how our words and deeds will be interpreted by our grandchildren.
9 Comments
Economics for public policy
BLOGSPOT
CANADA MILITARY NEWS: NOVA SCOTIA- CANADA-THE GOOD STUFF JUNE 3/14 - Nova Scotia settles Child Abuse Lawsuit-Nova Scotia Home 4 Coloured Children/Troop love/IDLE NO MORE- God takes another Warrior Angel from Nova Scotia-Mi'kmaq Patriarch Chief Lawrence Paul-Truro wanted him as Mayor/CLARA'S BIG RIDE 4 MENTAL HEALTH/ Ellen Page (fav movie) best PAEDOPHILE HUNTING MOVIE OF ALL/Rehtaeh Parsons Love/UKRAINE/HOMELESS/PTSD
http://nova0000scotia.blogspot.ca/2014/06/nova-scotia-canada-good-stuff-june-314.html
a Canada Grade IV student- see us old grannies and grampas... taught our children and their right.... God bless our Canada
--------------
CANADA-Student Rights
Basically 2 sorts of rights apply to students:
substantive rights - the actual rights that students should enjoy - and
procedural rights - methods by which students claim their rights.
Student Rights
Basically 2 sorts of rights apply to students:
substantive rights - the actual rights that students should enjoy - and
procedural rights - methods by which students claim their rights. This article
is concerned with students in public institutions, although those in private
schools can claim rights under the common law and provincial education Acts.
Basic Right to Education
Provincial governments affirm the basic right to an
education when they approve financing for primary and secondary schools.
Governments also extend the right to an education by underwriting part of the
expenses for colleges and universities. When education budgets are debated,
arguments occasionally surface to augment this principle; eg, to make small
class sizes a moral right or to guarantee that all qualified high-school
graduates may have access to post-secondary education. Courts are usually
reluctant to enter this debate, not wishing to define "good" teaching
or to rule on government spending.
Equal Educational Opportunity
A second substantive right, particularly important for
minority groups, guarantees equal EDUCATIONAL
OPPORTUNITY. In the spirit of this provision, which mirrors the value that
governments should treat persons equally, provincial policymakers have
attempted to reduce imbalances between schools and regions. To some extent,
equity has been guaranteed by sections such as 15 and 23 of the CANADIAN
CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS. Provinces are moving unevenly, however,
toward achieving sex-based equity in vocational training, sports, curricular
materials and financial aid.
Other Equities
Through recent rulings of various bodies, other equities
have been asserted as well. No longer, for instance, do unmarried pregnant
students have to leave school: they are to have the same access to education as
other pupils. On the other hand, if their presence poses a medical threat to
others, students can be denied participation in regular school programming -
but alternative education programs should be provided. Finally regarding
equitable treatment, students of all faiths have been permitted to wear religious
symbols, including a sheathed kirpan (whose design resembles a dagger). Should
the potential for violence in their school reach a level of danger, however,
conditions may temporarily be imposed on the wearing of kirpans.
Legislatures also require boards to institute special
education programs for students limited by handicaps and learning disabilities.
Generally these students have a right to develop their potential through a free
public education in the least restrictive environment. Parents and child
advocates try to ensure that students' rights are not abridged through
malpractice, improper diagnosis or inaccurate placements in remedial groupings.
Separate or demonstrably substandard programs of study, teaching methods, and
philosophies of education for handicapped children may be challenged in courts
under the Charter. In denying certain of these challenges, courts have sided
with boards facing serious fiscal constraints. Thus the provision of special
education is expected to be within bounds of available resources.
Administrators have the legal power to punish students
for disruptions in schools. Offences may include persistent opposition to
authority, habitual neglect of duty, use of profane or improper language and
conduct "injurious" to a moral tone. In response to acts of violence
or other misbehaviour in school, principals can suspend or expel pupils. Those
who are expelled, however, can take classes outside regular classrooms,
possibly at another site. This treatment sends the message that consequences
ensue for perpetrators. Some take issue with this retributive approach,
however, believing that such expulsions deny perpetrators, victims and members
of the school community the chance to reconcile and to learn to care for each
other through training in conflict resolution.
A number of schools and post-secondary institutions now
extend to students the right of due process, according to which administrators
must (in detail) state the reasons for suspensions or expulsions; within days,
students and their parents can appeal these administrative actions to unbiased
tribunals and authorities thereafter can reverse or modify punishments that
cannot be justified or supported by the evidence. In post-secondary schools,
students may turn to ombudsmen or directors of student services for help in
redressing such problems for them as sexual harassment, undeclared grading
practices and too-restricted access to records about themselves. These students
may also expect that their academic, counselling and MEDICAL
RECORDS will remain confidential.
In varying degrees, institutions are refining their codes
of conduct so that students may confront accusers, engage council, contest the
evidence, cross-examine witnesses, appeal beyond immediate supervisors,
participate in hearings where each side makes cases in the presence of the
other, have controversies settled by rules that are known to all in advance and
have errors in their records corrected. The formality of the disciplinary
hearing can increase with the severity of the potential penalties.
Elementary Schools
In academic and political matters, students in primary
and junior high schools enjoy the least latitude. Teachers in these institutions
are empowered to exercise the discipline of a kind, firm and judicious parent.
This empowerment, in loco parentis ("in place of the parent"),
stems from the European practice of wealthy parents voluntarily and
individually contracting with tutors for their children's training. The idea of
teacher as substitute parent has been so absorbed into the compulsory and mass
education systems of North America that school boards and governing bodies for
private schools are slow to question constraints that elementary educators may
impose on learners' expression, association, opinion and assembly.
Deriving their authority from the COMMON LAW,
teachers in the past have administered corporal punishment. In recent years,
officials in ministries of education have disapproved of the strap, but in
restraining a child, teachers have to stay within limits set by their boards.
Educators charged with assault have used the Criminal Code of Canada as a
defence for their actions, although what is reasonable in the circumstances may
well be the test.
Secondary Schools
Adolescents are more likely to use the provocative
language of "demanding" their rights. During the activist 1960s, some
students wore armbands, picketed and clashed with officials, seeking the
unqualified exercise of speech, press and assembly for which university
students were clamouring. In the process, Canada's secondary students did gain
some influence over cigarette smoking (within designated areas) and appearance
(if hair length and dress do not cause disruptions of orderly procedure). Many
principals allowed student organizations to invite outside speakers to their
schools, as long as the principal had given prior approval. In Canada, as
elsewhere throughout the industrialized world, subsequent conflicts over
students' academic and political freedoms have not been as widespread or as
intense.
Regulation of student life has increased in the 1980s and
1990s. High schools have adopted codes of behaviour that spell out requirements
for attendance, preparedness for class, academic honesty, access to school
areas, punctuality, and respect for others. Courts have upheld boards in
Saskatchewan and Alberta that suspended students for violating dress codes. As
well, T-shirts with messages have been banned when those messages infringe upon
the rights of others or materially upset the school's climate for learning. A
few boards of education have forbidden students to gather signatures on political
petitions within their communities.
Although guaranteed by the Charter of Rights, a student's
privilege to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure must be balanced
with the educators' long-standing responsibilities to protect pupils from
enticement into illegal behaviour, to ensure safety of persons and property and
to provide a proper educational environment. Accordingly, if an educator has a
reasonable suspicion (not just a vague hunch) that stolen goods or contraband
materials such as drugs or weapons may be secreted in a student's desk, locker
or bookbag, that teacher or administrator may have the right to search the
property or person without a warrant and without prior consent from the
student. Further, principals have not been required to provide pupils with
counsel before beginning a search. Educators are expected to proceed, however,
only after weighing the suspect's age, history, record in school and the
immediate seriousness of the situation.
Secondary-school educators generally believe that
students should have little or no involvement in determining curricular
activities, but critics of this point of view argue that students should have a
greater share in this aspect of policymaking, noting that such involvement
would provide training in democracy and move students away from a "passive
model for learning." These critics argue that school is a place where
young people first form their political views; presumably, the chances they
have to participate in school decisions signals a lifelong message about what
they should expect from, and give back to, the wider society. In response, many
educators claim that the student body has such unequal standing in relation to
themselves that an equal voice in school governance would be inappropriate. Students
might choose less demanding programs, some educators anticipate. Of late,
however, provinces are allowing students to sit on school councils where
theoretically at least they can influence educators and the other adults who
comprise those councils' majorities.
Post-secondary Institutions
Students in colleges and universities have made the
greatest strides in acquiring privacy rights. Typically, searches (of lockers,
rooms, attendees at social events, etc) are sanctioned (and conducted warily)
only in cases of emergency or with high-level authorization and in
circumstances which indicate a serious threat to security. University students
have also won the right of freedom of association. As a result of the protests
of the 1960s and early 1970s, post-secondary students are relatively free from
regulations that guide their lives outside class. They have been forbidden,
however, from interrupting the education of others (by, say, occupying
university buildings to protest tuition increases).
University students sit on department committees and at
intermediate levels of their institutions' governing councils but few students
actually participate in such governing. As provinces allow tuition hikes and so
expect students to pay for more of their education, students are claiming a
right to more than just a token number of seats on boards of governors. With
increased representation at that peak level, students hope to exert greater
influence over priorities of post-secondary institutions, especially to improve
teaching and financial aid. In some provinces graduate students, employed as
part-time teaching assistants, have won the right to bargain collectively for
better wages and improved working conditions.
In a sense, the rights of post-secondary and secondary
students have shaded into each other in a court case involving a group of
Ontario university students who returned to their old high school. Their aim
was to inform students there about problems with secondary education; the
university students claimed that high-school pupils had a right to know about
the misgivings among the school's alumni. After the principal tried to prevent
the distribution of that critique, a court decreed that the visitors had been
trespassing: they had failed to obtain the authorities' permission to be at
that school passing out their materials.
----
and..
STUDENTS RELIGIOUS RIGHTS ON PUBLIC SCHOOL CAMPUS
Christian-Attorney.Net
"Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
1. Students
have the right to meet togther for prayer, bible study, and worship.
2. Students
have the right to identify their religious beliefs through wearing clothing
with religious messages and symbols.
3. Students
have the right to talk about and express their religious beliefs on the school
campus.
4. Students
have the right to distribute and share religious tracts and literature on the
school campus during non-instructional time.
5. Students
have the right to voluntarily pray on campus. They may do so alone or with
others if doing so does not disrupt school activities or is not forced upon
others.
6. Students
have the right to carry a bible or other religious literature with them on the
school campus. Students may read their Bible, etc. during non-instructional
time.
7. Students
have the right to prepare school assignments, research papers, speeches, and
projects from a religious perspective and/or with a religious theme.
8. Students
have the right to be exempt from activities and class content that contradict
their religious beliefs. The school, however, may require that, during such activities,
the student participate in alternate relevant activities.
9. Students
have the right to observe, celebrate or study religious holidays on campus.
10. Students
have the right to meet with and petition school officials.
11. Students
have the right to organize religious clubs.
12. Students
have the right to live according to their religious beliefs while on campus.
Remember, the
above are general guidelines. There may be exceptions and qualifications to the
above rights. Laws frequently change. But don't take the school's or the school
district's word for what your religious rights are. Do your research or contact
a Christian civil rights expert or attorney.
See related
article: Freedom
of Speech and Expression in Public Schools
and..
panampost.com/belen-marty/2015/06/02/canadian-christian-law-school-takes-practice-ban-fight-to-higher-power/
4
days ago ... ... banned Trinity Western University law graduates from
practicing due to their Christian enrollment pledge. ... TWU School of Law
(@TWULawSchool) June 1, 2015 ... would undermine this right for other
non-religious groups in Canada. ... Trinity Western Law Graduates Will Not
Practice in British Columbia.
globalnews.ca/news/1891632/supreme-court-quebec-infringed-on-catholic-high-schools-religious-freedom/
Mar
19, 2015 ... The Supreme Court has ruled that Quebec infringed on the religious
freedom ... of Catholic parents who wanted to raise their children in their
faith. ... The Canadian Press, 2015 .... However, I am aware of some
secularists who have tried to compel a medical student to practice abortion
procedures in spite of ...
Jan
29, 2015 ... While law schools at religious institutions are common enough in
the ... of religion of TWU and its students in a way that cannot be justified.”
... Learning in an environment with people who promise to comply with the code
is a religious practice and an expression of religious faith. ...
2015/06/june/july-cover .....
Mar
20, 2015 ... Canada's Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in favour of Montreal's
... of religious practice and that Canada is pluralist and religion is to be
... they wanted to go further than their colleagues were prepared to. ... My
starting point is that in a religious high school, where students .... Beth
Green | May 29, 20...
-------
usa
STUDENT AND TEACHERS:
Learn Your Religious
Rights in Public Schools!
------
---------------
2015-04-24
... If you run a private school with a position on religion, these are
interesting times. ... school that calls itself “non-denominational,” informed
two Muslim students and their ... Webber claims visible religious practice is a
direct affront to its ... that accredits francophone schools abroad, including
several in Canada...
--------------
"Democracy
is the worst political system," runs the old cliché, "except for all
the others."
Edward Snowden: The World Says No to Surveillance
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/opinion/edward-snowden-the-world-says-no-to-surveillance.html?_r=0
--
Toronto club hosting accessible
sex party for disabled people
Called Deliciously Disabled, the
event will take place on Aug. 14.
Andrew Morrison-Gurza, a
disability activist who's organizing the accessible sex party, says we need a
language to talk about people with disabilities and their desire.
By: Robin Levinson King Staff
Reporter, Published on Sat Jun 06 2015
Everybody deserves to get it on,
say disability rights activists planning an accessible sex party.
“Hey, we’re here and many of us
enjoy sex just like everybody else,” said Stella Palikarova, an activist and
academic who studies disability and accessibility issues at the University of
Toronto.
The 35-year-old is in a
wheelchair because of her spinal muscular atrophy, but that doesn’t mean that
her desire for sex, and more importantly, human connection, is any less strong.
“I think that it’s important that
people realize that sexual expression is a human right,” she said. “We need to start
having this dialogue and bringing down the stereotypes.”
Palikarova is partnering with
Oasis Aqualounge, a downtown Toronto sex club, to throw an accessible sex party
where everybody can take part in the fun. Fatima Mechtab, the club’s marketing
director and a friend of Palikarova, said the club is accessible to almost
anyone, with any desire, at anytime, except for one key factor:
“It’s not wheelchair accessible,”
she said. So last year, Mechtab and Palikarova started to scheme about ways
they could bring the friskiness to people who have mobility issues. In January,
they started looking at venues that were accessible that would allow sex and
nudity, but were turned away time and again.
“We don’t think we can hold that
kind of party at this venue,” she was told.
But then they found Buddies in
Bad Times Theatre, an LGTBQ cabaret space that even used to have its own
dungeon. The party was officially on.
Called Deliciously Disabled, the
event will take place on Aug. 14. Mechtab wants to be clear — it’s not an orgy.
Nudity and sex are allowed, but they won’t be the only thing on the menu.
“Some of the secrets to that is
having a really sexy environment,” Mechtab said.
Guests can don masks, watch a
burlesque performance or attend a toy workshop. The sex part is optional, a
happy bonus for anyone willing to get down. Mechtab said they’re looking for
aid support workers to volunteer to help make sexy-times possible for those who
need physical help.
Although the venue can hold 150
standing, mobility devices take up additional room, so they’re holding 25 spots
for people with wheelchairs as well as 40 for able-bodied people.
“We’ve definitely wanted to make
it wide-open and inclusive for everyone,” Palikarova said.
Andrew Morrison-Gurza, one of the
event’s organizers and a disability consultant, helped inspire the name of the
event. Born with cerebral palsy, he said he started using the hashtag
#deliciouslydisabled as a way to talk about disability in a positive way.
“We don’t have a language
currently to discuss disability in a way that is sexy,” he said. This can lead
to awkwardness in the bedroom, which is one of the main reasons why
Morrison-Gurza is so keen on the August event.
“I am quite a sexual person, but
getting access to that can be difficult,” he said.
“The biggest thing we’re trying
to accomplish is to raise awareness in a fun and sexy way,” he said.
For starters, many popular bars
and clubs in the city are woefully inaccessible, which severely limits the
places disabled people can go to socialize. And when it’s time to take it to
the bedroom, Morrison-Gurza said that it can be tough to talk about physical
limitations and desires with a partner.
“I think that there’s a lot of
fear around sex and disability, and the fear can take away from the fun,” he
said.
Morrison-Gurza said too often,
people are afraid to touch people in wheelchairs because they are afraid of
hurting them or don’t believe that they have libidos. Before he has sex with a
new partner, they “storyboard” the sex, which means they work out what they
want to do, what they can safely do and what kind of help they may need.
While Morrison-Gurza and
Palikarova are both looking forward to the evening, they say the party is about
more than a good time — it’s about making people realize that disabled people
have the same wants and desires as everyone else, and deserve the same
opportunities.
“I’d love to see more events like
this,” Palikarova said. “Making this the standard, not the exception.”
Palikarova, who studies the
impact that societal stigmas have on people with disabilities, said we have a
long way to go before people with disabilities are given the rights they
deserve. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act does not come
into full force until 2025, and uptake has been slow, she said.
She hopes the sex party will get
people outside the disability community to think about the barriers that some
people face, and about how, at the end of the day, we all just want the same
thing: love.
“This is really going to take the
co-operation of everyone in society,” she said.
More on thestar.com
------------
Religious freedom in public schools is guaranteed to
students in the United ... Faisal Kutty, a lawyer with the Canadian Muslim
Civil Liberties Association ... “[ But] because it's a secular system, they
can't encourage one religion or preach but they should make it easy to practice
their [students'] faith .... Tuesday, June ...
4/27/2015 ... In Canada, we sporadically hear stories on
the news or on social media ... Recently in the news, two Grade 9 and 10
students in a non- denominational school, back in 2011, ... The teens continued
to hold their prayers in secret in the school or ... may practice their
religious beliefs may be the current challenge.
family.findlaw.com/child-custody/divorce-child-custody-and-religion.html
How
do courts decide which religion a child should follow when parents of ... under
the religion of their choosing only if that parent's religious practice causes
actual or .... ordered that the father must take the children to church and
Sunday school. .... Birth Certificate. 6/4/2015. My daughter's father signed a
Voluntary P...
------------
Children: The Silenced Citizens
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF CANADA'S INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE RIGHTS OF CHILDRENFinal Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights
April 2007
view / download in pdf (324 pages) 1.3 mb click hereLes enfants: des citoyens sans voix
MISE EN OEUVRE EFFICACE DES OBLIGATIONS INTERNATIONALES DU CANADA RELATIVES AUX DROITS DES ENFANTS
Rapport final du
Comit snatorial permanent
des Droits de la personne
avril 2007
http://www.canadiancrc.com/
--
List of Children's Rights
Summary of the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child.
The complete text of the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child, including the Preamble, exceeds 7,400 words. Many online
summaries are more than two thousand words long. This brief summary is less
than 700 words. It provides a short outline of the
54 Articles.
Despite being the most widely adopted human rights treaty in
history, it has encountered opposition from Christian conservatives in the USA. They frequently
misrepresent what the Convention says, so it's essential to double check any
supposed 'quote' from the CRC
by consulting the official document (PDF):
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/3ae6b38f0.pdf
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has a
web page version.
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/3ae6b38f0.pdf
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has a
web page version.
List of Children's Rights:
·
Preamble - An overview of the
treaty.
PART I.
·
Article 1: Definition of a child.
·
Article 2: Children must be protected from discrimination.
·
Article 3: The
best interests of the child
(taking into account the rights and duties of parents).
(taking into account the rights and duties of parents).
·
Article 4: Legislative
measures to implement the treaty.
·
Article 5: The
rights of parents.
·
Article 6: The
right to life.
·
Article 7: The
child's right to birth registration.
·
Article 8: The
child's right to a name, nationality and family relations.
·
Article 9: The
child's right not be separated from his or her parents against the child's
will.
·
Article 10: The
child's right to maintain contact with both parents if they separate.
·
Article 11: Measures
against the illicit transfer of children abroad.
·
Article 12: The
child's right to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings.
·
Article 13: The
child's right to freedom of expression.
·
Article 14: The
child's right to freedom of thought.
·
Article 15: The
child's right to freedom of association.
·
Article 16: The
child's right to privacy.
·
Article 17: The
child's right to information from national and international mass media.
·
Article 18: Parents
or legal guardians have the primary responsibility for the child's upbringing.
·
Article 19: State
obligations to protect children against maltreatment and abuse.
·
Article 20: State
obligations to children temporarily or permanently deprived of their family
environment.
·
Article 21: State
obligations to children with regard to adoption.
·
Article 22: State
obligations to children who are classed as refugees.
·
Article 23: State
obligations to children who are mentally or physically disabled.
·
Article 24: State
obligations to provide child health care services.
·
Article 25: Children
placed in physical or mental health care settings have the right to a periodic
review of their circumstances and treatment.
·
Article 26: The
child's right to social security insurance and benefits.
·
Article 27: The
child's right to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical,
mental, spiritual, moral and social development.
·
Article 28: The
child's right to education.
·
Article 29: The
goals to which a child's education should be directed, and the right of
individual adults to establish and direct educational institutions.
·
Article 30: The
rights of children belonging to ethnic, religious or linguistic minority
groups.
·
Article 31: The
child's right to rest, leisure and recreational activities.
·
Article 32: The
child's right to be protected from economic exploitation.
·
Article 33: State
obligations to protect children from the illicit use of narcotic and
psychotropic drugs.
·
Article 34: State
obligations to protect children from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse.
·
Article 35: State
obligations to prevent the abduction or trafficing of children.
·
Article 36: State
obligations to protect children from all other forms of exploitation
prejudicial to the child's welfare.
·
Article 37: State
obligations to ensure that children are not subjected to torture, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishments, including capital punishment or life
imprisonment without the possibility of release.
·
Article 38: State
obligations to ensure that children under fifteen years do not take a direct
part in wars or other hostilites, and to protect and care for children affected
by armed conflict.
·
Article 39: State
obligations to promote physical and psychological recovery of child victims of
torture, degrading treatment or armed conflict.
·
Article 40: State
obligations concerning children who infringe penal laws.
·
Article 41: No
part of the Convention shall override provisions contained in State laws which
are more conducive to children's rights.
PART II - Committee on the Rights of the Child
·
Article 42: State
obligations to make the provisions of the Convention widely known.
·
Article 43: Description
of the role of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child.
·
Article 44: Reports
to the Committee.
·
Article 45: The
process by which the Committee evaluates reports.
PART III - Procedures for ratification, amendments, etc.
·
Article 46: The
Convention shall be open for signature by all States.
·
Article 47: The
Convention is subject to ratification.
·
Article 48: The
Convention can be adopted by accession (same as ratification but not preceded
by signature).
·
Article 49: The
Convention enters into force on the 30th day after the 20th
ratification/accession.
·
Article 50: A
State Party may propose an amendment.
·
Article 51: A
State Party may file reservations.
·
Article 52: A
State Party may denounce the Convention
(i.e. announce termination of the State's participation).
(i.e. announce termination of the State's participation).
·
Article 53: The Secretary-General of the United Nations is designated as the
depositary of the Convention.
·
Article 54: The original of the present Convention resides with the
Secretary-General of the UN.
~~~ END OF LIST ~~~
Children's Rights
Although all children are born equal, they don’t all have the same
opportunities to thrive. In Halton, Our Kids Network is committed to creating
awareness of the fundamental rights of children and the importance of giving
them a voice in matters that affect them.
Advancing Children`s Rights
The United Nations
Convention on the Right of the Child (CRC) was adopted by the General
Assembly of the UN in 1989 and ratified by Canada in 1991. It has now been
accepted by 193 countries. The Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is
the body of independent experts that monitors implementation of the Convention.
In 2009, in partnership with school boards and child care centres, OKN
collected more than 200 pages of children’s writing and drawings in response to
the statement, “Every child has the right to…” The responses were then grouped
under the Halton 7
key conditions of well-being.
The Canadian Children’s Rights Council states that “Listening to children
and respecting their views promotes tolerance and leads to decisions made in
the child's best interest”. We know children are empowered when they are given
a chance to participate in the discussion. The visual and written statements
provided by Halton children and youth are one way of giving them a voice.
Resources
UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in child-friendly
language
Rights overview
National
Child Day in Canada
Halton 7
http://www.ourkidsnetwork.ca/Public/Childrens-Rights
-----
Other
Thank u Peter Mackay 4 always stepping up 4 children, girls and women of this world- we remember #1BRising
Other
Thank u Peter Mackay 4 always stepping up 4 children, girls and women of this world- we remember #1BRising
Federal Justice Minister Peter MacKay and his wife, Nazanin Afshin-Jam, head from the stage after he announced his resignation in Stellarton on Friday
MEEK: Let’s have some balance in judging MacKay’s legacy
JIM MEEK
Published June 5, 2015 - 4:00pm
Published June 5, 2015 - 4:00pm
From right, Jim Irving, then
National Defence minister Peter MacKay and former Nova Scotia deputy premier
Frank Corbett applaud a 2009 announcement at the Halifax Shipyards for funding
of close to $200 million to build coast guard vessels. Jim Meek writes that,
whatever MacKay’s flaws, he was a highly effective regional minister. (TED
PRITCHARD / Staff)
Pardon me for saying that Peter
MacKay can claim more than a trifling career in politics, which is all the
nation’s pundits want to allow him.
The media coverage following
MacKay’s May 31 resignation zeroed in on his pension and his helicopter ride.
This amounts to tail-wags-dog journalism, and it’s a little like remembering
our first prime minister (Sir John A. Macdonald) as a drunkard first and a
nation-builder second. Or remembering Pierre Trudeau as the guy who gave us the
National Energy Program, not the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
To be clear, I’m not trying to
confer nation-building status on the retiring Pictou County MP. But MacKay
should be seen as both a skilled political minister for Nova Scotia and a key
figure in uniting Canadian conservatives under a single political banner in
2003.
The newly minted Conservative
Party of Canada, under Stephen Harper, went on to win three successive federal elections.
Lament those outcomes if you like, but the truth is that MacKay showed courage
by helping merge the party he led (the old Progressive Conservative Party) with
Harper’s Canadian Alliance.
Only 38 at the time, MacKay (then
the leader of the old Progressive Conservatives) signed the deal that brought
the two parties together — while knowing he would not lead the new one anytime
soon.
Last week, at the retirement
announcement in Stellarton, Harper called MacKay a historic figure in recalling
this history. (The prime minister also surprised critics by neither breathing
fire nor frightening small children.)
Harper catalogued MacKay’s record
as Minister of National Defence, Minister of Justice and Minister of Foreign
Affairs. His cabinet performance was less than perfect, but while he stumbled,
he never lost his balance. And like Liberal Allan J. MacEachen before him, he
was the most successful national politician of his era from Atlantic Canada.
Inside Nova Scotia, MacKay
suffered the usual fate of long-serving rural MPs: He was liked and respected
in his riding, and misunderstood and ridiculed in Halifax — even if he helped
bring the capital city its celebrated library, the new convention centre, the
Canada Games Centre and the Irving shipyard contract.
Nova Scotia’s two solitudes
aside, I’m left wondering why Canadians dispatch their ex-politicians to one or
two destinations: heaven for the deceased, and hell for the living.
I scarcely knew we were supposed
to respect Jacques Parizeau, for instance, before the former Parti Québécois
leader drew his last breath on Monday. Before he was gone, Parizeau was
remembered as the evil genius who came within a whisker of winning the 1995
referendum which could have established Quebec as an independent nation. After
the vote on separation, he confirmed his status and his narrow nationalism by
blaming the outcome on money and the ethnic vote.
Parizeau’s death was
transformative, however. Even his former enemies remembered a man who was
clear-thinking, focused, principled and consistent. He didn’t waffle on
independence, like the more charming René Lévesque. And he didn’t lose faith,
like the more charismatic Lucien Bouchard.
Parizeau is now recalled (by a
Nobel laureate, no less) as a member of the petite bourgeoisie so comfortable
in his own skin (and his own pinstripes) that he could happily converse with
working-class Brits in London pubs just before meeting profs from the London
School of Economics for dinner.
It even seems to be true, now,
that Parizeau favoured Quebec’s independence for the good of Canada — even as
he wanted to break it up. A Quebec inside Canada, he was said to believe, would
push for so many concessions from Ottawa that there’d soon be nothing left of
the Mother Country anyway.
What to make of all this? Well,
now that we’re walking among nation-makers, let’s construct one in which we
don’t remember real live politicians by their worst moments, and real dead ones
by their best deeds and thoughts. That way, we might actually encourage some
capable people (Mr. MacKay, perhaps) to return to public life someday.
-----
God bless our working heros... and those who serve us...we love u
-----------
My favourite Canadian
reporter- brilliant and biting and real, raw and righteous...
HEBERT: Residential school report should spark our conscience
Chantal Hebert
Published June 5, 2015 - 9:38pm
Published June 5, 2015 - 9:38pm
Underwhelmed by Prime Minister
Stephen Harper’s noncommittal response to the remedial prescriptions of the
Truth and Reconciliation Commission? Consider this: when Jean Chretien was
handed a similarly devastating royal commission report, it took him a year to
respond with a formal apology for the mistreatment of Canada's Aboriginal
Peoples.
It was another seven years before
the ruling Liberals put together a comprehensive action plan.
Set up in the dying days of Brian
Mulroney’s tenure, the royal commission headed by George Erasmus and René
Dussault spent five years on the report it handed the Chretien government in
1996.
At 4,000 pages, it set a royal
commission record as the most voluminous of its kind.
There were suggestions this week
that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission — with 94 recommendations — has
taken on more than anyone could chew. But Erasmus and Dussault had 400 recommendations.
As a measure of progress, the
lesser number of prescriptions of this week’s commission report is a red
herring.
The two commissions came at the
issue from different angles and there were 20 years between them, but their
core findings are depressingly similar.
Did I mention that an inspiring
ceremony and more than a few solemn commitments marked the politically
well-attended publication of the Erasmus-Dussault report?
To look at this week’s headlines
and the fresh start they allude to is to take a trip back in time.
The fiscal climate was not
auspicious for the 20-year plan the Erasmus-Dussault commission put forward in
1996. The federal budget was still awash in red ink. The report came a year
after the Quebec referendum, at a time when the Chretien government had its
hands full with the unity file.
It was almost another decade
before the federal government under Paul Martin teamed up with the provinces
and the aboriginal leadership to come up with a comprehensive response.
By that time, Canada had raked in
budget surpluses for a number of years. Among other things, the ruling Liberals
delivered tax cuts for all, a new child benefit for families, a major
reinvestment in health care and seed money for a national child care initiative
before they turned their attention to the aboriginal file and the 2005
negotiation of the Kelowna Accord.
At that point, they were on their
last legs in power. Martin’s minority government took the Kelowna Accord to its
opposition grave a few months later.
All comparisons have limitations
but the repeat false starts on the aboriginal front, which also include at
least two failed constitutional attempts, stand in sharp contrast with the
energy marshalled on other Canadian game-changing policies.
Take Canada’s transition to
linguistic duality.
Alarmed by the rise of Quebec
nationalism, prime minister Lester B. Pearson set up the royal commission on
bilingualism and biculturalism in 1963.
In an interim report published
two years later, it drew a less than flattering portrait of the country’s
linguistic landscape and the second-class status of the French language and
those who spoke it in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.
By the time of its official
report in 1969, Parliament was already moving forward with the Official
Languages Act. Ontario had set out to expand its French-language school system.
The first French immersion schools were about to open.
Or take, on another front, the
social policy revolution that was the introduction of a national medicare system
in the 1960s.
It took about a decade for Canada
to implement it in every province.
As comprehensive as the
recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission may be, is anyone
really arguing that their implementation would require more heavy lifting than
that involved in putting French on a more equal footing with English within
Canada’s institutions and education systems?
Their price tag pales in
comparison with the start-up cost of a coast-to-coast-to-coast universal
health-care system.
This is a federation that has
largely managed to talk its way out of serious unity challenges and come up
with an intercultural model that, while not perfect, works better than most.
But at the same time, inertia has
increasingly become the default response of governments to both emerging and
enduring challenges.
And that begs one question: when
did Canada lose the political will to change its ways?
------------
I have only recently recovered my ability to post messages to your blog. I use Windows XP on my older computer and was encountering increasing difficulties using IE8 on websites that use java, so I have switched to the Firefox browser. Unfortunately, some of my earlier attempted posts were lost in space!
One of the projects that I wanted to connect you with is the Gen Squeeze campaign led by Paul Kershaw of the Human Early Learning Partnership at UBC. This is a continuation of their earlier work known as A New Deal for Families and is a narrowly focused communications effort to try to restore some balance in income supports for families and the younger generation in Canada. Attached FYI is the draft position paper that Paul and our group are currently working on to address family policy, along with a pdf summary describing the Gen Squeeze campaign. I believe that there is some intersection with your own concerns about income inequality.
I will look for opportunities to share further comments with your readers to future and past posts.
One final item to share with you (and perhaps your readers in a future comment) is the upcoming debate in the Great Canadian Debates series from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute on whether �Wealth has too much power in Canada�, featuring Armine Yalnizyan from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and William Watson from McGill. While I find MLI to be somewhat right leaning, the debates are stimulating and well attended:
http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/events/the-great-canadian-debates/
***** Larry Gemmel 451 chemin Sauv� Val-des-Monts QC J8N 5A6 Bus 819-671-0207 Res 819-671-0210
_____
If you believe that the right to vote is inherent for every citizen, what we should have is universal suffrage. If anyone is enthusiastic and capable enough to show up and go through the procedure, she should be allowed to vote. No matter what criteria you use to group people, their capabilities will always be overlapping Gaussians. Adults with limited arithmetics and literacy are probably just as incapable as children, yet no one suggests testing them any more.
On a side note, dependent tax credit goes back a long time. It is what is, not necessarily what it ought to be regarding children’s rights. If allowed by the society, it may be better to grant children more control over the money that is supposed to be their benefits.
I was pointing out that the democratic conversation on expanding the franchise has been between those stressing “capability and individual responsibility” and those stressing “rights and social duties”. Looking back on history, its reasonable to suggest that “capability” is used to protect the status quo and limit the sharing of power. And sometimes the emphasis on rights—moreso with respect to socio-economic rights than civil and political rights—is made without regard to individual responsibility and sustainability.
It is an interesting conversation, and you clearly come down on one side of it.
But I seem to be trying to ride through the middle because I am looking to the the Convention on the Rights of the Child for some grounding of my arguments. If we accept the Convention as a starting point, then we have to recognize “the evolving capacities” of the child. And in this sense, for the case of children, it seems that there is probably more grounds for a compromise between citizenship-as-capability and citizenship-as-right than there is if the issue was addressing voting rights without regard to gender.
A Demeny voting scheme seems to be an extra step toward that compromise. So that is why, I think, one can still believe that the right to vote is inherent to every citizen—that there are no second class citizens—while at the same time still accepting an age at majority that signals adulthood and full participation. I guess, upon reflection, my position is stuck to the direction that Article 5 of the Convention is pointing toward. If I were to let go of that Article as a starting point, then I guess I would have to accept your argument.
It’s true that I have multiple reservations regarding UNCRC, even though its interpreted implementation would probably still be an improvement over the status quo. The most fundamental issue of UNCRC is that children had no role in its elaboration, so what’s codified is really just what adults were willing to grant. It cannot substitute what children claim or assert, presently or potentially, as their rights. Unfortunately UNCRC is too often claimed to be of universal validity, and developments that break further from the modern, western conception of childhood are largely ignored. The unions of working children like MOLACNATs are probably the best example.
If you are interested in alternative perspectives to UNCRC, I would recommend Manfred Liebel’s books especially “Children’s Rights from Below: Cross-Cultural Perspectives”, and Robert Epstein’s work on adolescence.