Beyond General Pronouncements: A Judicial Approach to Section 27 of the Charter (forthcoming)
AbstractThe author provides a thorough synthesis and evaluation of the multicultural provision in the Charter. He begins by exploring possible definitions of multiculturalism, deriving his concept from various academic disciplines as well as federal policies. The difficulty on settling for a comprehensive definition of multiculturalism is manifest in the mixed signals within both the federal government's Multiculturalism Policy of 1971 and the subsequent legislation, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. He then selectively surveys the judicial approaches taken to s. 27. Current treatment is sparse and any discussion of the multicultural section is largely subsumed in a general discussion of other sections of the Charter such as ss. 1 and 2. Through this survey, he demonstrates the limited, restricted reading of s. 27 accorded by the judiciary. Finally, the author considers the inherent limits of the section; he compares it to a similar provision in Quebec's human rights legislation, general liberal theory and possible conflicts between s. 27 and other precepts of Canadian society, specifically bilingualism. He concludes that s. 27 must be expanded within its negative role, protecting individual communities and individuals from the acts of others rather than being used as a tool to entrench positive or collective rights of ethnic groups.
For Editions following and including Volume 61 No. 1, the following applies.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License
For Editions prior to Volume 61 No. 1, the following applies.
Author(s) retain original copyright in the substantive content of the titled work, subject to the following rights that are granted indefinitely:
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to produce, publish, disseminate, and distribute the titled work in electronic format to online database services, including, but not limited to: LexisNexis, QuickLaw, HeinOnline, and EBSCO;
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to post the titled work on the Alberta Law Review website and/or related websites.
- Author(s) agree that the titled work may be used for educational or instructional purposes and/or in educational or instructional materials. The author(s) acknowledge that the titled work is subject to other such "fair dealing" provisions and applicable legislation.
- Author(s) grant a limited license to those accessing the titled work from an electronic database or an Alberta Law Review website to download the titled work onto their computer and to print a copy for their own personal, non-commercial use, subject to proper attribution.
To use the journal's content elsewhere, permission must be obtained from the author(s) and the Alberta Law Review.