This is a visual explainer based on the Wikipedia article on Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Read the full source article here. (opens in new tab)

The Charter's Cultural Compass

An in-depth exploration of Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and its profound influence on Canadian identity and jurisprudence.

Understand Section 27 ๐Ÿ‘‡ Explore its Impact โš–๏ธ

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!


When you are ready...
๐ŸŽฎ Play the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge Game๐ŸŽฎ

What is Section 27?

A Guiding Principle

Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a pivotal provision that shapes how other rights within the Charter are to be understood and applied by the judiciary. It explicitly recognizes multiculturalism as a fundamental Canadian value, thereby embedding it within the nation's supreme law.

Canada's Multicultural Identity

Unlike other sections that enumerate specific rights, Section 27 functions as an interpretive clause. It mandates that the Charter must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians. This means that when courts adjudicate Charter cases, they are compelled to consider Canada's diverse cultural fabric.

Beyond a Mere Right

While Section 27 does not confer a direct "right to multiculturalism," its declarative nature elevates multiculturalism to a constitutional value. This constitutional recognition underscores Canada's commitment to fostering a society where diverse cultural backgrounds are not merely tolerated but actively preserved and enhanced, influencing legal outcomes across various domains.

The Charter's Text

Official Wording

Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is concisely articulated as follows:

27 This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

This phrasing establishes a clear directive for judicial interpretation, ensuring that the spirit of multiculturalism permeates the application of all Charter rights and freedoms.

Origins & Drafting

Historical Context

The genesis of Section 27 can be traced to Canada's evolving understanding of its national identity. Following the 1971 adoption of a multicultural policy, which itself was a response to the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, there was a growing recognition of the need to formally acknowledge the nation's diverse ethnocultural composition. The Commission's initial advocacy for a "bilingual and bicultural" society faced significant opposition from non-French ethnic minority communities, particularly large Ukrainian Canadian and other European groups, who felt their heritage was not adequately represented.

Ethnocultural Advocacy

In response to these grievances, the Canadian government established the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism (CCCM) in 1973 to engage with ethnocultural community leaders. These communities further consolidated their efforts by forming the Canadian Ethnocultural Council in 1980, an umbrella organization spearheaded by Dr. Leonardo Leone of the National Congress of Italian Canadians. This collective lobbying during the constitutional debates was instrumental in advocating for the inclusion of a provision that would explicitly recognize multiculturalism, ultimately leading to Section 27.

Key Drafters

Laurence Decore, who served as the head of the CCCM from 1980 to 1983, is often credited as a principal drafter of Section 27. His leadership during this critical period helped translate the aspirations of diverse communities into constitutional language, ensuring that Canada's multicultural reality was enshrined within its foundational legal document.

Purpose & Application

An Interpretive Compass

Upon its enactment in 1982, constitutional scholar Peter Hogg noted that Section 27 did not establish a new right, but rather served as a directive for how other Charter rights should be interpreted. It was designed to ensure that judicial decisions reflect and uphold Canada's multicultural character. Initially, Hogg expressed skepticism about its practical impact, suggesting it might be "more of a rhetorical flourish than an operative provision."

A National Value

Despite initial reservations, Section 27 has evolved to be seen as a powerful declaration of a national value. It signifies Canada's constitutional commitment to multiculturalism, a principle that has garnered widespread public support. By 2002, polls indicated that 86% of Canadians approved of this section, highlighting its resonance with the national ethos and its role in shaping a distinct Canadian identity.

Judicial Impact

Freedom of Religion

Section 27 has significantly influenced the interpretation of freedom of religion under Section 2 of the Charter. Courts have recognized that religious practices are often deeply intertwined with cultural heritage, making the protection of religious freedom essential for preserving multiculturalism.

  • Videoflicks Ltd. et al. v. R. (1984): The Ontario Court of Appeal emphasized that Section 27 should be given "significance." It argued that laws limiting the free exercise of religion undermine multiculturalism, as religion is a fundamental aspect of many cultures. This implies that governments must accommodate diverse religious practices, even if it presents administrative "inconveniences."
  • R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. (1985): The Supreme Court of Canada invoked Section 27 to invalidate laws mandating Sunday business closures. The Court reasoned that requiring all Canadians to observe the Christian Sabbath contradicted the principles of multiculturalism and freedom of religion, as it imposed the religious preference of one group on others.
  • R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. (1986): The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles established in Videoflicks and Big M Drug Mart, further solidifying Section 27's role in protecting religious diversity within a multicultural framework.

Freedom of Expression

The application of Section 27 to freedom of expression (also under Section 2) has presented a more nuanced judicial challenge, particularly concerning the limits of free speech in a multicultural society.

  • Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor (1990): Chief Justice Brian Dickson, writing for the Supreme Court, suggested that Section 27, in conjunction with Section 15 (equality rights), could justify *limiting* freedom of expression, specifically in cases of hate speech. He argued that combating racial and religious discrimination, which undermines multiculturalism, constitutes a sufficient objective under Section 1 of the Charter to warrant such limitations.
  • R. v. Keegstra (1990): In a related case, the Court clarified that while Section 27 informs the interpretation of the Charter, it does not inherently create built-in limits on freedom of expression. Instead, any limitations must be justified under Section 1 of the Charter, which is designed for balancing rights and societal objectives. The Court cautioned against using Sections 15 and 27 to narrow the broad interpretation of freedom of expression established in previous rulings like Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General).

Equality Rights

Legal scholars have long speculated about the potential for Section 27 to influence the interpretation of Section 15, which guarantees equality rights. This intersection could lead to significant policy implications.

In 1982, Walter Tarnopolsky posited that Section 27 could be most relevant to Section 15. Given that Section 15 already protects against discrimination based on ethnic origin and religion, the combined force of "equal benefit of the law" (Section 15) and the "preservation and enhancement of multicultural heritage" (Section 27) could compel governments to provide financial support for minority cultures. This would be particularly pertinent if disparities in funding between cultural groups were identified, potentially leading to judicial mandates for equitable resource allocation to uphold multicultural values.

Aboriginal Rights

The relationship between Section 27 and Aboriginal rights has also been a subject of judicial consideration, though with specific outcomes.

In various legal proceedings, courts have consistently declined to utilize Section 27 (or Section 25, which addresses Aboriginal and treaty rights) to establish a right for First Nations individuals to have a predetermined number of seats on a jury during a trial. This indicates a judicial reluctance to extend the interpretive scope of Section 27 to mandate specific representational structures within the justice system, preferring to address such issues through other legal or legislative avenues.

Legislative Integration

The Canadian Multiculturalism Act

The principles enshrined in Section 27 of the Charter found further legislative expression in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, enacted in 1988. This Act provides a statutory framework for the federal government's multiculturalism policy, explicitly referencing Section 27 as a foundational constitutional principle. It mandates federal institutions to promote the understanding and appreciation of Canada's multicultural heritage, reflecting the Charter's interpretive directive in practical governance and policy-making.

Teacher's Corner

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

Edit and Print Materials from this study in the wiki2web studio
Click here to open the "Section 27 Of The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms" Wiki2Web Studio curriculum kit

Use the free Wiki2web Studio to generate printable flashcards, worksheets, exams, and export your materials as a web page or an interactive game.

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Learn about section_27_of_the_canadian_charter_of_rights_and_freedoms while playing the wiki2web Clarity Challenge game.
Unlock the mystery image and prove your knowledge by earning trophies. This simple game is addictively fun and is a great way to learn!

Play now

Explore More Topics

Discover other topics to study!

don budge
    
susan price
    
early-onset alzheimer's disease
    
r รญo piedras massacre
    
kingdom of croatia habsburg
    
martin garrix
    
guadalupe peak
    
drama studio london
    
john maynard keynes
    
encyclopรฉdie
    

References

References

  1.  Hogg, Peter W. Canada Act 1982 Annotated. Toronto, Canada: The Carswell Company Limited, 1982.
  2.  Tracey Tyler, "Support for Charter runs strong: Survey; Approval highest in Quebec on 20-year-old rights law," Toronto Star, Apr 12, 2002, p. A07.
  3.  Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, 3 S.C.R. 892 (S.C.C. 1990).
A full list of references for this article are available at the Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Wikipedia page

Feedback & Support

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Disclaimer

Important Notice

This page was generated by an Artificial Intelligence and is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content is based on a snapshot of publicly available data from Wikipedia and may not be entirely accurate, complete, or up-to-date.

This is not legal advice. The information provided on this website is not a substitute for professional legal consultation, advice, or representation. Always seek the advice of a qualified legal professional for any questions or concerns regarding constitutional law, human rights, or specific legal situations in Canada. Never disregard professional legal advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this website.

The creators of this page are not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for any actions taken based on the information provided herein.