For brevity I shall refer to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the "CCRF".
Every judge in Canada, including the judges of Canada's highest court, the Supreme Court of Canada, will agree that at a future time either they or other judges may give meanings to the words of the CCRF which are different from the meanings that judges are currently giving to the words of the CCRF. Consequently, every judge in Canada and every lawyer in Canada will agree that no-one can give a valid assurance as to what meanings judges will give to any of the words of the CCRF, next week, next month, next year, etc. Further, every judge and every lawyer in Canada will agree that at this very moment in time, and next week, next month, next year, etc., there will not be agreement among judges or among lawyers as to what meanings should be given to the words of the CCRF.
The point is, that there is never a consensus among judges or among lawyers as to what meanings should be given to the words in the CCRF. There will always be judges and lawyers who say that the words in the CCRF mean something different than other judges and lawyers say they mean. In addition, from time to time those judges and lawyers are free to change their opinion on what they say the words in the CCRF mean.
Yet the words in the CCRF don't change, if you look in the dictionary, the meanings of words don't change (eg. freedom, liberty, religion, conscience, justice, punishment, province, residence, employment, etc., meant the same twenty years ago, ten years ago, today, and they will mean the same tomorrow). But judges and lawyers will give different meanings to the words in the CCRF and even change their opinions on what those words mean; even though the meanings of those words never change.
Judges and lawyers are NOT wrong for having their own opinions; and they are NOT wrong for changing their opinions. All Canadians should be free to hold/change and express their own opinions. Canada should encourage people to hold and express their honest beliefs, opinions, and thoughts. If Canadians have to keep their lips buttoned down, or re-spout the words of someone in a position of authority, that is NOT freedom.
If all opinions are allowed (and I say they should be); then how can the meaning of the words in the CCRF ever be determined ? The logical way to analyze the CCRF is to read it and give its words their most common meaning, because the Canadian Government wrote the CCRF for the people of Canada to know what their rights and freedoms are; consequently, as Canadians are supposed to be able to know their rights and freedoms from reading the CCRF, it must have been intended that the CCRF's words will have their most likely meaning, as that is the meaning which Canadians will understand it to have when they read it.
However, mightnít someone argue that the CCRF was not intended to be read by Canadians, that it was intended to be a quagmire of legalize meant to be forever argued over by lawyers and judges, but never understood; or might they (less colorfully) argue that the CCRF was intended to be a legal document which non-lawyers were not meant to understand. To both of those arguments I say, let's just read it and discover if its words are plain and clear or a mystifying garble.
My favorite part of the CCRF is its introductory line:
"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that
recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:"
Does Canada really (I mean really) recognize the "supremacy of God" and "the rule of law", or is that just something that sounded good at the time it was written ? What would Canada do differently if it didn't recognize the "supremacy of God" ?
And what about "the rule of law" , does that mean anything more than that those who make the laws, or get to say what the law means, do whatever they want to do, because they are in charge of "the law" and they are immune from personal consequences for how they make the law or what they say it means ?
What about you, the person reading this. Do you recognize the "supremacy of God" ? When you do what you do, do you do it believing that God really does exist, and knows your deepest and most hidden thoughts ? Or maybe you do whatever you know you can get away with, because you've never been convinced that God is watching you and knows your inner most thoughts and your most secret actions.
What about "the rule of law", when you won't be held accountable, do you ignore it ?
The above was not unrelated chatter; it was to help you understand why, even though Canada claims to recognize the "supremacy of God" and "the rule of law," in reality, Canada believes in nothing. However, even though Canada believes in nothing, Canada likes to pretend that it recognizes the "supremacy of God" and "the rule of law" and so, sometimes, just for show, Canada will actually do what it claims to do. Hence, there is a slight chance that on occasion the rights and freedoms "given" in the CCRF will be received by Canadians; just don't count on it.
Section 1 of the CCRF states:
The first half of section 1 is clear, it says that the CCRF guarantees to Canadians that they have the rights and freedoms which are set out in the CCRF.  The second half then says that if the government wants to they can make laws which take away any or all of those rights and freedoms, if they can demonstrate a justification for taking them away. That's a load of legal double talk, because "reasonable Limits" is not a precise term and neither is "demonstratably justified". What one person calls reasonable another person calls unreasonable; and who decides what is reasonable and what is demonstratably justified; the government and the courts that will be doing the taking away. Hence there are no safe guards to stop unreasonable and not demonstratably justified limits from being placed on the rights and freedoms 'given' to Canada in the CCRF. Therefore, Canadians only have the rights and freedoms set out in the CCRF until the government passes laws taking them away. The government has passed some laws which in some cases snip at the rights and freedoms in the CCRF, and in other cases kick those rights and freedoms right out of the country. However, there remain many more areas in which, on paper, the rights and freedoms still exist, than areas in which they have been extinguished. Until laws are passed taking away additional CCRF rights and freedoms, ON PAPER, Canadians still have most of the rights and freedoms in the CCRF.
Of course, having the rights and freedoms in the CCRF is NOT THE SAME AS getting the rights and freedoms in the CCRF. If one or more of your rights and freedoms in the CCRF are not given to you, then you don't get it unless someone (such as a government official or judge) gives it back to you. What does that mean ? It means that there are people in society who will steal your rights and freedoms, and then you will not have them unless someone with power over those people gets them back for you. For example, if a thief steals your bicycle, and stashes it in a place you cannot get to, then you will only get it back if someone with power over that thief (eg. the police or a judge) gets it back for you; the same goes for your rights and freedoms. Therefore, while the CCRF's rights and freedoms exist on paper, people will often not receive them.
Section 2 states:
Freedom of religion is pretty straightforward. Freedom of conscience requires a little thought; what could it mean ? A person's conscience is their sense of right and wrong. Hence, freedom of conscience must mean that a person is free to not do what they believe is wrong and is free to do what they believe is right, provided that their inactions/actions do not violate the rights of others. As someone once said: "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." The other section 2 freedoms are clear. A person can think whatever they want, believe whatever they want, have whatever opinions they desire, and freely express whatever they want to express. People also have the freedom to assemble and the freedom to hang out with whomever they choose.
It is obvious that the freedoms given in section 2 must include immunity from being penalized for following your conscience and/or religion. It is also obvious that the freedoms given in section 2 must include immunity from being penalized for expressing your thoughts, beliefs and/or opinions; and immunity from being penalized for assembling and/or associating with whomever you choose to associate with. Why is the foregoing obvious ? In countries where people do not have freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion, expression, assembly and association, people have to keep their conscience, religion, thoughts, opinions, etc. a secret, because if they express them they might be penalized; therefore, if people in Canada, with its CCRF, are penalized for expressing their conscience, religion, thoughts, opinions, etc., there would be no difference between Canada with its CCRF and other countries that do not have a CCRF which grants those freedoms; hence the CCRF would be a meaningless document, unless it also included immunity from being penalized for expressing your conscience, religion, thoughts, beliefs, opinions, etc.
In other words, if you are penalized for doing something, then you are not free to do it. For example, are people free to walk into a store and take a product off of the shelf and walk out without paying for that product ? In the literal sense, the answer is yes, people have the physical capacity to do that action. However, if they are caught they might be penalized. Therefore, most people do not consider themselves free to take a store's merchandise and walk out without paying for it. It is the same with the freedoms in section 2, if you risk being penalized by someone if they hear you express your thoughts, beliefs, opinions, conscience or religion, or if they see you assembling or associating with others, then you are no more free to do those things than you are to steal products from a store.
Section 3 states:
No explanation is needed for section 3.
Section 4 states:
No explanation is needed for section 4, except to state that section 4 is not a right and is not a freedom, and therefore does not belong in the CCRF. Section 4 is a rule for the running of the country which belongs elsewhere in the constitution.
Section 5 states:
No explanation is needed for section 5, except to state that section 5 is not a right and is not a freedom, and therefore does not belong in the CCRF. Section 5 is a rule for the running of the country which belongs elsewhere in the constitution.
Section 6 states:
Section 6. (1) needs no explanation.
Section 6. (2) needs clarification. It says that every Canadian and every permanent resident can move to any province and pursue the gaining of a livelihood in that province. Therefore, section 6. (2) must also mean that people are immune from being discriminated against in such a way that said discrimination prevents them from pursuing the gaining of their chosen livelihood.
(Discrimination is not limited to the concept of excluding someone because of the group of people with which they can be identified (eg. discrimination is not just excluding people because they are: Jewish, or Native, or Chinese, or Black, or Muslim, or female, or homosexual, etc.). Discrimination means wrongly excluding a person who has all of the qualifications such that they should NOT have been excluded, but the Discriminator excluded that person for reasons that are not legitimate and which are unrelated to their qualifications. In other words, if "Mr. V" applies for a job as a lawyer, but he is not hired because the person doing the hiring only hires people who live in certain areas of the city, that is discrimination. If "Ms. W" applies for a job as a plumber, and she is not hired because the person doing the hiring only hires socialists, and "Ms. W" is not a socialist, that is discrimination. If "Mr. X" goes to rent an apartment, but the person who owns the building does not rent it to "Mr. X" because he disagreed with "Mr. X's" opinion on immigration, that is discrimination. If "Ms. Y" is refused admission into a university faculty because an administrator doesn't like her family, or doesn't like her because she once complained about a university policy, or for some other irrelevant thing, unrelated to her merit for admission into that faculty, that is discrimination.)
Getting back to section 6. (2), what must happen for section 6. (2) to be effective ? The universities and colleges which have professional faculties must have a transparently objective, fair and equal opportunity enrollment system, which does NOT give administrators or professors or anyone the option to exclude people for discriminatory reasons. Because if Canadians are discriminatorily kept out of the professional faculty into which their merit earned them admission, then it becomes impossible for them to pursue their chosen livelihood. (eg. You can't pursue the gaining of a livelihood as a doctor if the medical faculty refuses to admit you into medical school for discriminatory reasons.)
Is it bad to discriminate against a proponent of free enterprise and refuse to admit them into the faculty of engineering ? Is it bad to discriminate against a proponent of (pick any current topic) and refuse to admit them into medical school because of their opinion on that topic ? Is it bad to discriminate against someone who is against (pick any current topic) and refuse to admit them into medical school because of their opinion on that topic ? If Canada is a country in which Canadians can freely have any thoughts, beliefs and opinions (as set out in section 2 of the CCRF) then it is bad to refuse to admit students for the aforesaid discriminatory reasons. Even without section 2 of the CCRF it is bad to want a society in which different thoughts, opinions and beliefs are not allowed. Look at it this way, if a person's thoughts, opinions and beliefs really are the superior ones, then they should be willing to have others express different thoughts, opinions and beliefs, secure in the knowledge that when the facts and logic are presented, people will agree with their thoughts, opinions and beliefs. Typically, only dishonest people who know that they are wrong are afraid of other thoughts, opinions and beliefs being expressed, because they donít want to be discovered to be wrong. Honest people want the truth to be known, because they are more interested in the truth than in appearing to be correct by having a lie perpetuated.
For more information on the above points click here to go to Constitution-Breaches.com.
Section 6. (3)(a) states: "The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence"
- subject to any laws or practices of general application -
"subject to" - means that the other laws overrule the laws which are subject to them. For example, if law "A" is subject to law "B", then whenever there is a conflict between what law "A" says and what law "B" says, what law "B" says governs.
"laws or practices of general application" -means laws or practices that apply to everyone.
Therefore, section 6. (3)(a) says that section 6. (2) will be subject to provincial and federal laws or practices that apply to everyone in the province . . .
Therefore section 6. (2) gives Canadians and permanent residents the freedom to move to any province and the freedom to pursue the gaining of their chosen livelihood in any province, but they must comply with the laws and practices in that province, unless those laws and practices discriminate against people based on their past or present province of residence; and if they want publicly provided social services they will have to meet the residency requirements if those residency requirements are reasonable.
You may have noticed that I keep writing: to pursue the gaining of their chosen livelihood in any province, whereas the actual words are: "to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province"; why then do I keep adding in "chosen Livelihood" ? The answer is that we did not need a CCRF to tell Candians and permanent residents that they could get a job. Everything about Canadian society tells people to get a job. The provincial governments all have free programs to help people find jobs; and programs where they will pay people to get retrained so that they can find a better job; so the idea that a Canadian or permanent resident would move to another province and the provincial government would prevent them from getting a job is utterly absurd. Hence either section 6. (2) is worthless, or it means something more than that a Canadian or permanent resident can get a job in the province in which are living. The only additional meaning it could have, is that Canadians and permanent residents are entitled to pursue getting their desired job in the province in which they live.
However, even without a CCRF, Canada should be a country in which every Canadian and permanent resident is ENTITLED to have an objective, equal, fair and transparent chance at getting the job of their choice.
Section 6. (4)(a) states that notwithstanding sections 6. (2) and (3), affirmative action can be done in a province for people who are socially or economically disadvantaged IF the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.
Section 7 states:
Section 7, if taken literally, is totally meaningless. The right to life literally means that other people (including the authorities) cannot just kill you. Was that ever a thing in Canada, where the police or the general public or the Prime Minister could go out and kill whoever they wanted to kill ? The right to liberty literally means that other people (including the authorities) cannot just imprison you; again, was that ever a thing in Canada, where the police or the general public or the Prime Minister could just imprison someone for no reason. The right to security of the person literally means that other people (including the authorities) cannot just beat the heck out of you, or cut off one of your arms, or do some other thing which physically violates you. Again, did we really need a Constitution to say that such a thing was against Canadian law ? None of the foregoing needed to be placed in the CCRF, because stuff like that was never legal in Canada.
For the right to life to mean more than 'people can't be arbitrarily killed', the government must provide for the medical, food, shelter and clothing necessities, each according to their need, of all Canadians and permanent residents who cannot provide those things for themselves, to the extent necessary for them to not die.
For the right to liberty to be more than redundant of the law before the CCRF came into existence, it must mean that all Canadians have all of the freedoms which Canadian Society tells Canadians they have. The right to liberty must also mean the right to have the freedom to have a transparently equal, fair and objective opportunity to obtain all things which are publicly available to Canadians and permanent residents. For examples, transparently equal, fair and objective opportunities to obtain any type of education available in Canada; transparently equal, fair and objective opportunities to obtain any government and government agency jobs; transparently equal, fair and objective opportunities to obtain entry to all public places; transparently equal, fair and objective opportunities to obtain any publicly available services; etc.
For the right to security of the person to mean more than that you can't be arbitrarily beaten up or maimed, it would have to also preclude the authorities (including the courts) from being able to force a person to have anything done to their body (ie. people could not be ordered to give bodily samples or blow into machines, etc.).
Unfortunately, section 7 concludes by saying: "and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice". That is unfortunate, because "the principles of fundamental justice" are as nebulous as the wind and the clouds; and judges have a scary amount of discretion when it comes to declaring what is a "fact" and what is "not a fact", and when it comes to declaring what words "really" mean, and when if comes to saying how the law will apply. Put all of the foregoing together and section 7 gives you a lottery ticket.
Section 8 states:
Section 8 is pretty darn useless, because the authorities that do the search or seizure (ie. the police or the court) get to decide what is unreasonable.
Section 9 states:
Section 9 PROVES that what I wrote above about the section 7 'right to liberty', MUST BE correct. If the section 7 'right to liberty' only meant that the authorities cannot imprison a person without reason, then section 9 is completely redundant; however, if the 'right to liberty' in section 7 has the full meaning I have above stated that it must have to be effective, then section 9 is not redundant of the aforesaid section 7 portion of the CCRF. However, that would still leave section 9 as being redundant of the pre-CCRF law.
Section 10 states:
Section 10 is clear. The pre-CCRF law covered most of what is in section 10, but not in as clear and decisive a fashion as section 10 does; therefore, section 10 was a useful inclusion in the CCRF.
Section 11 states:
Section 11. (a) is odd. There is no circumstance in which any delay is reasonable; because the authorities cannot charge a person without first knowing what they are charging that person with, hence they can tell the person what they have been charged with as soon as they charge the person. Bear in mind that being arrested or detained is a different step than being charged with an offence. There can be circumstances where the authorities need to detain someone before they have determined the specifics of the charge; hence section 10. (a) makes sense; but section 11. (a) makes no sense.
Section 11. (b) is useless, as it provides no clue at all as to how to determine what is a reasonable time within which the trial must take place. In the summer of 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada declared a time frame within which it was reasonable to have a trial, and beyond which it was unreasonable; however, their time frame has many possible exceptions and leaves a lot to the discretion of the many hundreds of trial and court of appeal judges in Canada. If those trial judges and court of appeal judges use their discretion differently from each other, then there will not be consistency in Canada on what is an unreasonably long time to have kept someone waiting for their trial to take place. Further, it is the job of Parliament and the Provincial Legislatures to write the specifics of the CCRF, and they have not done so.
(The Supreme Court's summer of 2016 ruling is just one example of where some judges, disagreeing with other judges, gave new meanings to some of the words in the CCRF, and then after the summer of 2016 the same words of the CCRF, which those judges gave new meanings to, were now treated as if they meant something different than they meant before the summer of 2016. The judges did NOT do a bad thing, they were doing their job, and in this situation they made an improvement to the law, contingent on other judges following their new meaning to the section 11 (b) words in the CCRF. However, it proves my initial point, that judges and lawyers sometimes do not agree on what the words of the CCRF mean, and sometimes change their mind on what they say the words in the CCRF mean, and that there is never agreement between judges or lawyers on what the words in the CCRF mean; therefore the best way to understand what the CCRF means is to read it and give its words their most common meaning.)
section 11. (c) is clear.
section 11. (d) is clear.
section 11. (e) does not state how it is to be determined what is 'reasonable bail', or
section 11. (f) is clear.
section 11. (g) is ridiculous; it states that: 'Any person charged with an offence has
section 11. (h) is clear.
section 11. (i) is clear.
Section 12 states:
Section 12 is very clear and very broad, covering far more than the treatment and punishment that can be imposed for criminal offences. There is nothing in section 12 that limits it to the treatment and punishment in criminal matters, therefore, it applies to everything; and that is good. Virtually everywhere a person goes or attends, they are treated in certain ways, and in some cases are subject to what would be correctly described as a punishment. Would Canadians want criminals, guilty of robbery, assault, rape, murder, etc., to have more rights when it came to treatment and punishment, than students, or employees, or non-criminals in general ? It makes sense that section 12 would also protect students from receiving cruel and unusual treatment or punishment by educational institutions; when criminals would not be subject to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in the jail in which they are incarcerated. It makes sense that if criminals cannot be subjected to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, that all Canadians should also not be subject to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in their place of work or by any government authority that deals with people who require services provided by that government authority; or anywhere in Canada, or by any group, organization, employer, etc.
Section 13 states:
Section 13 is easy to understand.
Section 14 states:
Section 14 is clear.
Section 15 states:
Section 15 is clear. For an explanation of how section 15 applies to the admissions process in universities and colleges, click here.
Sections 16 to 23 explain the equality of the English and French languages in Canada.
Section 24 states:
Section 24. (1) tells a person that they can go to court for a remedy if their CCRF rights or freedoms have been infringed or denied, but it does not say what that remedy might be; therefore, a person going to court for a remedy is free to ask for whatever they want, but the court is free to ignore what the person asked for and to give whatever the court wants to give, provided, of course that the court rules in favor of the person who claimed that their CCRF rights or freedoms had been infringed or denied.
Section 24. (2) says that if a person's CCRF rights or freedoms were infringed or denied in the process of obtaining evidence, the court can decide whether or not to consider that evidence; which practically speaking means nothing at all, because, ignoring the CCRF, judges have unbelievable discretion to consider or ignore evidence; making the aforesaid CCRF section the equivalent of dumping a bucket of water into a lake.
Section 25 states that the CCRF does not abrogate or derogate from any prior aboriginal rights.
Section 26 states:
Section 26 is straightforward.
Section 27 states:
Section 27 says that in some cases the CCRF gets thrown out the window, and the government or court, as the case may be, gets to say it was for the benefit of Canada as a whole that the CCRF rights and freedoms were ignored.
Section 28 states:
Section 28 might have had some use if the CCRF had been enacted a hundred years earlier.
Section 29 states:
Section 29 is clear; but why would the government have thought that their Charter of Rights and Freedoms might have words in it that would take away prior given rights ?
Section 30 states:
Section 30 is easy to understand.
Section 31 states:
Section 31 is clear.
Section 32 states:
At the present time, some judges have interpreted section 32. (1) to mean that the CCRF ONLY applies to:
In my opinion the above interpretation which some judges have given to section 32. (1) is too limited. The meanings they have given to the words of section 32. (1) have EXEMPTED individuals, businesses, corporations, groups and associations from following the CCRF. Section 32. (1) did NOT say that the Charter ONLY applies to government entites as listed above; section 32. (1) simply says that the CCRF applies to those government entities. It is just as probable that sections 32. (1) made it clear that the CCRF applies to those governments and their bodies, agencies, etc., to make certain that it was clear that the CCRF also applied to them; and that section 32. (1) does NOT mean that the CCRF only applied to them. It would have been a simple matter for section 32. (1) to have stated "This Charter ONLY applies"; but instead section 32. (1) states "This Charter applies"; section 32. (1) leaves out the word "ONLY". Was that an error ? After over 100 years of waiting, did the expert, highly paid, drafters of Canada's Constitution make an error in one of the most important and easiest to draft sections of the Charter ? If so, the government should get on it right away and correct that error.
Section 1 of the CCRF clearly states:
It might be argued that it would be unfair for Canada's Constitution to require all Canadians, permanent residents, corporations, visitors, etc., to comply with the CCRF's rights and freedoms, as that is too onerous. However, all Canadians, permanent residents, corporations, visitors, etc. are required to comply with the traffic laws, the criminal laws, the tax laws, the non-smoking laws, all the laws; therefore, it is never to onerous to require Canadians, permanent residents, corporations, visitors, etc. to comply with the law. Hence it would not be too onerous to require every person and entity in Canada to comply with the CCRF, just as it is not too onerous to require every person and entity in Canada to comply with all of the other Canadian laws. Consequently, in view of section 1, section 32. (1) should not have been interpreted down, it should not have been interpreted so as to limit the application of the CCRF, and thereby make section 1 NOT true. Because if all Canadians, permanent residents, corporations, visitors, etc., do not have to comply with the CCRF, then section 1 of the CCRF is false; because there will be many situations in which the CCRF does not apply, and in those situations section 1 will be false.
Sections 32. (2) is clear in its meaning, and is obviously no longer relevant.
Canada knows the CCRF should be interpreted as I have stated it should have been interpreted (ie. that it should apply to all Canadians, permanent residents, corporations, visitors, etc.) I state that Canada knows the foregoing because the Canadian government and all of the provincial governments passed Human Rights Acts; which supposedly compensated for the limited interpretation some judges gave to section 32. (1). Unfortunately, the Human Rights acts are a sham. The Human Rights Acts sham is a story of "show inquiries", exaggerated or dishonest media coverage, and thousands of Canadians having their time wasted and then being sent home with a Human Rights Commission congratulatory kick in the ass. This paper is not about the Human Rights Acts sham; that would be at least a twenty page paper in and of itself. However, if you really want to see the sham for yourself, do NOT read the Human Rights Commissions inquiry findings, do NOT read the media coverage; go down to any Human Rights Commission office and ask them to let you go through the entire contents of some of their files, then you will see what really happens.
Section 33 states:
Section 33 is clearly written, however, it seems a bit weird, therefore, for those who found it hard to believe their eyes when they read it, I will confirm its meaning.
Section 33 gives Parliament and each legislature the prerogative to, in any law, declare that the law or any portion(s) of it are exempt from sections 2, and 7 to 15 of the CCRF. Therefore, if a law does not specifically declare that it or portions of it are exempt from aforesaid sections of the CCRF, that law is NOT exempt from any of the CCRF's sections. However, if the law does declare that it or portions of it are exempt from any or all of sections 2 and 7 to 15, then that law can legally violate the heck out of whichever portions of the CCRF it is exempt from.
A clause in a law exempting it or portions of it from aforesaid CCRF sections is commonly known as a "notwithstanding clause". Section 33 goes on to say that the exempted law (or portions of it) can only remain exempt for a maximum of 5 years; however, Parliament or the legislature can re-enact that notwithstanding clause every 5 years; thereby really stating that each notwithstanding clause can last forever if the government wants it to last forever.
Creating rights and freedoms that can be taken away anytime the government wants to take them away, which is what section 33 states is the situation, demonstrates a LACK of commitment on the part of Canada to giving Canadians the rights and freedoms which the CCRF promised to Canadians.
Section 34 states:
The CCRF, which is the sections 1 to 34 discussed above, are only a portion of the Constitution Act, 1982; therefore section 34 is saying that sections 1 to 34 of the Constitution Act, 1982 can be referred to as the Canadan Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Section 34 is the last section of the CCRF; however, the CCRF is a part of the Constitution Act, 1982, and as such the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1982 affect the CCRF or create consequences of and for the CCRF, if they are relevant to the CCRF. Section 52. (1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 is such a section.
Section 52. (1) states: "The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect."
One of the consequences of section 52. (1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 is that if a law that does not have a notwithstanding clause is in violation of any of the sections of the CCRF, or a law with a notwithstanding clause is in violation of sections of the CCRF from which it is not exempt, a person affected by that law can bring a court action to have that law declared invalid to the extent to which it is inconsistent with the CCRF portions from which it is not exempt. Whether or not a person will be successful in such a court action will depend on whether they are correct and equally on what the judge or judges decide to say the relevant words of the CCRF mean.
Judges are NOT bad or good, they are people; your chances of receiving an objective, fair, honest and just ruling, based solely on the independently supported legally valid evidence is 100% dependant on the person making that ruling.