Search results

Focusing on key events in Canadian political history, Samuel LaSelva examines the moral foundations of the Canadian federal system of government and their implications. He explores the ideals, arguments, and rhetoric invoked by the debates surrounding crucial events in Canadian federalism - Confederation, patriation of the constitution, Meech Lake, and the Charlottetown accord - and situates them within the context of moral and political philosophy.

AbstractThis article examines the Canadian Charter with reference to "the British connection" and "the Americanization thesis." It also attempts to demonstrate the importance of Montesquieu'sThe Spirit of the Lawsin addressing these issues. Pierre Trudeau insisted that a Charter of Human Rights would provide Canadians with a new beginning and settle difficult questions about the Canadian identity. His critics said that fundamental rights were already protected because Canada had a constitution similar in principle to the United Kingdom, and that the proposed Charter was a step in the Americanization of Canada. What a Montesquieuean analysis helps to identify are significant limitations in both "the British connection" account and "the Americanization thesis." And, by the avoiding the abstract universalism of Trudeau's "inalienable rights" theorizing and Dworkin's "rights as trumps" regime, a Montesquieuean analysis also helps to demonstrate the distinctiveness of Canadian constitutionalism from Confederation to the Charter.

AbstractThis paper re-examines the issue of hate propaganda under the Canadian Charter of Rights and the US Bill of Rights. It also reconsiders the significance of Locke's Letter Concerning Toleration. What the paper attempts to show is that one strand of Locke's famous argument supports First Amendment exceptionalism and Justice Holmes's dissenting opinions in Abrams and Schwimmer, but another strand buttresses the Keegstra and Butler decisions and the Report of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada. In the contemporary context of the debate over free speech and its limits, Lockean toleration has communitarian as well as libertarian dimensions, and the control of hate propaganda in Canada's multicultural and multinational polity becomes more clearly an important part of the liberal tradition.

AbstractThe Trudeau-Lévesque debate has created a political deadlock that threatens not only Confederation but federalism as well. At the core of the political deadlock is a philosophical dispute about language, in which liberty is set against community, and particularism becomes opposed to universalism. Not only does the Trudeau-Lévesque deadlock presuppose an antagonism between basic values that is difficult to justify, but it has also diverted attention from important dimensions of Canadian federalism. An exploration of the Trudeau-Lévesque debate provides insights as to how the deadlock can be dissolved, thereby facilitating the re-imagination of Confederation.

AbstractFederalism is commonly described, in Canada and elsewhere, as a political expedient, or a constitutional arrangement, or a sociological characteristic of some societies. Federalism can also be a moral experiment that seeks to realize a way of life. Canada is an instance of such an experiment. Moreover, the moral value that grounds the Canadian experiment is not freedom or diversity, but fraternity. Federalism as fraternity has its beginnings in Cartier's vision of Confederation, and provides a vision of federalism that can sustain Canadians in their times of trouble.

Professor Drummond has raised so many objections to my study of mandatory retirement that I cannot reply to all of them without taxing the patience of readers of this JOURNAL. But one of his criticisms articulates a conception of liberal justice under the Charter, and it is to this important issue that I shall confine my reply.

On Liberty provides the classic defence of what has come to be known as Mill's harm principle and yet that principle is commonly believed to be at odds with Mill's equally famous discussions of paternalism and good samaritanism. Moreover, the alleged inconsistencies are often said to expose the inadequacies not only of Mill's antipaternalism and good samaritanism but his harm principle as well. This paper offers a re-interpretation of these three aspects of On Liberty. It attempts to show both the unity of Mill's thought and how the contemporary relevance of his ideas has been misunderstood.

ON LIBERTY PROVIDES THE CLASSIC DEFENCE OF WHAT HAS COME TO BE KNOWN AS MILL'S HARM PRINCIPLE AND YET THAT PRINCIPLE IS COMMONLY BELIEVED TO BE AT ODDS WITH MILL'S EQUALLY FAMOUS DISCUSSIONS OF PATERNALISM AND GOOD SAMARITANISM. MOREOVER, THE ALLEGED INCONSISTENCIES ARE OFTEN SAID TO EXPOSE THE INADEQUACIES NOT OF MILL'S ANTIPATERNALISM AND GOOD SAMARITANISM BUT HIS HARM PRINCIPLE AS WELL. THIS PAPER OFFERS A RE-INTERPRETATION OF THESE THREE ASPECTS OF ON LIBERTY. IT ATTEMPTS TO SHOW BOTH THE UNITY OF MILL'S THOUGHT AND HOW THE CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE OF HIS IDEAS HAS BEEN MISUNDERSTOOD.