UNIT 7: INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE RIGHTS

How do we, as voting citizens in a democratic nation, decide what the best way forward should be?

Throughout this course, you have looked at the values and principles associated with liberalism and collectivism. You have learned that as nations become more democratic and more multicultural, great challenges occur for liberal societies.


A balance between ensuring individual and collective freedoms is maintained in the face of threats to collective security and environmental degradation. In our multicultural and interconnected world, citizens and their representatives must find ways to balance the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority while ensuring peace, order, and security for everyone today and tomorrow.

This unit has two sections:

1. My Rights Versus Yours
   
2. Contemporary Issues

---

In this unit, you will explore the following big ideas based on questions arising from the issue question:

1. What rights and freedoms are guaranteed to Canadians?
2. How do we decide whose rights and freedoms are protected?
3. What do we do when the rights of the minority are denied by the will of the majority?
4. Should people give up some of their rights and freedoms so that everyone can be safe?

Today by law, Canadian women have rights equal to men, including voting rights, mobility rights, and freedom of expression, which includes the right to dress as they see fit. In some countries, a woman is not allowed to go out in public dressed in shorts and a sleeveless shirt. In others, the hijab might be outlawed. In some countries, a woman would not be allowed out of her house without the escort of a male relative.

During World War II, US President Franklin Roosevelt identified four freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from fear, and freedom from want. He believed there could be no lasting peace unless people all over the world were guaranteed these freedoms.

Although the first two of his freedoms are part of many constitutions traditionally, the second two demonstrate a move towards modern liberalism in which the government has a role to create positive freedoms that provide people with greater opportunities.


The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written shortly after World War II as a response to the atrocities that were experienced leading up to and during the war. Drafted by Canadian John Humphreys, it was adopted in 1948 and outlines the fundamental rights that all human beings should have. Its principles are followed by nations around the world.

In this section, you will consider the fundamental rights that are guaranteed to individuals through law and custom. You will look at how liberal democracies deal with the need to balance individual and collective rights in a pluralistic society.

Many nations have bills of rights that outline the fundamental rights and freedoms to which their people are entitled. In fact, Australia is the only liberal democracy without a formal bill of rights.

The earliest known written laws come from ancient Babylon (modern Iraq) in the Code of Hammurabi from 1790 B.C. One of the earliest forms of a bill of rights comes from Britain in the form of the Magna Carta, or Great Charter of Liberty from 1215. The Magna Carta was one of the first examples of a written "rule of law" that outlined the rights of free men and limited the rights of the king. It is considered to be one of the first constitutions in the world.

 
The Bill of Rights includes ten amendments (add-ons) to the U.S. Constitution:

• First Amendment ... freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly
• Second Amendment ... right to bear arms
• Third Amendment ... protection from the quartering of troops
• Fourth Amendment ... protection from unreasonable search and seizure
• Fifth Amendment ... right to due process, protection from self-incrimination, right not to have private property taken for public use without compensation
• Sixth Amendment ... legal rights of the accused: right to a quick and public trial by jury, right to a lawyer
• Seventh Amendment ... civil rights including right to trial by jury
• Eighth Amendment ... limits to fines and bail, prohibits cruel and unusual punishment
• Ninth Amendment ... protection of undefined rights (the naming of some rights do not override others that are held by the people)
• Tenth Amendment ... power of States and people (Powers that are not defined are reserved for either the states or the people.)

Where do Canadians get their rights?

Please watch the following video explain Hutterites:

Example: The Hutterites

The photo you see on the page is by Hutterite photographer Kelly Hofer. The Hutterites are a protestant sect of the Christian Church whose beliefs include communal living and absolute pacifism. Hutterites do not participate in military activities, wear a uniform, or pay war taxes. This led to their persecution and expulsion from many parts of Europe, and eventual migration to North America.

Although men and women are guaranteed equal rights under the Charter, men and women in Hutterite colonies have very different roles. Women cannot take leadership roles, and many colonies do not allow girls to complete high school. Because all property is owned communally, individual members of each colony do not own their own homes, vehicles, or land. Therefore, they do not pay individual income or property tax although Canada Revenue has a method for calculating taxes owed by each colony.

Hutterites in North America have a unique way of life based on their collectivist values. They do not own private property, they do not compete with each other economically, nor do they work in self-interest. They have their own schools and live according to their own rules, which focus on the good of their communities. In many ways, they do not believe in the values inherent in liberal democracies, yet they are valued members of Canadian society.

Protection from Tyranny of the Majority

The individual and collective rights that you and people such as Kelly Hofer and his friend-and all Canadians-enjoy are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that came into effect in 1982. A modern liberal document it extends protection for collective, as well as individual rights. This sets it apart from the American constitution, which does not recognize any collective rights.
As part of the Constitution Act, it carries great weight because a constitution overrides all other legislation.

The rights and freedoms Canadians are guaranteed under law include the following:

Note: Property rights are not included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Charter also includes limitations and the notwithstanding clause that allows the federal and provincial governments to override temporarily certain sections of the Charter. This allows the will of the people to temporarily restrict rights (individual or collective) if elected governments feel it is justified. Otherwise, the constitution and the Charter of Rights cannot be easily changed or amended. This is to ensure that individual rights and minority protections under the law cannot be eliminated by any elected body.

In effect, the first peoples of Canada entered in a gray area of Canadian citizenship with rights and freedoms different from other Canadians. They were members of their own Aboriginal nation, but they were also Canadians. This meant that Aboriginal Canadians;

• Could not vote on national issues, but they were subject to most of the laws of Canada.
  
• Were denied the political rights (suffrage) that would allow them to affect change in their country. The right to vote was granted in 1960.
  
• Did not pay taxes, but they obtained a certain degree of the services that were paid through tax dollars.
  

The collective rights of First Nations, Métis, and Inuit are guaranteed under law. According to the Charter of Rights and Freedom, those collective rights supercede the Charter's individual rights. However, there is some disagreement between First Nations and the government surrounding the specific list of these collective rights. As a result, they continue to be interpreted in the judicial branch, on a case-by-case basis. Currently, the Métis people do not have treaty status.

For example, Alberta, parents whose first language is French, have a constitutional right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is guaranteed further by the Alberta School Act, to have their children educated in French in communities where enough students to warrant it. They also have the right to run their own schools. There are five francophone school jurisdictions in Alberta.

Language Rights in Quebec

The Province of Quebec has taken another approach. Keenly aware of its unusual position as a founding culture and a minority in its own country, the Province of Quebec took measures to preserve its language. Bill 22 was passed in 1974, the first language law in the province. It was expanded with Bill 101 in 1974. Other language laws that followed were designed to make French not only the official language but also the common language of Quebec.

Language Laws in Quebec include:

• The right to government services in French.
• The right to speak French in deliberative assemblies.
• The right of workers to carry on their activities in French.
• The right of consumers to be informed and served in French.
• The right of all students to instruction in French.

These language laws have caused conflict. For example, all signs must be in French which has caused problems for business owners whose first language or commonly-used shop sign was English. More significantly, it has led to some concerns for parents. Under the legislation, the language of instruction for all students is French. Parents can choose to have their children taught in English only under the following conditions:

• if one parent is a Canadian citizen who attended elementary school in English in Canada
• if one parent is a Canadian citizen whose child has received or is receiving instruction in English somewhere in Canada (and the brothers and sisters of that child)
• if one parent received elementary instruction in English in Quebec

In other words, almost all children, including the children of immigrants to Quebec, must receive instruction in French. The only children who can go to school in English are children of English-educated Canadians or children who have attended English schools elsewhere in Canada or (until recently) in private schools in Quebec. As a result, enrollment in English schools has been declining steadily. Many English speakers have left the province.

Example: Hutterites

In 2003, the Alberta government enacted a law requiring photographs on all driver's licences. When the law came into effect, approximately 300 members of several Hutterite colonies had drivers licences without photos.


People in some Hutterite colonies believe that having their photograph taken violates one of the central rules of their religion. Their interpretation of the biblical second commandment "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" includes photography. Not all Hutterites share this belief, as you saw on page 7.1.3.

Soon after the law came into effect, a member of the Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, east of Lethbridge, was stopped by police. His driver's licence did not have his photo on it, and he was fined for not having a valid driver's licence. The Wilson Hutterite colony took the government to court, and the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench struck down the regulation, ruling that the photo requirement violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld that finding in a 2-1 decision. The case then went to the Supreme Court of Canada where it was overruled in 2009.

Other Cases

There are other examples of conflicts between religious beliefs and government legislation. For example, in public, women in some Muslim sects cover their heads with a hijab (head scarf), or they cover themselves more fully with a niqab (a head covering that leaves only the eyes exposed), or cover themselves completely with a burka. In 2010, the provincial government of Quebec tabled Bill 94 that would ban the niqab-or any face covering-to people delivering or receiving public services in courts, hospitals, schools, and licensing bureaus.


In 2019, the Quebec government went further, passing a law banning all religious symbols. Under Bill 21, public workers in positions of authority (including police officers, lawyers, and teachers) are not allowed to wear any religious symbols while at work, no matter the size. This bill, known as the "Act Respecting Laicity of the State", affirms that Quebec is a non-religious state, and that public employees are therefore not allowed to wear religious symbols, such as hijabs, burkas, or crosses. The Quebec government used the "Notwithstanding" clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when creating this law. This means that it is not possible to challenge the law on the basis of it violating the Charter.

Arar was tortured, repeatedly accused of having ties to terrorist organizations, and threatened with further punishment. He was held in a two metre long filthy sunless cell for the next ten months. After several meetings with the Canadian consul and more than a year later, he was forced to sign a document that he was not allowed to read and he was returned to Canada.

Maher Arar was born in Syria, but moved to Canada with his family as a teenager so he could avoid mandatory military service. A telecommunications engineer with dual Syrian-Canadian citizenship, he lived in Canada with his young family. At one time, he was considered to be a person of interest by the RCMP, and they provided this suspicion to the United States Immigration Service. Based on the RCMP information, he was sent back to Syria, rather than Canada, under the US policy of extraordinary rendition.

No link has ever been found between Arar and any terrorist group. After his release, a Canadian commission of inquiry investigated his situation and found no evidence to support any link to terrorism. The Canadian government apologized for its role in his deportation and awarded him over US$10 million in damages. In 2004, he began a lawsuit against the United States government, charging that the following rights were violated:

• His constitutional rights to due process
• His right to choose a country of removal guaranteed by the Torture Victims Protection Act
• Human rights under international law

The United States dismissed his lawsuit.


Fear of extremist action such as terrorist attacks has led governments around the world to implement measures to protect their citizens. In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, and other terrorist attacks, many nations have limited personal freedoms and privacy rights for the common good.


George Radwanski, Canadian privacy commissioner, explained that Canadian anti-terrorism measures must meet a four-part test:

1. The measure taken must be demonstrably necessary to meet a specific need.
2. The measure must have a likeliness of being effective in achieving its intended purpose.
3. Intrusions on privacy must be proportional to the security benefit to be derived.
4. No other less-intrusive measure would achieve the same purpose.

Citizenship Case for Sons of Russian Spies:

These are serious issues faced by all modern societies, and there are no easy answers. However, these questions lie at the heart of the issue for this section, which is:

Today's globalizing world faces with many complex issues.

1. Can economic freedom continue when the environment is being destroyed?
2. What kind of economic freedom do people have if they live in absolute poverty?
3. How do governments decide what is right and what is wrong when societies are composed of people with multiple perspectives?
4. How can individual privacy be secured while terrorism is a threat?
5. Can we allow freedom of the press when it might compromise the security of individuals?
6. Should there be censorship to protect religious views from being offended?
7. To what extent should individual/collective rights and freedoms be suspended during times of global pandemics?
   

Modern liberalism needs to evolve in order to deal with these daily concerns of people around the world. In this section, you will consider some contemporary challenges in liberal democracies, including environmental concerns, poverty (both global and local), gender issues, multiculturalism, pandemics, terrorism, and censorship. You will look at how liberal democracies try to find a balance between the protection of rights and freedoms and the collective interest of society.

Consider the following stories from around the world:

Hanna, Alberta and the Coal Industry:

There are many reasons poverty persists. Some claim a lack of economic freedom; others blame capitalism for providing greater opportunities for the rich to get richer while keeping the poor where they are. Corruption, lack of industrialization, political instability, few political institutions, and limited resources may also have roles in the continuation and/or expansion of poverty.

Look at the two maps below.

The one the right shows world poverty, and the one on the left shows economic freedom.
Do you see any relationship between the two?

Disparity in Liberal Democracies

Not only is there great disparity between nations, there is great inequality within nations. Even in a nation such as Canada, one child in nine lives below the poverty line. Homelessness continues to be a concern in many communities.

Some people believe that with all the economic freedoms provided by a liberal democracy, there is no excuse for a person to be poor except his or her own poor choices. Others feel that, because people are born with various abilities and family circumstances and because not every individual has access to the same resources (financial, emotional, or educational), in no way can everyone advance at the same rate.

The two cartoons illustrate two perspectives on marriage.

All Canadians are considered "equal" under the Constitution Act. They are entitled to equal treatment through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Rule of law, or equal treatment under the law is fundamental to a liberal society. However, the Charter does not define or specify the meaning of  what equal treatment means. As a result, other laws have been enacted to ensure equality and protect those equality rights.

Example: Canada defines "marriage".

With the Civil Marriage Act of 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world to define marriage formally in such a way that people of the same sex could legally marry. Other benefits previously available only to marriages involving men and women, such as pension and health care benefits, have also been extended to same sex couples. Some people do not agree with this definition. Some people believe homosexuality is wrong.

In the United States, marriage is defined by the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 as a "legal union exclusively between one man and one woman." Although a handful of states (which grant marriage licences) and one Aboriginal nation permit same sex marriage, the unions are not recognized by the federal government.
 

SARS Outbreak Summary:

WHO Organization: fighting Influenza Pandemics

Liberalism and Freedom of Expression

In western society, freedom of expression and freedom of the press are key individual and collective rights. Based on these fundamental human rights in a liberal democracy, publication of these cartoons should be allowed.

Example: Freedom of the Press in Denmark

Denmark ranks number one on the Reporters without Borders Worldwide Press Freedom Index. Freedom of the press was guaranteed in law by the Danish Constitution in 1849, and upheld by the Constitutional Act of Denmark June 5, 1953. It has has been defended vigorously in Denmark for generations. Religious issues in particular have been portrayed in ways that many, including Christians and Jews, have found offensive.

Is there a line between people's right to speak and the right of the press to publish on the one hand and the right to individual and collective freedom of religion and thought on the other? Is one more important than another?

Should there ever be limits to freedom of speech?

---

Through this study and your analysis of political and economic systems in Unit Five and Unit Six, you should have formed some kind of position about the viability of liberalism in today's world.

Individual and Collective Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was established after World War II. Although it has no binding powers, it is the foundation for many of the rights and freedoms experienced by people around the world today. Individual and Collective Rights are guaranteed to citizens of the United States through the American Bill of Rights Individual and Collective Rights are guaranteed to Canadians through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms Human Rights are additionally guaranteed to residents of Quebec through the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. First Nations, Métis, and Inuit people in Canada have rights guaranteed through legally binding treaties signed generations ago. Other rights are guaranteed through law. Canadian laws also protect language rights. National governments around the world enact legislation as the need arises to protect the rights of citizens (including the right to security). Emergency and security legislation may establish measures that protect security at the expense of personal freedoms. Challenges to the principles of liberalism come from various contemporary issues including resource development, environmental depletion, debt, poverty, racism, pandemics, terrorism, censorship, and illiberalism.