I have never read our Charter of Rights and Freedoms before. Why not? Well, I guess it never really occurred to me. This may be because I thought it was going to be 1000 pages long, but more likely because I have never questioned them or have been in a situation where those rights and freedoms are in question. In other words (and in my opinion) I am probably like most Canadians and take those rights and freedoms for granted.

I guess one of the things that surprised me about the Charter was the Official Languages of Canada section. I was pleased to read about the equality and importance the french language has. I’m sure it has something to do with the fact that I live on the west coast but I feel that learning french is something that is laughed at and considered irrelevant, similarly like learning cursive. I participated in a french exchange program a few years ago and was surprised at the ease with which eastern Canadians spoke french. 

I suppose the Charter serves use as a reminder to Canadian citizens that maybe in comparison we do have fundamental rights. I also think that it could serve as a reminder to individuals that as we all have the same fundamental rights one shouldn’t put themselves above others.

One of the things that I’m wondering is why and how the Charter came about and am actually surprised that this kind of document didn’t exist earlier. In thinking about the Canadian Charter, one aspect of The Globe&Mail article I found interesting was Paul Grod’s point regarding the Holodomer exhibit and its opportunity to teach people “…how a dictatorial state can use food, a basic human right, to control and destroy people” (P.5). The notion of food as a basic human right. I must have missed that in the Charter. But why not? Why shouldn’t it be in the charter?

It is hard to say what should be in the Canadian Museum of Human Rights. Because it’s a Canadian museum, I think human rights violations that occurred in Canada should be at the forefront. It is important to exhibit major genocides, and judging from the article I don’t have any major problems with the exhibit choices the museum is making. However, I’m not of Ukrainian heritage. Of course there will be a lot of controversy from the museum, but from the way the museum is portrayed in the article it appears as though they’re trying to be considerate. Although the attesting groups say it’s not a competition, it really feels like one.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/page-1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_Ihttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/memory-becomes-a-minefield-at-canadas-museum-for-human-rights/article2135961/page5/

> What does or does not surprise you about the Canadian Charter?  What should be in it that isn’t?  Have you read it before?  If not, why not?  What use do you think it is?  Are you happy with it?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

The Canadian Charter provides a fundamental basis for our formation of laws and our understanding of ourselves in society. I have briefly read the Canadian Charter before, skimmed over it to see if it entails anything different from the US or German equivalent (it doesn’t). Should I read it in more depth? Definitely. For two reasons: without knowledge of my rights and entitlement I would never stand up for them, fight for them. I would presume that my place in society is the way it is right now. That it is determined by external forces that I am not a part of. I would assume that those forces are right, have a right at least to exhibit force and would not contradict them.

Secondly, the charter of rights is really only then effective when you have a conscious, informed and educated society that uses the charter and knows the charter. Without that kind of a population it is just a piece of paper to be manipulated by whoever is in power.

What surprises me is that there is no specific reference to resources. There is a stated right to “life, liberty and security of person”, however that seems too vague. Are food, clean water and shelter not quintessential to life? To security? Arguably also to liberty? Are these not human rights or stated otherwise, is the absence of these things not a human rights abuse?

I think our Canadian Charter is a good start, however with increasing technology, shortage of resources etc it needs reviewing. I think people in this generation, in this lifetime need an edited edition of the Charter to feel the power that it contains and to feel ownership of it.

> What should be in a Museum of Human Rights?  Do you agree with the choices made for the Canadian Museum in Winnipeg?

A Museum of Human rights ideally should showcase the importance of human rights, focusing on what they are and the history of how they were developed as well as the history of abuse. I think it is easy to become a Museum of Human rights abuses without conveying what human rights are in the first place. Specifically for Canada, showing the evolution of human rights in this country would be a good step. The idea with showcasing the Holocaust or the Holodomer is that the abuse is shown and studied so it not be continued. I think for the Canadian Museum the focus should be closer to home. We ourselves could fill a whole gallery on “breaking the silence”. We should focus on Canada’s attempts to bury its own atrocities and focus on current human rights abuses,  right now that are going on and have been because of neglected care and structural violence.

The argument that the Holocaust should have larger area because it is most pedagogically useful is somewhat disturbing. I do not agree with that, I think focusing on it to such an extent and thereby limiting the focus on other human rights abuses has really negative consequences. If anything, we should broaden our knowledge on the thousands of other human rights abuses that have happened and are happening, as well as trying to understand what stops or limits them and how this can be and has been achieved.