Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is in contemplating how equality can be most fully understood and reinvigorated in parts of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms other than s. 15 that this paper is written. In several recent controversies in Canada, the claims by minority groups for recognition of their diverse and deep commitments to their cultural/religious specificity have produced the reaction that multiculturalism has gone too far, that it threatens the core values of Canadian society. This construction of minority rights, necessarily in opposition to Canadian values, creates a false opposition; one that many have argued permits the demonizing of a minority group typically seeking equality, while simultaneously and uncritically putting on a pedestal Canadian law and policies that continue to perpetuate inequality for many groups in Canadian society. In this article, I argue that the protection of minority rights as articulated in section 27 of the Charter’s multiculturalism provision need not be understood in opposition to the protection of equality. Rather, section 27 should inform all Charter rights through an intersectional analysis that more readily captures the lived realities of many individuals, women in particular. In Part II of this article, I outline the theory behind intersectionality and demonstrate the way in which intersectional interests were not taken into account by opponents and proponents of faith-based family arbitration in a recent debate in Ontario. In Part III, I provide a brief description of the way in which section 27 has been used to date, and I explain the perils of comprehending culture as merely the absence of equality. In Part IV, I outline the potential of section 27. I suggest that section 27 ought to be utilized more regularly as an interpretive section that gives additional meaning to other Charter rights and that this interpretation should bring an intersectional lens to any analysis. The potential of section 27 is that it may assist in mediating a middle ground when interconnected and mutually enforcing oppressions are in the balance. Finally in Part V, I briefly provide an example of how intersectionality might inform a current Charter case, that of polygamy, using section 27.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".