Section 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms : A Purposive Interpretation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concerned about substantive equality and intersectionality, a feminist legal scholar recently cautioned against calling on section 28 to help reinvigorate section 15 analysis. This article examines her concerns about section 28 by posing three questions: Why was section 28 added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? What are the traditional features of section 28 analysis? And, what does a purposive interpretation of section 28 reveal? The responses reveal that its feminist framers intended section 28 to be rights bearing; that traditional analysis has diminished its status to an interpretive provision; and that purposive interpretation suggests section 28 is consistent not only with substantive equality but also with intersectionality. The article concludes by proposing that we treat section 28 as neither independently rights bearing nor dependently interpretive, but rather as independently rights enhancing. In reconsidering the interpretation of section 28, it is also important to reflect on the intergenerational tensions that may surface between the feminists who framed section 28 and those whose exposure to it is more contemporary and mediated through section 15 jurisprudence. on indépendante. En remettant en cause l'interprétation de l'article 28, il importe aussi de réfléchir aux tensions intergénérationnelles qui peuvent survenir entre les féministes qui ont participé à la rédaction de l'article 28 et celles qui en ont pris connaissance plus récemment, par le biais de la jurisprudence concernant l'article 15.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".