Failing to walk the rights talk? post-9/11 security policy and the Supreme Court of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the Supreme Court of Canada's record in dealing with a range of security policies implicating the Charter of Rights in the post9/11 era, including deportation to torture, the use of security certificates and investigative hearings, and the Canadian government's obligations to Omar Khadr, the sole Canadian citizen held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The article demonstrates that the decisions are marked by a mix of judicial deference and judicial minimalism, each of which has important policy implications. The article concludes that the Court's record in balancing Charter rights with security objectives is mixed. The Court has, for the most part, adopted a posture of restraint that safeguards rights in a prudent manner. In certain instances, however, the Court's reasoning fails to live up to its rhetoric in support of rights. When the justices adopt a minimalist posture, rights failures may result from making compromises that weaken the Charter's scope. When the justices adopt a deferential posture, rights failures may result from justifications for deference that make little institutional sense. These considerations have important implications for the protection o/Charter rights. Dans cet article l'auteur examine le dossier de la Cour supreme du Canada en matiere de politiques sur la securite et la charte des droits et libertes dans les annees suivant le 11 septembre 2001, y compris l'expulsion et la torture, l'utilisation de certificats de securite et les audiences d'investigation, ainsi que les obligations du gouvernement canadien envers Omar Khadr, le seul citoyen canadien detenu a Guantanamo Bay, a Cuba. L'auteur demontre que les decisions sont caracterisees par un minimalisme et une retenue judiciaires, tous deux ayant des incidences importantes sur les politiques. Il conclut que la Cour supreme a equilibre les droits garantis par la Charte et les objectifs de securite de facon inegale. En general, la cour a adopte une position de retenue qui protege prudemment les droits. Dans certains cas, cependant, le raisonnement de la cour n'est pas a la hauteur de sa rhetorique a l'appui des droits. Lorsque les juges adoptent une position minimaliste, des manquements au niveaii des droits peuvent resulter de compromis qui affaiblissent la portee de la Charte. Lorsque les juges adoptent une position de deference, des manquements au niveau des droits peuvent resulter des justifications de la deference qui n'ont pas beaucoup de sens sur le plan institutionnel. Ces considerations ont des implications importantes quant a la protection des droits garantis par la Charte.
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".