Canadian Pluralism, the Charter, and Citizenship Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT/RESUME As the constitutional document defining the entitlement of Canadians, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms establishes the legal parameters of citizenship in Canada. Since its adoption in 1982. not only individuals but members of cultural groups have gone to the courts to ascertain their entitlements as citizens. Thus, Francophones have litigated their linguistic educational rights particularly on the basis of section 23 of the Charter. Litigation across Canada affirms that mother tongue instruction in schools has a fundamental role to play in maintaining the vitality of official language minorities in the country. This affirmation is accompanied by court rulings on, among others, educational services for Francophone students, management and control of educational facilities, and allocation of financial resources. Religious minorities have also tested the extent of their rights in the courts and have received a mixed message. The imposition in the classroom of any religion other than their own has been confirme d as constitutionally impermissible. Yet, their entitlement to government support for religious schools intended to preserve their religions has been denied. Like the minority religious groups, ethnocultural groups have received protection against hate and discrimination on account of their culture or cultural practices. Legal parameters are now evident but further group litigation may be expected. The confirmation of group rights in Canada through Charter litigation makes it necessary that group rights become part not only of the management and administration of schools, but also of the activities and the curriculum for study by all children. In a culturally diverse society such as Canada, study of the extent and limits of rights by future citizens is vitally important. La Charte canadienne des droits et libertes est le document constitutionnel qui definit les droits des canadiens et etablit les parametres de la citoyennete au Canada. Depuis son adoption en 1982, non seulement des individus, mais aussi des membres de groupes culturels se sont presentes devant les tribunaux pour revendiquer leurs droits en tant que citoyens. En ce qui concerne, les communautes francophones, leurs actions juridiques sont fondees sur l'article 23 de la Charte. La jurisprudence canadienne affirme que l'enseignement dans la langue de la minorite joue un role preponderant dans le maintien de La vitalite des groupes minoritaires de langue officielle. Cette affirmation est appuyee par un ensemble de decisions, portant entre autres, sur les services educatifs destinees aux eleves francophones, La gestion et le controle des etablissements scolaires et l'allocation des ressources financieres. Les minorites religieuses ont aussi verifie l'etendue de leurs droits devant les tribunaux et elles ont recu un message mitige. Leur droit La liberte de religion empeche qu'on leur impose une religion autre que La leur dans la salle de classe. Cependant, leur droit l' appui gouvernemental pour des ecoles religieuses en vue de maintenir leur religion n'a pas reconnu. Tout comme les groupes religieux minoritaires, les groupes ethnoculturels profitent d'une protection contre la haine et la discrimination culturelle. Les parametres legaux sont maintenant clairs, mais on peut s'attendre a d'autres revendications juridiques. La confirmation des droits de divers groupes au Canada en vertu des litiges souleves par la Charte fait en sorte que les droits des groupes doivent non seulement faire partie de la gestion et de l'administration des ecoles, mais aussi des activites et des programmes d'etudes de tous les enfants. Dans la societe pluraliste canadienne, l'etude de la portee et de la limite des droits par les futurs citoyens est tres importante. Introduction The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms undoubtedly occupies a prominent role in any discussion of citizenship and citizenship education in Canada. …
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".