Positive Freedoms and Peaceful Assemblies: Reenvisioning Section 2(c) of the Charter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article considers the scope of freedom of peaceful assembly under section 2(c) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Although this guarantee is one of the least considered of section 2’s protections, it remains one of the ripest for judicial exploration. In most cases, the exercise of freedom of peaceful assembly will require meaningful access to physical space. Where state action or inaction prevents claimants from accessing space in which to peacefully assemble, section 2(c) may thus impose positive obligations on state actors. This will be especially true where non-state actors seek to prevent peaceful assemblies from taking place through the hostile exercise of the “heckler’s veto”. This article argues that, in such cases, the circumscribed intervention of the state may be required to ensure that claimants are able to freely exercise their constitutional entitlements. While further acknowledging that the Charter cannot compel lawmakers to enact specific statutes or regulations, this article concludes that legislatures may be under a political (i.e., unenforceable) expectation to pass laws which supplement section 2(c)’s entitlements by protecting vulnerable assemblies from antagonistic third parties.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".