Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter examines the many failed Charter challenges brought by the Toronto 18. Although the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was added to Canada’s Constitution in 1982 as a response to national security excess, it failed to benefit the Toronto 18 and make the prosecution longer. Charter challenges to mandatory publication bans that some of the Toronto 18 argued prevented them from responding to prejudicial pre-trial publicity failed. Charter challenges to bail conditions and harsh conditions of pre-trial detention – including solitary confinement and prosecutorial use of a direct indictment to pre-empt a preliminary inquiry – also were unsuccessful. Although the courts found that the police had violated various Charter rights in several cases, they never excluded evidence obtained as a remedy. The Toronto 18 had Charter rights, but not Charter remedies. The Supreme Court reversed a trial judge’s decision, not allowing him to decide national security secrecy claims and what evidence could not be disclosed to the accused. Finally, the courts upheld broad terrorism offences as consistent with the Charter. Although the many failed Charter challenges can be seen as producing due process excess and delay, it is argued that the conclusion that the prosecution were consistent with the Charter or “Charter-proof” can blind the public to troubling and problematic aspects of the prosecution and of our broad terrorism laws. It also confirms that even in the Charter era, the executive and the legislature play the dominant roles in the national security context.
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 | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".