Terms of Entitlement: Is there a Distinctly Canadian “Rights Talk”?

Abstract

Abstract. One of the most frequently mentioned, yet seriously understudied, changes brought to Canadian society by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is its influence on political debate and how citizens understand and treat rights. This empirical lacuna is significant because several scholars of Canadian politics have suggested that “rights talk” can have negative implications for political discourse, given that rights are too often presented in absolute, uncompromising terms. This article represents a first attempt to investigate this phenomenon. It presents a content analysis of the media's presentation of rights issues, and evaluates how rights are portrayed during coverage of Supreme Court Charter decisions.Résumé. L'un des changements les plus notables apportés à la société canadienne par l'adoption de la Charte des droits et libertés est son influence sur les débats politiques et, plus particulièrement, sur la manière dont les citoyens interprètent leurs droits. Ce changement important est toutefois très peu étudié. Cette lacune empirique est significative puisque plusieurs politologues canadiens ont suggéré que le «langage des droits» a des répercussions négatives sur les débats politiques, étant donné que les droits sont souvent décrits en termes absolus et définitifs. Cet article représente une première tentative d'exploration de ce phénomène. Il présente une analyse du contenu médiatique et évalue comment les médias dépeignent les droits dans leur couverture des décisions de la Cour suprême portant sur la Charte.

Navigating the principle of open court in the digital age: The more things change, the more they stay the same

“…Greene () suggests since the media are likely to focus on drama and gore, most cases do not receive coverage at all. Outside of criminal justice, Macfarlane (: 325) describes media coverage Charter cases at the Supreme Court as “generally simplistic.” Thus, this new public could bring a unique skill set that was previously unavailable to the coverage of courts that differs from journalists. This analysis may suggest that a middle ground could be found for court officials: if the presumptive right for journalists exists because they are subject to their own professional ethics, then perhaps, lawyers, professors and others subject to similar professional ethics should also have this presumptive right .…”

Litigating Parentage: Equality Rights, LGBTQ Mobilization and Ontario’s All Families Are Equal Act

“…Rainer Knopff argues that such rights talk reduces incentives for political compromise and is the inevitable result of increased judicial policymaking, which “implies permanent winners and losers” (1998, 705). Emmett Macfarlane’s 2008 study on rights talk likewise found that media coverage of the Charter was “largely individualistic, absolutist and uncompromising” and that there was a “generally simplistic portrayal of rights” (Macfarlane 2008, 324–25).…”

“…Ultimately, framing the court order in this way was a useful strategy, rhetorically elevating the agreed-upon principles in the Minutes of Settlement to constitutional status. It also shows that “rights talk,” whereby “[d]isputes over governmental policy choices and the normal disagreements in a pluralistic society are conflated with fundamental human rights” (Macfarlane 2008, 306–07), remains prominent not just in the courtroom, but also during the lawmaking process.…”

Administration at the Supreme Court of Canada: Challenges and change in the Charter era

“…Nonetheless, as described above, the institution has developed formal mechanisms to facilitate an open dialogue with members of the press so that new initiatives, such as media lockups, can be discussed and considered. This relationship, in turn, has significant implications for public discourse surrounding the important issues confronted by the Court, given the media's role in facilitating such debate (Macfarlane 2008).…”