Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
That's a fascinating perspective. Our freedom of assembly is generally considered an extension of the freedom of speech, which is about gathering together to express or discuss opposition to public policy without fear of censorship in cases like US v. Cruikshank and Hague v. C.I.O., but iirc, Thornhill v. Alabama held that the right for a union to picket, informing the public of issues protected by the First Amendment could not be prosecuted as it was protected under the right to peaceably assemble. I wonder if there could be some legal wiggle-room on that.
|
Our documents are somewhat related. The freedom of assembly hasn't been a big issue in many Canadian cases. In the past, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Alberta that the clause doesn't mean workers have the right to strike. However, in an earlier case, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court found that it does include the right to meet as part of a committee or as workers.
I'm kind of waiting to hear from the small-government proponents here with regard to this vote and its blatant "nanny statism." This is one thing that would lead me to agree with them. It has kind of thrown me for a loop how the government can essentially deny you the action that is a fundamental component of a labour union. It's mind-boggling.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön
Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 02-26-2011 at 11:24 AM..
|