Talk:Human rights in Canada

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article content doesn't match title[edit]

Having the vast majority of a page nominally about human rights in Canada devoted to a single incident is inappropriate, see WP:COAT. An article about human rights in any country should provide a balanced view of the subject, rather than focusing on a single topic. Having an article about the High Arctic relocation is fine, but not under such an all-encompassing title. Hqb (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article just needs to be expanded to include other significant content as well. The only reason it's only about one incident at this point is that it's only existed for a couple of days and nobody's added other incidents to it yet. It's not that WP:COAT doesn't apply; the article just doesn't really need to have both the {{coatrack}} and {{expand}} templates on it at the same time. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More like a couple of hours, not days, since I created it! Thanks for the interest (HQB) and support (Bearcat). I am fascinated by the story of the Human flagpoles (which I also just created) and thought it was strange Canada didn't have an article on human rights. Where should I ask for other editors to pile in on this? BrainyBabe (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've already raised it over at WP:CWNB as an article that could use some attention and expansion. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And also -- I had not heard of {{coatrack}} before, and am glad to have had it drawn to my attention. I don't think its addition here is fair (although I realise it is not appropriate for me to remove it), because the content of the article is not off topic -- it just deals with, admittedly, a very limited part of the topic (and deals quite well, if I say so myself, with refs etc.). I heartily agree with the {{expand}}, and hope others do. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that right now, the article is simply too lopsided. It gives the impression that the main thing to note about human rights in Canada is that indigenous people are treated poorly, and that the most notable instance of such abuse is an incident more than 50 years ago. The opening sentence could definitely be more balanced; after all, compared to many other countries, Canada has a pretty good record – if that one episode was indeed "one of the worst human rights abuses" in its history. A single sentence or two about the forced relocations, with a wikilink to the relevant article, should be more than sufficient. Currently, almost the entire text is duplicated in both articles. Hqb (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've tried to trim the article to keep it within WP:NPOV. Please feel free to edit further; in particular, the Human Flagpole summary could perhaps be a little longer, without overwhelming the article. Hqb (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine now! Hqb (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added not only other indigenous examples, but internships of "enemy aliens" as well. I'll leave it to others to expand. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of Arctic ecosystem[edit]

I have removed the following from the page:

The Inuit Circumpolar Council has petitioned the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, claiming violation of their human rights "resulting from global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions"<ref ICC press release>. This is based on the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment<ref [1]>, a project of the Arctic Council and the International Arctic Science Committee.

It is not Canadian specific.

It is not something only Canada is doing (Canadians are not the only people that have greenhouse gasses).

It is more appropriate here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.18.196 (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

interesting comments[edit]

See discussion here on items to include. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge[edit]

When reviewing the two articles I noticed the content was very similar. Also the human rights page has a lack of background (it is mostly just violations) so the merge would do good. User:jfry3 (talk) april 12 09

Nothing about human rights[edit]

I expected this article to be about the state of human rights in Canada today, not a series of events that happen 60, 100, 300 years ago that the government has already apologized for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.106.155 (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Events 60, 100, 300 years ago are very important and very relevant to this article. Besides, the article does mention Canadian Human rights in Canada today in a roundabout way and with not enough information. I somewhat agree, however. There must be more information about the topic.Sakurato (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the plight of Omahar Khadr should be added here. Justice delayed is justice denied. Turidoth (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Also possible additions include Oka(1990), Ipperwash(1995) and Dziekański(2007)Turidoth (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything about RECENT good human rights records. This makes Canada look like a bad country to live in which it is not.--99.237.222.73 (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill 101[edit]

Does it really make sense to say that Bill 101 was a violation of human rights by CANADA? Since Quebec is a unique province and any other province probably wouldn't have forbade people to speak ENGLISH, it's sort of a "rebel violation". It's like saying that since Palestine has killed Israeli soldiers but they are still part of Israel, Israel has violated the rights of Jews.--99.237.222.73 (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. Read the source, it clearly states "10.5 In the light of the above, the Committee sees no reason to review its decision on admissibility of 11 April 1991." The very source of the "UN criticized Quebec over bill 101" statement actually says the polar opposite. I recommend either removing this section entirely, or rewriting it to specify that a complaint was filed about bill 101 and that the UN rejected it. 184.161.226.83 (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What?? The United Nations Human Rights Committee ruled that Quebec's laws broke an international covenant on civil and political rights. This lead to Bill 86 an attempt to fix the problems raised by the UN. The UN in 2012 also condemned the anti-protest laws. More can been seen at Jacques Dorin; Michèle Kaltemback; Sheryl Rahal (2007). Canadian Civilization. Presses Univ. du Mirail. p. 96. ISBN 978-2-85816-888-0. and For Bourassa's initial reaction to the UN ruling, see Gazette, 21 Apr. 1993.
Read the ruling itself, it clearly states that the complaint was not admissible while recommending an amendment to the advertising laws, which was done. 184.161.226.83 (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

]>> Seeking justice for Canada's murdered women (Lihaas (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Human rights violations during the Israel-Gaza Conflict[edit]

A news section is required for Canadian Human rights violations in the recent Israel-Gaza conflict. According to recent documents released to the Toronto Star by Global Affairs of Canada, the federal government approved over $28.5 million in new export permits for military goods and technology to Israel in the conflict's initial two months. 46.31.112.221 (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is this related to "Human rights "? Moxy🍁 14:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a blatant violation of human rights since the administration of the State of Israel and IDF forces are committing genocide in Gaza. Have you not been following the news? 46.31.112.221 (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_rights_in_Canada&oldid=1220518462"