I have listen and enjoyed very much today’s topic on : Gentrification in Montreal – Insight with Adam Bemma… as I’m feeling sad and frustrated myself of noticing that bad and unfair reality growing all around Montréal city.

Hoping to be able to listen to that interview soon in your archives… and share it on FB…

Thanks, Louise
(originally from Sherbrooke, living in Mtl since 1988, now in Rosemont area).

There’s a movie called Dyslexia I think you may find interesting. It looks into different teaching techniques utilized in teaching students with learning disabilities.

This is a great little doucmentary, well Docu-comedy, and it is very funny. We are just finishing it up right now…

Capturedtimeproductions.com

I grew up with learning disabilities, and just started helping out with this film.

I think it serves as a great example of how indie films can do more than just entertain, or exist soley as a self serving form of artistic expression… instead Indie films like Dyslexia are capable of bringing postive about change.

Follow us as we try to finish post production and embark on another epic journey with this film as we try to use education and comedy to raise awareness, and show people that all of us learn in our own “special” ways!

checkout our blog captime.wordpress.com

In R. v. Wiles, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 895, 2005 SCC 84, the Supreme Court of Canada states in paragraph 9
“The mandatory prohibition relates to a recognized sentencing goal — the protection of the public, and in particular, the protection of police officers engaged in the enforcement of drug offences. The state interest in reducing the misuse of weapons is valid and important. The sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to the fact that possession and use of firearms is not a right or freedom guaranteed under the Charter, but a privilege. It is also a heavily regulated activity, requiring potential gun-owners to obtain a licence before they can legally purchase one. In Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783, 2000 SCC 31, this Court held that requiring the licensing and registration of firearms was a valid exercise of the federal criminal law power. If Parliament can legitimately impose restrictions on the possession of firearms by general legislation that applies to all, it follows that it can prohibit their possession upon conviction of certain criminal offences where it deems it in the public interest to do so. It is sufficient that Mr. Wiles falls within a category of offenders targeted for the risk that they may pose. The sentencing judge’s insistence upon specific violence, actual or apprehended, in relation to the particular offence and the individual offender takes too narrow a view of the rationale underlying the mandatory weapons prohibition orders. ”

Just to restate the important sentences:
“possession and use of firearms is not a right or freedom guaranteed under the Charter, but a privilege”

“In Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783, 2000 SCC 31, this Court held that requiring the licensing and registration of firearms was a valid exercise of the federal criminal law power. If Parliament can legitimately impose restrictions on the possession of firearms by general legislation that applies to all, it follows that it can prohibit their possession upon conviction of certain criminal offences where it deems it in the public interest to do so”

In Hudson v. Canada (Attorney General), [2009] S.J. No. 564., the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal confirmed (the appeal to the Supreme Court has since been dismissed) that the Bill of Rights, including the right to bear arms, does form part of the Canadian Constitution (the bill of rights being adopted as a regular legislative act, it may be superseded by other legislation…hence the significant firearms regulations that exist in the UK):

“17 The Supreme Court has consistently stated that no constitutional right to possess firearms existed in the specific circumstances it considered, and that Parliament has jurisdiction over the regulation of firearms pursuant to s. 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867. See: R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398 (S.C.C.); R. v. Wiles, 2005 SCC 84, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 895 (S.C.C.); and Reference re Firearms Act (Canada), 2000 SCC 31, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783 (S.C.C.). All of these decisions were fully considered by the Chambers judge. In R. v. Wiles, Charron J. confirmed, for the purposes of the specific Charter right advanced before her, “that possession and use of firearms is not a right or freedom guaranteed under the Charter, but a privilege” (para. 9). However, in my opinion, these decisions do not conclusively declare that in no circumstance is a citizen entitled to possess a firearm other than as permitted by positive law.

18 Leaving aside the “natural law” submission addressed later, I conclude the Chambers judge correctly held that the preamble to the British North America Act, 1867 does not incorporate into Canadian law a right to possess firearms for self-defence provided for by the Bill of Rights, 1689. See: Wendy Cukier, Tania Sarkar & Tim Quigley, “Firearm Regulation: International Law and Jurisprudence”, (2001) 6 Can. Crim. L. Rev. 99 at 107, where the authors discuss strict legislated restrictions on the use and control of firearms currently in place in England and elsewhere”.

Any argument that the government does not have the right to regulate firearms use is false and disingenuous. You are free to attempt to convince the government that it should not (and it appears this government is receptive to that argument) but the law of the land is clear on this matter. That being said, you are welcome to challenge this through the court system once again.