When the Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms became the law of the land in 1982, little did we know what a handy teaching tool it would become. As we mark the Charter's 30th birthday, I would like to illustrate ways in which it can and is used as an instrument for teaching critical thinking about basic principles of fairness to even very young children.
The Charter is a peculiarly Canadian construction. Rather than present a list of rights and freedoms in the way other constitutional democracies have (eg: The U.S. Bill of Rights), our Charter begins by warning us that each of our rights and freedoms will be subject to limitations [section 1]. But not to worry! These limits will be reasonable. How Canadian. So to introduce the Charter, one of our first critical thinking lessons is a discussion about the meaning of "reasonable." If something is fair or reasonable for me, is it fair for everyone?
The Supreme Court of Canada in 1986 determined a series of questions in the first case to test Section 1 of the Charter, R. v. Oakes. In our work teaching young people about civil liberties, we have distilled and simplified the Supreme Court's test in this case to three basic questions that can be understood -- and are often asked -- by children. These questions constitute a simple and useful tool for engaging critical thinking about issues of fairness and justice. Because the Supreme Court's test is now called the Oakes Test, our smaller version is called "the Acorn Test" -- smaller than a whole oak tree, but will eventually get to the same place!
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Education Trust (CCLET'S) ACORN TEST:
Strategies all flow from the following three questions:
1)Why? -- What is the purpose for the limit to freedom?
2)Will it work? -- Will the rule or law achieve its goal or original purpose?
3)What else will happen? -- Will the rule or law have unacceptable side effects or simply go too far?
Philosophers of education and basic pedagogy tell us to build on the knowledge and experience that children have. Not many children have been introduced to the Charter, but most of them understand questions about freedom and fairness.
How can a limit to freedom be reasonable? How can the word "reasonable" be defined? And who gets to determine the definition? The answers to these questions may be simplified for young children but become more complex as we look at questions about jurisdiction, federalism, regulation, and conflicts of rights.
To illustrate how we tend to see limits to liberty, we like to ask students what they think the word "freedom" means.
In short order, someone will suggest that freedom means doing whatever you want to do. I want to flap my arms up and down like a bird -- and so I do exactly that. While I am standing in front of a class and not travelling around the room most students will agree that I should be free to flap away -- no matter how silly I may look.
However, once I start roaming around the room while flapping my arms, I begin to get rather close to students. In fact, I may be only inches from someone's nose when that person asks me to stop. Is it reasonable for me to stop flapping my arms at this point? How do we decide?
This demonstration creates an opportunity to illustrate how the first section of the Charter works. Why should I stop flapping my arms before I collide with another person? Is it because the other person is more worthy than I am? Is it because arm flapping is innately bad? Or is it that at this particular juncture of time and place, the personal safety of one individual may outweigh in importance the freedom of expression I experience as I flap my arms?
Would a rule outlawing all arm flapping make us safer? What if I want to pretend I am a bird? What if I have a disability that makes me flap my arms inadvertently?
This is the values-balancing exercise that we call critical thinking for civil liberties. And love it or hate it, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms helps even the smallest of us to think about fairness and the democratic system we share.