FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4239242387> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4239242387 endingPage "24" @default.
• W4239242387 startingPage "21" @default.
• W4239242387 abstract "Equality For a Canadian in 2005, one of the most notable aspects of Raymond Williams’ s discussion of equality is that he perceives the word to be used only in relation to individuals. Canadians who for decades have discussed equalization payments from the federal government to the provinces, or argued whether a province, within a system of asymmetrical federalism, could be both different and equal, have routinely in recent years employed the word in discourses of group rights. The Canadian Oxford dictionary lists both equalization payments and equality rights as specifically Cana­ dian terms. Equality rights have been since 1985 in Canada a constitutional entitlement, and although described in the compound main clause of Sub­ section 15(1) ofthe Canadian Charter ofRights and Freedoms as “individual” rights (“Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection of the law, without discrimination”), have become also group rights through judicial interpretation of the long appositional phrase attached to it (“and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability”). The Supreme Court in R v. Swain (1991) stated that “the overall purpose of s.15” was “to remedy or prevent discrimination against groups subject to stereotyping, historical disadvantage and politi­ cal and social prejudice in Canadian society,” although in Miron v. Trudel (i995) it moved back to an emphasis on the individual when it restated the section’ s purpose as being “to prevent the violation of human dignity and freedom by imposing limitations, disadvantages, or burdens through the stereotypical application ofpresumed group characteristics rather than on the basis of individual merit, capacity, or circumstance.” Equality here, as Williams wryly observed in 1976, is each individual’ s “equal opportunity to become unequal (118).” More recently the Court has distinguished (in Law v. Canada, 1999, a case in which an able-bodied surviving spouse under the age of 35 and without dependent children was denied Canada Pension Plan survivor benefits) between permissible inequality and inequality that is impermissible because it has a “demeaning” effect on the individual. In his analysis, Williams distinguishes between an understanding of equality as normative, in which “newly created” inequalities are to be redressed, and an understanding of it as a starting point, in which indi­ viduals ideally begin life with equal opportunities to display and exercise their particular abilities. Since the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadians have been preoccupied with equality before the Retro Keywords | 21 Frank Davey is founder and editor of Open Letter, the Canadian journal of writing and theory. He holds the Carl F. Klinck chair in Canadian Literature at the University of Western Ontario. He is the author of twenty-one books of poetry, including The Abbotsford Guide to India (1986), Cultural Mischief(1996), and Back to the War (2005), and 12 books of literary criticism and cultural theory, including Post-National Arguments: The Politics ofthe AnglophoneCanadian Novel Since 1967 (U of Toronto Press, 1993). Canadian Literary Power (NeWest, 1994), Karla’ s Web: A Cultural Examination of the Mahajfy-French Murders (Penguin, 1994)., and Mr &Mrs G.G. (ECW, 2003). law, seeing it as a way of addressing both of Williams’s understandings, including for example the legal rights of gays and lesbians—presumably rights of opportunity—and the apparent inequalities “newly created” by the Canadian government’ s program of assistance to those who contracted hepatitis-C through blood transfusions between January 1,1986 and July 1, 1990, but not to those who contracted it before or after that period. To some extent this concern with equality has conflicted with a simi­ larly strong concern in the past few decades in Canadian society for the acknowledgement of difference, as in the continuing Canadian problem, noted above, of how to define a Quebec province that may be different but equal. (In gay and lesbian rights, a similar question arose in 2004 about whether different nomenclature for opposite-sex and same-sex marriage could result in kinds of marriage that were also different but equal. Most likely, the Supreme Court’ s “demeaning” criterion implies not.) In indi­ vidual legal rights, equality has tended to be ranked..." @default.
• W4239242387 created "2022-05-12" @default.
• W4239242387 creator A5014029351 @default.
• W4239242387 date "2004-01-01" @default.
• W4239242387 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W4239242387 title "Equality" @default.
• W4239242387 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/esc.2004.0056" @default.
• W4239242387 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W4239242387 type Work @default.
• W4239242387 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4239242387 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4239242387 hasAuthorship W4239242387A5014029351 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConcept C144237770 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConcept C169437150 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConcept C25287524 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConcept C2778745096 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConcept C2779160553 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConcept C2780169623 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConcept C94982200 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConcept C95691615 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConceptScore W4239242387C144024400 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConceptScore W4239242387C144237770 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConceptScore W4239242387C169437150 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConceptScore W4239242387C17744445 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConceptScore W4239242387C199539241 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConceptScore W4239242387C25287524 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConceptScore W4239242387C2776154427 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConceptScore W4239242387C2778272461 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConceptScore W4239242387C2778745096 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConceptScore W4239242387C2779160553 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConceptScore W4239242387C2780169623 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConceptScore W4239242387C33923547 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConceptScore W4239242387C94982200 @default.
• W4239242387 hasConceptScore W4239242387C95691615 @default.
• W4239242387 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W4239242387 hasLocation W42392423871 @default.
• W4239242387 hasOpenAccess W4239242387 @default.
• W4239242387 hasPrimaryLocation W42392423871 @default.
• W4239242387 hasRelatedWork W2271753510 @default.
• W4239242387 hasRelatedWork W2462388911 @default.
• W4239242387 hasRelatedWork W2482229390 @default.
• W4239242387 hasRelatedWork W2739317289 @default.
• W4239242387 hasRelatedWork W2885731087 @default.
• W4239242387 hasRelatedWork W3150122876 @default.
• W4239242387 hasRelatedWork W34809571 @default.
• W4239242387 hasRelatedWork W4282007327 @default.
• W4239242387 hasRelatedWork W600130904 @default.
• W4239242387 hasRelatedWork W622211239 @default.
• W4239242387 hasVolume "30" @default.
• W4239242387 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4239242387 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4239242387 workType "article" @default.