# we demand and declare our unalienable rights 


Article 7


No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.


The broad purpose of the duty to consult and accommodate is to advance the objective of reconciliation of pre-existing Aboriginal societies with the assertion of Crown Sovereignty. This duty flows from the honour of the Crown and its fiduciary duty to Indigenous peoples/african.[4] The obligation to provide consultation and a decision-making process that is compatible with the honour of the Crown is embedded in Section Thirty-five of the Constitution Act, 1982 and Treaties.


The Crown constitutes both the Federal and Provincial governments.[7] Therefore, the level of government contemplating an action or decision has the responsibility to consult and accommodate.


The Supreme Court in Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) created a three part test that, if met, gives rise to the duty to consult and accommodate on the part of the Crown.[9]


First, the government has a real or constructive knowledge of a right. This tends to be less of an issue in the context of treaties that establish clear rights. However, some historical treaties are unclear. There has been much litigation over the content of the rights in the Peace and Friendship Treaties negotiated in the Maritimes in the mid-eighteenth century, which culminated in the R. v. Marshall decisions. Canadian courts have sometimes viewed the duty to consult differently depending on whether it involves infringing Aboriginal rights or the Crown's exercise of a right under a Treaty.[10]


The second factor required to give rise to a duty to consult and accommodate is that a government action or decision relating to land and/or natural resource management within the Indigenous group's traditional territory is contemplated. Traditional territory includes reserve land, land subject to aboriginal title, and territory that the Indigenous group considers to be its traditional lands.


The third factor required to trigger a duty to consult and accommodate is that the government's decision has the potential to adversely impact the continued existence of a Treaty or Constitutionhttps://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=422239cfa1&attid=0.1&permmsgid=msg-f:1715341258621816238&th=17ce1dc954b98dae&view=att&disp=inline&realattid=17ce1dc44bd9fb7ee941al right. Courts are very clear that when reviewing evidence, they must take a "generous, purposive approach to [determine whether there is a potential adverse impact]."[11] However, speculation is not enough to constitute "potential" adverse impact. A court may consider adverse impacts as speculative if there is a lack of evidence or evidence does not clearly demonstrate an adverse impact.


Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Development Canada in 2017. International organizations like the United Natation

 

           NOTICE OF DECLARATION

alm ministrys demands Article 7 of the constitution act of 1982 as a man and woman exercising our natural rights, with full legal authority, for all members, directors, executor, of a. l. m ministry.

ICCPR. Article 7. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be, subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation


1) Constitution law: The government is obligated to protect! Individual rights Fundamental Right and freedom, Natural rights:

This article presents a theory of how section 7 of the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms protects life, liberty and security of the person. On the basis of a

purposive and contextual interpretation, it is argued that section 7 is concerned

with legal means rather than social ends . It confers a right not to be deprived

of life, liberty or security except by means in accordance with the principles of

fundamental justice. It requires that the standards ofthe rule oflaw be observed

in the design of rules of conduct . It also permits judicial review of mechanisms

of enforcement such as sanctions . It does not, however, permit judicial review

ofthe substantive content of law in a sense which would cover the social objec-tives which the law is designed to achieve . It is argued that this interpretation

fits well with what has been said in the leading decisions ofthe Supreme Court

of Canada .

Dans cet article l'auteur propose une théorie de la façon dont l'article 7 de la

Charte des droits et libertés protège la vie, la liberté et la sécurité de la per-

sonne. En interprétant l'article par son contexte et le but qu'il cherche à attein-

dre, l'auteur suggère que l'article 7 traite des moyens offerts par la loi et non

de fins sociales . II donne aux personnes le droit de ne pas être privées de vie,

de liberté et de sécurité si ce n'est par des moyens qui sont en accord avec les

principes de justice fondamentale . Il faut, selon l'article, suivre les normes du

principe de droit dans l'établissement des règles de conduite . L'article permet

aussi l'examen judiciaire du mécanisme employépour appliquer ces sanctions .

Il ne permet pas cependant un examen judiciaire des règles de fond de la loi

qui toucherait aux fins sociales qui sont l'objectif de la loi . L'auteur affirme

que cette interprétation s'accorde avec les décisions de la Cour suprême du

Canada qui font jurisprudence .

Introduction

The most eloquent but mysterious provision of the Canadian Charter of

Rights and Freedoms' is section 7. The section reads :

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not

to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental.