I didn't remember the wording, but there was something I wanted to point out about that. Thanks for posting it.
You'll notice how it very clearly does <b>not</b> say that the right to freedom of speech may not be revoked. I have to wonder why they did that.
The First Amendment's text is as follows:
<b>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.</b>
Now, I'm not trying to get into a pissing war or anything (my freedoms are better than your freedoms!), but I find the wording curious on the Canadian Charter. Not to say that I think they're planning to revoke anything, but rather - I have to wonder why they <b>didn't</b> put in some wording about it being "inalienable" or "unrevokable" or something. Is unrevokable even a word?
