“2.
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.”

Sounds good?  The problem is that when you express it “positively,” the implication is that these rights are a grant of Parliament, not a fundamental right of the human person, a right granted by God,

And there is a weasel clause just before it, Section 1: “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such
reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a
free and democratic society.”  Carleton University is making the case that suppression of pro-life speech is a “reasonable limit” that “can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

In contrast, America’s Bill of Rights states that “Congress shall make no law …” This is a “negative” expression.  The right of the people to freedom of speech, a right granted by God, is understood.  The Bill of Rights, for the most part, isn’t a bill of rights at all, rather, they are restrictions upon government.  

Which, do you think, protects the rights of the people better?