Since at least 1997, we Canadians have enjoyed an "irreducible sphere of personal autonomy" from government under our constitution - section 7 of the Charter that is:

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 justice.

It's there right in a new understanding of the meaning of "liberty."

In 1997, in Godbout, the Supreme decided a municipality couldn't tell a worker where to live. In 2000, in Blencoe, they accepted decisions on how to raise one's children as examples of the sphere of autonomy. In 2001, it was decided that it included the right to choose who to live with in an adult relationship. It was also held that the right of a citizen to live in Canada at all must also be protected on the same basis. In 2002, in Condon it was associated with the right to freely develop one's reason and opinion which includes the development of political belief. In 2003, the BCCA said that the imposition of a psychiatric test to maintain employment was out of line. Licenses to run video lottery terminals and drive cars are not in it.

With all the talk of the return of Hinterland's Whos Who and those slightly poxy heritage minutes, I was thinking that it would be much more useful to have TV spots dedicated to what we don't have to put up with from our governments. The sphere is irreducible and gives us personal autonomy. In that zone

individuals may make inherently private choices free from state interference...

The neat thing I am thinking about these days is if an entity is constitutionally autonomous, I can't figure out how that is not being sovereign in that area of life.

What's in your sphere?

*I've spared you the case cites but they are available.