LAS CADENAS PLANETARIAS

Where municipal legal and governance structures have a fundamental role in the everyday guarantee of human rights and the right to culture in the daily lives of urban citizens, the right to culture is essential to consider at the municipal level. The popularization of the “right to the city” framework has led to its enshrinement within numerous city-based human rights charters, such as the World Charter on the Right to the City, drafted during the 2001 gathering of the World Social Forum, the Mexico City Charter for the Right to the City, the Gwangju Human Rights Charter, the Montreal Charter of Rights and Responsibilities (“Montreal City Charter”), the Global Charter-Agenda for Human Rights in the City, and in the European Charter for the Safeguarding of Human Rights in the City (“European City Charter”).88 The latter is significant as over 400 cities in Europe have become signatories to this document that recognizes culture and cultural rights in the city. Not only does the European City Charter, at Article XV, delineate a right for urban citizens to culture “in all its expressions, forms and manifestations” and

highlight the importance of spaces for cultural activities, but Article XXI goes on to formulate a right to leisure, both in terms of time for leisure activities as well as space for leisure activities.89 Setting the stage for these provisions, the Preamble to the European City Charter also notes that “[c]ity life today also demands that certain rights be more clearly defined” and that, in this context, new issues must be acknowledged, including “the opportunity for social exchange and

88 _{European City Charter, supra note 44.} 89 _Ibid.

34

leisure.”90 _{Drawing on this European City Charter structure, the Montreal City Charter, the first} of its kind in North America, also incorporates a similar right to the city approach.91

Nascent city human rights charters like the European City Charter and the Montreal City Charter, pinpoint the intersection between human rights and local governance structures and provide a mechanism and the groundwork for better addressing culture, as it is understood

internationally and even nationally, at the municipal level.92 _{These city-based charters update and} build on the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in order to better meet the context of increased globalization, urbanization, pluriculturalism, and diversity.93 _{But they have} yet to be widely adopted in North America and are currently mostly in place as useful guides to how life and culture in the city should be treated and managed. As the Montreal City Charter alerts us, it is “not intended to serve as the basis for legal action nor to be used in a judicial or quasi-judicial forum.”94

Certainly city-based human rights charters are a relatively new development that carry future potential, but it remains to be seen if they will continue primarily as guiding documents without the teeth necessary to effect actual change as to how culture is governed in the city context, or if they will be adopted and incorporated in a more meaningful manner. Even where city-based human rights charters do appear, such as in Montreal, the legal frameworks of the governing city in question must more comprehensively incorporate the underlying values of

90 _{Ibid, preamble.}

91 _{Montreal City Charter, supra note 24.}

92 _{See also Kristal Buckley, Steven Cooke & Susan Fayad, “Using the Historic Urban Landscape to Re-Imagine}

Ballarat: The Local Context” in Sophia Labadi & William Logan, eds, Urban Heritage, Development and

Sustainability (London, UK: Routledge, 2016) 93 at 94-85.

93 _{Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA Res 217A (111), UNGAOR, 3rd Sess, Supp No 13, UN Doc A/810}

(1948) 71; International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, GA Res 2200A (XXI), 21 UNGAOR, Supp No 16, UN Doc A/6313 (1966) 49, 993 UNTS 3 (entered into force 3 January 1976). See also Patrick

Champagne, « Les droits de la personne dans la ville et la charte montréalaise des droits et responsabilités : Synthèse », online : Affaires municipales et Occupation du territoire, Quebec

<www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca/pub/observatoire_municipal/veille/charte_montrealaise_droits_responsabilite.pdf>

35

these city charters in order to afford them greater capacity to effect meaningful change.

Nonetheless, as we will continue to explore, city-based human rights charters are but one extra- legal tool amongst other extra-legal and legal tools (some with stronger teeth than others to effect change) within legal frameworks governing cities.95

VI. OTHER LEGAL TOOLS FOR PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO CULTURE AND INTANGIBLE CULTURE IN THE CITY

Even though Canada is a signatory to the 1972 UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage and has numerous World Heritage sites within its borders,96 Canada has yet to ratify the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the

Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (“2003 UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention”) and has not federally implemented any programs or policies explicitly designed to safeguard intangible cultural heritage.97 As such, most federal, provincial, and municipal policies and legislation focus on tangible cultural heritage while intangible cultural heritage remains largely ignored.98 The exceptions to this are Quebec’s Cultural Heritage Act and

Newfoundland’s Provincial Strategic Cultural Plan: “Creative Newfoundland and Labrador: The Blueprint for Investment and Development in Culture”.99 _{Other provinces, such as Ontario (as}

95 _{Ibid, art 32.}

96 _{16 November 1972, 1037 UNTS 151 (entered into force 17 December 1975). See also Richard MacKinnon, “The}

UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage and its Implications for Sustaining Culture in Nova Scotia” in Michelle L Stefano, Peter Davis & Gerard Corsane, Safeguarding Intangible Cultural

Heritage (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2012) 153 at 153.

97 _{Antoine Gauthier, “Intangible Cultural Heritage in Canada: Political Context, Safeguarding Initiatives, and}

International Cooperation” at 4, online: Quebec Council for Intangible Cultural Heritage/Conseil Québécois du Patrimoine Vivant (CQPV) <patrimoinevivant.qc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Intangible-Heritage-in-Canada- ICHCAP-publishing.pdf>; 2003 UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention, supra note 44.

98 _{MacKinnon, supra note 96 at 153.}

99 _{Cultural Heritage Act, CQLR, c P-9.002; Newfoundland & Labrador, Newfoundland & Labrador, Department of}

Tourism, Culture, & Recreation, “Creative Newfoundland and Labrador: The Blueprint for Investment and Development in Culture” (2006) at 34.

36

we will see with the case of the Silver Dollar Room) have sometimes read “intangibility” into their provisions for protecting tangible (built) cultural heritage.100

There are a few reasons for the yet-unratified state of the 2003 UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention in Canada. Concerns include the view that the definition of intangible cultural heritage that appears in the Convention is too vague and that the obligations that the Convention would impose on the State are too onerous to fulfill—such as the creation and maintenance of inventories of Canada’s intangible cultural heritage—due to the multicultural nature of Canada’s population.101 _{In addition, since cultural policy is predominantly a provincial} matter, Antoine Gauthier suggests that another potential reason is that the federal government is waiting to see if provincial interest exists for this somewhat new category of heritage

protection.102