text:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charte canadienne des droits et libertés), often simply referred to as the Charter in Canada, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada, forming the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all governments in Canada. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The Charter was proclaimed in force by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17, 1982, as part of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Charter was preceded by the Canadian Bill of Rights, enacted in 1960, which was a federal statute rather than a constitutional document. The Bill of Rights exemplified an international trend towards formalizing human rights protections following the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, instigated by the movement for human rights and freedoms that emerged after World War II. As a federal statute, the Bill of Rights could be amended through the ordinary legislative process and had no application to provincial laws. The Supreme Court of Canada also narrowly interpreted the Bill of Rights, showing reluctance to declare laws inoperative. Between 1960 and 1982, only five of the thirty-five cases concerning the Bill of Rights that were heard by the Supreme Court of Canada resulted in a successful outcome for claimants. The relative ineffectiveness of the Canadian Bill of Rights motivated many to improve rights protections in Canada. The British Parliament formally enacted the Charter as a part of the Canada Act 1982 at the request of the Parliament of Canada in 1982, the result of the efforts of the government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.

The Charter greatly expanded the scope of judicial review, because the Charter is more explicit with respect to the guarantee of rights and the role of judges in enforcing them than was the Canadian Bill of Rights. Canadian courts, when confronted with violations of Charter rights, have struck down unconstitutional federal and provincial statutes and regulations or parts of statutes and regulations, as they did when Canadian case law was primarily concerned with resolving issues of federalism. The Charter, however, granted new powers to the courts to enforce remedies that are more creative and to exclude more evidence in trials. These powers are greater than what was typical under the common law and under a system of government that, influenced by Canada's parent country the United Kingdom, was based upon Parliamentary supremacy. As a result, the Charter has attracted both broad support from a majority of the electorate and criticisms by opponents of increased judicial power. The Charter applies only to government laws and actions (including the laws and actions of federal, provincial, and municipal governments and public school boards), and sometimes to the common law, not to private activity.

Features
Under the Charter, people physically present in Canada have numerous civil and political rights. Most of the rights can be exercised by any legal person (the Charter does not define the corporation as a "legal person"), but a few of the rights belong exclusively to natural persons, or (as in sections 3 and 6) only to citizens of Canada. The rights are enforceable by the courts through section 24 of the Charter, which allows courts discretion to award remedies to those whose rights have been denied. This section also allows courts to exclude evidence in trials if the evidence was acquired in a way that conflicts with the Charter and might damage the reputation of the justice system. Section 32 confirms that the Charter is binding on the federal government, the territories under its authority, and the provincial governments.

Exceptions
Section 1 of the Charter, known as the limitations clause, allows governments to justify certain infringements of Charter rights. If a court finds that a Charter right has been infringed, it conducts an analysis under section 1 by applying the Oakes test, a form of proportionality review. Infringements are upheld if the government's objective in infringing the right is "pressing and substantial" in a "free and democratic society", and if the infringement can be "demonstrably justified". The Supreme Court of Canada has applied the Oakes test to uphold laws against hate speech (e.g., in R v Keegstra) and obscenity (e.g., in R v Butler). Section 1 also confirms that the rights listed in the Charter are guaranteed.

In addition, some Charter rights are subject to the notwithstanding clause (section 33). The notwithstanding clause authorizes governments to temporarily override the rights and freedoms in sections 2 and 7 through 15 for up to five years, subject to renewal. The Canadian federal government has never invoked it, and some have speculated that its use would be politically costly. In the past, the notwithstanding clause was invoked routinely by the province of Quebec (which did not support the enactment of the Charter but is subject to it nonetheless). The provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta have also invoked the notwithstanding clause, to end a strike and to protect an exclusively heterosexual definition of marriage, respectively. In 2021, the government of Ontario under Premier Doug Ford invoked the notwithstanding clause in order to push through Bill 307, the Protecting Elections and Defending Democracy Act, doubling the amount of time election advertisements could run to 1 year from 6 months. In 2006, the territory of Yukon also passed legislation that invoked the notwithstanding clause, but the legislation was never proclaimed in force.

Rights and freedoms
The rights and freedoms enshrined in 34 sections of the Charter include:

Fundamental freedoms

 * Section 2: lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" namely freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and of other media of communication, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association. In case law, this clause is cited as the reason for the religious neutrality of the state.

Democratic rights
Generally, the right to participate in political activities and the right to a democratic form of government are protected:
 * Section 3 : the right to vote and to be eligible to serve as member of the House of Commons of Canada and provincial and territorial legislative assemblies.
 * Section 4 : the maximum duration of the House of Commons and legislative assemblies is set at five years.
 * Section 5 : an annual sitting of Parliament and legislatures is required.

Mobility rights

 * Section 6: protects the mobility rights of Canadian citizens which include the right to enter, remain in, and leave Canada. Citizens and permanent residents have the ability to move to and take up residence in any province to pursue gaining livelihood.

Legal rights
Rights of people in dealing with the justice system and law enforcement are protected:

 * Section 7: right to life, liberty, and security of the person.
 * Section 8: freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
 * Section 9: freedom from arbitrary detention or imprisonment.
 * Section 10 :right to legal counsel and the guarantee of habeas corpus.
 * Section 11: rights in criminal and penal matters such as the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
 * Section 12 :right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment.
 * Section 13 :rights against self-incrimination.
 * Section 14 :right to an interpreter in a court proceeding.

Equality rights

 * Section 15 :equal treatment before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination.

Language rights
Generally, people have the right to use either the English or French language in communications with Canada's federal government and certain provincial governments. Specifically, the language laws in the Charter include:

 * Section 16: English and French are the official languages of Canada and New Brunswick.
 * Section 16.1: the English and French-speaking communities of New Brunswick have equal rights to educational and cultural institutions.
 * Section 17: the right to use either official language in Parliament or the New Brunswick legislature.
 * Section 18: the statutes and proceedings of Parliament and the New Brunswick legislature are to be printed in both official languages.
 * Section 19 :both official languages may be used in federal and New Brunswick courts.
 * Section 20 :the right to communicate with and be served by the federal and New Brunswick governments in either official language.
 * Section 21 :other constitutional language rights outside the Charter regarding English and French are sustained.
 * Section 22 :existing rights to use languages besides English and French are not affected by the fact that only English and French have language rights in the Charter. (Hence, if there are any rights to use Aboriginal languages anywhere they would continue to exist, though they would have no direct protection under the Charter.)

Minority language education rights

 * Section 23: rights for certain citizens belonging to French and English speaking minority communities to have their children educated in their own language.

Other sections
The remaining provisions help to clarify how the Charter works in practice.

 * Section 24 :establishes how courts may enforce the Charter.
 * Section 25 :states that the Charter does not derogate existing Aboriginal rights and freedoms. Aboriginal rights, including treaty rights, receive more direct constitutional protection under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
 * Section 26 :clarifies that other rights and freedoms in Canada are not invalidated by the Charter.
 * Section 27 :requires the Charter to be interpreted in a multicultural context.
 * Section 28: states all Charter rights are guaranteed equally to men and women.
 * Section 29: confirms the rights of separate schools are preserved.
 * Section 30: clarifies the applicability of the Charter in the territories.
 * Section 31: confirms that the Charter does not extend the powers of legislatures.
 * Section 34: states that Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, containing the first 34 sections of the Act, may be collectively referred to as the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms".

History
Many of the rights and freedoms that are protected under the Charter, including the rights to freedom of speech, habeas corpus, and the presumption of innocence, have their roots in a set of Canadian laws and legal precedents sometimes known as the Implied Bill of Rights. Many of these rights were also included in the Canadian Bill of Rights, which the Canadian Parliament enacted in 1960. However, the Bill of Rights had a number of shortcomings. Unlike the Charter, it was an ordinary Act of Parliament, applicable only to the federal government, and could be amended by a simple majority of Parliament. Moreover, the courts chose to interpret the Bill of Rights only sparingly, and only on rare occasions applied it to find a contrary law inoperative. Additionally, the Bill of Rights did not contain all of the rights that are now included in the Charter, omitting, for instance, the right to vote and freedom of movement within Canada.

The centennial of Canadian Confederation in 1967 aroused greater interest within the government in constitutional reform. Such reforms would not only improve the safeguarding of rights, but would also amend the Constitution to free Canada from the authority of British Parliament (also known as patriation), ensuring the full sovereignty of Canada. Subsequently, Attorney General Pierre Trudeau appointed law professor Barry Strayer to research a potential bill of rights. While writing his report, Strayer consulted with a number of notable legal scholars, including Walter Tarnopolsky. Strayer's report advocated a number of ideas that would later be evident in the Charter, including the protection of language rights; exclusion of economic rights; and the allowance of limitations on rights, which would be included in the Charter's limitation and notwithstanding clauses. In 1968, Strayer was made the director of the Constitutional Law Division of the Privy Council Office, followed in 1974 by his appointment as assistant deputy Minister of Justice. During these years, Strayer played a role in writing the bill that was ultimately adopted.

Constitution Act, 1982
Meanwhile, Trudeau, who had become Liberal leader and prime minister in 1968, still very much wanted a constitutional bill of rights. The federal and provincial governments discussed creating one during negotiations for patriation, resulting in the Victoria Charter in 1971, which was never implemented. Trudeau continued his efforts, however, promising constitutional change during the 1980 Quebec referendum. He succeeded in 1982 with the passage of the Canada Act 1982 in the British Parliament, which enacted the Constitution Act, 1982 as part of the Constitution of Canada.

The inclusion of a charter of rights in the patriation process was a much-debated issue. Trudeau spoke on television in October 1980, where he announced his intention to constitutionalize a bill of rights that would include: fundamental freedoms, such as the freedom of movement, democratic guarantees, legal rights, language rights and equality rights. However, Trudeau did not want a notwithstanding clause. While his proposal gained popular support, provincial leaders opposed the potential limits on their powers. The federal Progressive Conservative opposition feared liberal bias among judges, should courts be called upon to enforce rights. Additionally, the British Parliament cited their right to uphold Canada's old form of government. At a suggestion of the Conservatives, Trudeau's government thus agreed to a committee of senators and members of Parliament (MPs) to further examine the bill as well as the patriation plan. During this time, 90 hours were spent on the bill of rights alone, all filmed for television, while civil rights experts and advocacy groups put forward their perceptions on the draft charter's flaws and omissions and how to remedy them. As Canada had a parliamentary system of government, and as judges were perceived not to have enforced rights well in the past, it was questioned whether the courts should be named as the enforcers of the Charter, as Trudeau wanted. Conservatives argued that elected politicians should be trusted instead. It was eventually decided that the responsibility should go to the courts. At the urging of civil libertarians, judges could now exclude evidence in trials if acquired in breach of Charter rights in certain circumstances, something the Charter was not originally going to provide for.

As the process continued, more features were added to the Charter, including equality rights for people with disabilities, more sex equality guarantees, and recognition of Canada's multiculturalism. The limitations clause was also reworded to focus less on the importance of parliamentary government and more on the justifiability of limits in free societies; the latter logic was more in line with rights developments around the world after World War II.

In its decision in the Patriation Reference (1981), the Supreme Court ruled there was a constitutional convention that some provincial approval should be sought for constitutional reform. As the provinces still had doubts about the Charter's merits, Trudeau was forced to accept the notwithstanding clause to allow governments to opt out of certain obligations. The notwithstanding clause was accepted as part of a deal called the Kitchen Accord, negotiated by the federal attorney general Jean Chrétien, Ontario's justice minister Roy McMurtry, and Saskatchewan's justice minister Roy Romanow. Pressure from provincial governments (which in Canada have jurisdiction over property) and from the New Democratic Party, also prevented Trudeau from including any rights protecting private property.

Quebec
Quebec did not support the Charter (or the Canada Act 1982), with conflicting interpretations as to why. The opposition could have owed to the Parti Québécois (PQ) leadership being allegedly uncooperative because it was more committed to gaining sovereignty for Quebec. This could have owed to the exclusion of Quebec leaders from the negotiation of the Kitchen Accord, which they saw as being too centralist. It could have also owed to objections by provincial leaders to the accord's provisions relating to the process of future constitutional amendment. The PQ leaders also opposed the inclusion of mobility rights and minority language education rights. The Charter is applicable in Quebec because all provinces are bound by the constitution. However, Quebec's opposition to the 1982 patriation package led to two failed attempts to amend the constitution (the Meech Lake Accord and Charlottetown Accord) which were designed primarily to obtain Quebec's political approval of the Canadian constitutional order.

Following 1982
While the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted in 1982, it was not until 1985 that the main provisions regarding equality rights (section 15) came into effect. The delay was meant to give the federal and provincial governments an opportunity to review pre-existing statutes and strike potentially unconstitutional inequalities.

Amendments
The Charter has been amended since its enactment. Section 25 was amended in 1983 to explicitly recognize more rights regarding Aboriginal land claims, while section 16.1 was added in 1993. There have also been a number of unsuccessful attempts to amend the Charter, including the failed Charlottetown Accord of 1992. The Charlottetown Accord would have specifically required the Charter to be interpreted in a manner respectful of Quebec's distinct society, and would have added further statements to the Constitution Act, 1867 regarding racial and sexual equality and collective rights, and about minority language communities. Though the Accord was negotiated among many interest groups, the resulting provisions were so vague that Trudeau, then out of office, feared they would actually conflict with and undermine the Charter's individual rights. He felt judicial review of the rights might be undermined if courts had to favour the policies of provincial governments, as governments would be given responsibility over linguistic minorities. Trudeau thus played a prominent role in leading the popular opposition to the Accord.

Interpretation and enforcement
The task of interpreting and enforcing the Charter falls to the courts, with the Supreme Court of Canada being the ultimate authority on the matter. Litigation involving the charter may be referred to as a Charter challenge.

With the Charter's supremacy confirmed by section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the courts continued their practice of striking down unconstitutional statutes or parts of statutes as they had with earlier case law regarding federalism. However, under section 24 of the Charter, courts also gained new powers to enforce creative remedies and exclude more evidence in trials. Courts have since made many important decisions, including R v Morgentaler (1988), which struck down Canada's abortion law, and Vriend v Alberta (1998), in which the Supreme Court found the province's exclusion of sexual orientation as a prohibited grounds of discrimination violated the equality rights under section 15. In the latter case, the Court then read the protection into the law.

Courts may receive Charter questions in a number of ways. Rights claimants could be prosecuted under a criminal law that they argue is unconstitutional. Others may feel government services and policies are not being dispensed in accordance with the Charter, and apply to lower-level courts for injunctions against the government. A government may also raise questions of rights by submitting reference questions to higher-level courts; for example, Prime Minister Paul Martin's government approached the Supreme Court with Charter questions as well as federalism concerns in the case Re Same-Sex Marriage (2004). Provinces may also do this with their superior courts. The government of Prince Edward Island initiated the Provincial Judges Reference by asking its provincial Supreme Court a question on judicial independence under section 11.

In several important cases, judges developed various tests and precedents for interpreting specific provisions of the Charter, including the Oakes test (section 1), set out in the case R v Oakes (1986); and the Law test (section 15), developed in Law v Canada (1999) which has since become defunct. Since Reference Re BC Motor Vehicle Act (1985), various approaches to defining and expanding the scope of fundamental justice (i.e., natural justice or due process) under section 7 have been adopted.

Purposive and generous interpretation
In general, courts have embraced a purposive interpretation of Charter rights. This means that since early cases, such as Hunter v Southam Inc (1984) and R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd (1985), they have concentrated less on the traditional, limited understanding of what each right meant when the Charter was adopted in 1982. Rather, focus has been given towards changing the scope of rights as appropriate to fit their broader purpose. This is tied to the "generous interpretation" of rights, as the purpose of the Charter provisions is assumed to be to increase rights and freedoms of people in a variety of circumstances, at the expense of the government powers.

Constitutional scholar Peter Hogg (2003) has approved of the generous approach in some cases, although for others he argues the purpose of the provisions was not to achieve a set of rights as broad as courts have imagined. The approach has not been without its critics. Alberta politician Ted Morton and political scientist Rainer Knopff have been very critical of this phenomenon. Although they believe in the validity of the living tree doctrine, which is the basis for the approach (and the tradition term for generous interpretations of the Canadian Constitution), they argue Charter case law has been more radical. When the living tree doctrine is applied correctly, Morton and Knopff (2000) claim, "the elm remained an elm; it grew new branches but did not transform itself into an oak or a willow." The doctrine can be used, for example, so a right is upheld even when a government threatens to violate it with new technology, as long as the essential right remains the same, but the authors claim that the courts have used the doctrine to "create new rights". As an example, the authors note that the Charter right against self-incrimination has been extended to cover scenarios in the justice system that had previously been unregulated by self-incrimination rights in other Canadian laws.

Other interpretations
Another general approach to interpreting Charter rights is to consider international legal precedents with countries that have specific rights protections, such as the U.S. Bill of Rights (which had influenced aspects of the Charter) and the Constitution of South Africa. However, international precedent is only of guiding value and is not binding. For example, the Supreme Court has referred to the Charter and the U.S. Bill of Rights as being "born to different countries in different ages and in different circumstances".

Advocacy groups frequently intervene in cases to make arguments on how to interpret the Charter. Some examples are the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Canadian Mental Health Association, Canadian Labour Congress, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), and REAL Women of Canada. The purpose of such interventions is to assist the court and to attempt to influence the court to render a decision favourable to the legal interests of the group.

A further approach to the Charter, taken by the courts, is the dialogue principle, which involves greater participation by elected governments. This approach involves governments drafting legislation in response to court rulings and courts acknowledging the effort if the new legislation is challenged.

Comparisons with other human rights documents
Some Canadian members of Parliament saw the movement to entrench a charter as contrary to the British model of Parliamentary supremacy. Hogg (2003) has speculated that the reason for the British adoption of the Human Rights Act 1998, which allows the European Convention on Human Rights to be enforced directly in domestic courts, is partly because they were inspired by the similar Canadian Charter.

The Canadian Charter bears a number of similarities to the European Convention, specifically in relation to the limitations clauses contained in the European document. Because of this similarity with European human rights law, the Supreme Court turns not only to the United States Constitution case law in interpreting the Charter, but also to European Court of Human Rights cases.

Canadian Charter vs. U.S. Bill of Rights
The core distinction between the U.S. Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter is the existence of the limitations and notwithstanding clauses. Canadian courts have consequently interpreted each right more expansively. However, due to the limitations clause, where a violation of a right exists, the law will not necessarily grant protection of that right. In contrast, rights under the U.S. Bill are absolute, thus a violation will not be found until there has been sufficient encroachment on those rights. The sum effect is that both constitutions provide comparable protection of many rights. Canada's fundamental justice (section 7) is therefore interpreted to include more legal protections than due process, which is the U.S. equivalent.

Freedom of expression (section 2) also has a wider-ranging scope than the freedom of speech guaranteed under the U.S. First Amendment (1A). For instance, a form of picketing, though involving speech that might have otherwise been protected, was deemed as disruptive conduct and not protected by the U.S. 1A, but was considered by the Supreme Court in RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd. (1986). The Supreme Court would rule the picketing, including the disruptive conduct, as fully protected under section 2 of the Charter, after which section 1 would be used to argue the injunction against the picketing as just.

The limitations clause has also allowed governments to enact laws that would be considered unconstitutional in the U.S. For example, the Supreme Court has upheld some of Quebec's limits on the use of English on signs and has upheld publication bans that prohibit media from mentioning the names of juvenile criminals.

The un-ratified Equal Rights Amendment in the U.S., which garnered many critics when proposed, performs a similar function to that of the Charter section 28, which received no comparable opposition. Still, Canadian feminists had to stage large protests to demonstrate support for the inclusion of section 28, which had not been part of the original draft of the Charter.

Another difference from the U.S. Bill of Rights is that the Charter does not provide any right to possess firearms. In 2000, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously rejected a constitutional challenge to the federal Firearms Act, ruling that it was within the federal criminal law power.

Comparisons to other documents
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has several parallels with the Canadian Charter, but in some cases the Covenant goes further with regard to rights in its text. For example, a right to legal aid has been read into section 10 of the Charter (right to counsel), but the Covenant explicitly guarantees the accused need not pay "if he does not have sufficient means".

Canada's Charter has little to say, explicitly at least, about economic and social rights. On this point, it stands in marked contrast with the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. There are some who feel economic rights ought to be read into the rights to security of the person (section 7) and equality rights (section 15) to make the Charter similar to the Covenant. The rationale is that economic rights can relate to a decent standard of living and can help the civil rights flourish in a livable environment. Canadian courts, however, have been hesitant in this area, stating that economic rights are political questions and adding that as positive rights, economic rights are of questionable legitimacy.

The Charter itself influenced the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of South Africa. The limitations clause under section 36 of the South African law has been compared to section 1 of the Charter. Likewise, Jamaica's Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms was also influenced, in part, by Canada's Charter.

The Charter and national values
The Charter was intended to be a source of Canadian values and national unity. As Professor Alan Cairns noted, "the initial federal government premise was on developing a pan-Canadian identity". Pierre Trudeau himself later wrote in his Memoirs (1993) that "Canada itself" could now be defined as a "society where all people are equal and where they share some fundamental values based upon freedom", and that all Canadians could identify with the values of liberty and equality.

The Charter's unifying purpose was particularly important to the mobility and language rights. According to author Rand Dyck (2000), some scholars believe section 23, with its minority language education rights, "was the only part of the Charter with which Pierre Trudeau was truly concerned". Through the mobility and language rights, French Canadians, who have been at the centre of unity debates, are able to travel throughout all Canada and receive government and educational services in their own language. Hence, they are not confined to Quebec (the only province where they form the majority and where most of their population is based), which would polarize the country along regional lines. The Charter was also supposed to standardize previously diverse laws throughout the country and gear them towards a single principle of liberty.

Former premier of Ontario Bob Rae has stated that the Charter "functions as a symbol for all Canadians" in practice because it represents the core value of freedom. Academic Peter Russell has been more skeptical of the Charter's value in this field. Cairns, who feels the Charter is the most important constitutional document to many Canadians, and that the Charter was meant to shape the Canadian identity, has also expressed concern that groups within society see certain provisions as belonging to them alone rather than to all Canadians. It has also been noted that issues like abortion and pornography, raised by the Charter, tend to be controversial. Still, opinion polls in 2002 showed Canadians felt the Charter significantly represented Canada, although many were unaware of the document's actual contents.

The only values mentioned by the Charter's preamble are recognition of the supremacy of God and the rule of law, but these have been controversial and of minor legal consequence. In 1999, MP Svend Robinson brought forward a failed proposal before the House of Commons of Canada that would have amended the Charter by removing the mention of God, as he felt it did not reflect Canada's diversity.

Section 27 also recognizes a value of multiculturalism. In 2002, polls found 86% of Canadians approved of this section.

Criticism
While the Charter has enjoyed a great deal of popularity, with 82 percent of Canadians describing it as a good thing in opinion polls in 1987 and 1999, the document has also been subject to published criticisms from both sides of the political spectrum. According to columnist David Akin (2017), while most Liberals support the Charter, most Conservatives, most New Democrats, most Indigenous people, and Québécois see the Charter as "problematic" and "something to be challenged in order to be Canadian".

One left-wing critic is professor Michael Mandel (1989), who wrote that, in comparison to politicians, judges do not have to be as sensitive to the will of the electorate, nor do they have to make sure their decisions are easily understandable to the average Canadian citizen. This, in Mandel's view, limits democracy. Mandel has also asserted that the Charter makes Canada more like the United States, especially by serving corporate rights and individual rights rather than group rights and social rights. He has argued that there are several things that should be included in the Charter, such as a right to health care and a basic right to free education. Hence, the perceived Americanization of Canadian politics is seen as coming at the expense of values more important for Canadians. The labour movement has been disappointed in the reluctance of the courts to use the Charter to support various forms of union activity, such as the "right to strike".

Conservative critics Morton and Knopff (2000) have raised several concerns about the Charter, notably by alleging that the federal government has used it to limit provincial powers by allying with various rights claimants and interest groups. In their book The Charter Revolution & the Court Party (2000), Morton and Knopff express their suspicions of this alliance in detail, accusing the Pierre Trudeau and Chrétien governments of funding litigious groups. For example, these governments used the Court Challenges Program to support minority language educational rights claims. Morton and Knopff also assert that crown counsel has intentionally lost cases in which the government was taken to court for allegedly violating rights, particularly gay rights and women's rights.

Political scientist Rand Dyck (2000), in observing these criticisms, notes that while judges have had their scope of review widened, they have still upheld most laws challenged on Charter grounds. With regard to litigious interest groups, Dyck points out that "the record is not as clear as Morton and Knopff imply. All such groups have experienced wins and losses."

Political philosopher Charles Blattberg (2003) has criticized the Charter for contributing to the fragmentation of the country, at both the individual and group levels. In encouraging discourse based upon rights, Blattberg claims the Charter injects an adversarial spirit into Canadian politics, making it difficult to realize the common good. Blattberg also claims that the Charter undercuts the Canadian political community since it is ultimately a cosmopolitan document. Finally, he argues that people would be more motivated to uphold individual liberties if they were expressed with terms that are much "thicker" (less abstract) than rights.

title: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms


text:
Jeffersonville, Ohio

Jeffersonville is a village in Fayette County, Ohio, United States. The population was 1,258 at the 2020 census.

History
Jeffersonville was laid out in 1831. The village derives its name from Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States. A post office has been in operation at Jeffersonville since 1834.

Geography
According to the United States Census Bureau, the village has a total area of 1.74 sqmi, of which 1.70 sqmi is land and 0.04 sqmi is water.

2010 census
As of the census of 2010, there were 1,203 people, 502 households, and 322 families living in the village. The population density was 707.6 PD/sqmi. There were 574 housing units at an average density of 337.6 /sqmi. The racial makeup of the village was 92.3% White, 4.2% African American, 0.2% Native American, 0.2% Asian, 0.3% from other races, and 2.8% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 1.9% of the population.

There were 502 households, of which 38.0% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 35.9% were married couples living together, 22.3% had a female householder with no husband present, 6.0% had a male householder with no wife present, and 35.9% were non-families. 28.1% of all households were made up of individuals, and 9% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.40 and the average family size was 2.89.

The median age in the village was 33.9 years. 27.8% of residents were under the age of 18; 11.6% were between the ages of 18 and 24; 24% were from 25 to 44; 24.2% were from 45 to 64; and 12.2% were 65 years of age or older. The gender makeup of the village was 48.7% male and 51.3% female.

2000 census
As of the census of 2000, there were 1,288 people, 518 households, and 361 families living in the village. The population density was 756.3 PD/sqmi. There were 586 housing units at an average density of 344.1 /sqmi. The racial makeup of the village was 89.91% White, 6.68% African American, and 3.42% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 0.39% of the population.

There were 518 households, out of which 34.7% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 41.3% were married couples living together, 22.0% had a female householder with no husband present, and 30.3% were non-families. 24.5% of all households were made up of individuals, and 12.2% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.49 and the average family size was 2.88.

In the village, the population was spread out, with 28.1% under the age of 18, 9.6% from 18 to 24, 27.8% from 25 to 44, 22.7% from 45 to 64, and 11.8% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 34 years. For every 100 females there were 92.5 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 84.1 males.

The median income for a household in the village was $31,452, and the median income for a family was $35,313. Males had a median income of $30,750 versus $21,958 for females. The per capita income for the village was $14,755. About 17.0% of families and 17.1% of the population were below the poverty line, including 24.2% of those under age 18 and 11.5% of those age 65 or over.

Notable people

 * Grayson L. Kirk, president of Columbia University, advisor to the State Department, and instrumental in the formation of the United Nations

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Jeffersonville, Ohio


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Clans of Scotland

Hello, and welcome to the WikiProject Clans of Scotland. This WikiProject aims primarily to organise and developed a series of articles about the clans of Scotland. This includes each clan's individual characteristics such as their songs, tartans, mottos, arms, chiefs, battles etc.

The guidance below, written by us for us, are only suggestions, things to give you focus and to get you going, and you shouldn't feel obligated in the least to follow them. But if you don't know what to write or where to begin, following the below guidance may be helpful. Mainly, we just want you to write articles!

Featured articles
None (You can help)

Good articles

 * Symbol support vote.svg Clan MacAulay
 * Symbol support vote.svg Clan Macfie
 * Symbol support vote.svg Clan MacIntyre
 * Symbol support vote.svg Clan Maclachlan
 * Symbol support vote.svg Fairy Flag
 * Symbol support vote.svg Leod
 * Symbol support vote.svg Scottish crest badge

You can help by:
 * writing and improving articles
 * assessing articles for quality and assessment standards – see the assessment page
 * assessing and recommending resources (online and print) – see the resources page
 * contributing to the Scotland portal – see the Scotland portal
 * communicating with project members – at the project talk page
 * improving articles in need of improvement (see Clan Stubs or Clan Start Class Articles)
 * creating missing images of crest badges and coats of arms
 * inviting potential members
 * identifying relevant articles and add WikiProject Clans of Scotland to their talk page.
 * identifying articles needing creation
 * identifying articles needing improvement
 * undertaking project maintenance – help adding project templates to article and category talk pages – see templates page

 * Main tool page: toolserver.org

 * Reflinks - Edits bare references - adds title/dates etc. to bare references
 * Checklinks - Edit and repair external links
 * Dab solver - Quickly resolve ambiguous links.
 * Peer reviewer - Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles.

title: Wikipedia:WikiProject Clans of Scotland


text:
Brian Epstein

Brian Samuel Epstein ( 19 September 1934 – 27 August 1967) was an English music entrepreneur who managed the Beatles from 1961 until his death in 1967. Epstein was born into a family of successful retailers in Liverpool, who put him in charge of their music shop, where he displayed a gift for talent-spotting. He first met the Beatles in 1961 at a lunchtime concert at Liverpool's Cavern Club. Although he had no experience of artist management, Epstein put them under contract and insisted that they abandon their scruffy image in favour of a new clean-cut style. He also attempted to get the Beatles a recording contract, eventually securing a deal with EMI's Parlophone label.

Within months, the Beatles were international stars. Some of Epstein's other young discoveries had also prospered under his management. They included Gerry and the Pacemakers, Billy J. Kramer and the Dakotas, Tommy Quickly, Cilla Black and The Big Three. In 1967, he died of a combined alcohol and barbiturate overdose, ruled as accidental, at the age of 32.

Ancestry
Epstein's grandfather, Isaac Epstein, was Lithuanian-Jewish. He arrived in Britain in the 1890s at the age of eighteen, from what was then part of the Russian Empire. His grandmother, Dinah, was the daughter of Joseph, a draper, and Esther Hyman, who had emigrated from Russia to Britain circa 1871/72 with their eldest son, Jacob. The Hymans had six other children.

Isaac Epstein married Dinah Hyman in Manchester in 1900. In 1901, Isaac and Dinah were living at 80 Walton Road, Liverpool, with Isaac's sister Rachael Epstein, above the furniture dealership that he founded. Dinah and Isaac's third child, Harry Epstein, would become Brian Epstein's father.

Eventually the family moved to a larger home in the Anfield area of Liverpool, at 27 Anfield Road. After Harry and his brother Leslie had joined the family firm, Isaac Epstein founded Epstein and Sons. He enlarged the furniture business by taking over adjacent shops at 62/72 Walton Road to sell a range of other goods, such as musical instruments and household appliances. They called the expanding business NEMS (North End Music Stores), which offered lenient credit terms. Paul McCartney's father once bought a piano from them. Epstein's mother Malka (nicknamed "Queenie" by her family, as Malka means "queen" in Hebrew) was also involved in the Hyman furniture business, which also owned the Sheffield Veneering Company. Harry and Queenie married in 1933.

Early life
Brian Epstein was born on 19 September 1934 at 4 Rodney Street, Liverpool. Harry and Queenie also had another son named Clive, who was born 22 months after his older brother. During World War II the Epsteins moved to Southport, where two schools expelled Epstein for laziness and poor performance, but returned to Liverpool in 1945. The Epsteins lived at 197 Queens Drive, Childwall in Liverpool, and remained there for the next 30 years. The family was aided by a live-in nanny.

Epstein's parents moved him from one boarding school to another, including Clayesmore School in Dorset, Liverpool College, and a Jewish school in Kent. He spent two years at Wrekin College in Wellington, Shropshire, where he was taught the violin. At Wrekin, Epstein suffered from the strict culture, possibly in part as a result of his suppressed homosexuality. Epstein fell in love with the arts, particularly theatre, and it was his one consistently successful school subject. His favourite book as a child was Pamela Brown's The Swish of the Curtain. Shortly before his 16th birthday he sent a long letter to his father stating that he wanted to become a dress designer, but Harry Epstein was adamantly opposed, and after serving a six months' apprenticeship at another company his son finally had to "report for duty" at the family's furniture shop on a £5 per week wage.

In December 1952, Epstein was conscripted to do his national service as a data entry clerk into the Royal Army Service Corps, and was posted to the Albany Street Barracks near Regent's Park in London in spring 1953, where he was often reprimanded for not collecting his army pay. Epstein used this posting to explore London's high culture for the first time and also visited local relatives. By January 1954, Epstein had seen numerous Army psychiatrists, who recommended an early medical discharge.

After returning to Liverpool, he was put in charge of the Clarendon Furnishing shop in Hoylake and in 1955 was made a director of NEMS. In September 1956, he took a trip to London to meet a friend but after being there for only one day, was robbed of his passport, birth certificate, chequebook, wristwatch, and all the money he had in his possession. He did not want his parents to find out, so he worked as a department store clerk until he had earned enough money to buy a train ticket back to Liverpool. On returning home he confessed his homosexuality to a psychiatrist—a friend of the Epstein family—who suggested to Harry Epstein that his son should leave Liverpool as soon as possible. During the sessions, Epstein revealed his ambition of becoming an actor, so his parents allowed him to go to London to study.

In autumn 1956, Epstein enrolled in a two-year course at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art (RADA) in London. His RADA classmates included actors Susannah York, Albert Finney, and Peter O'Toole, but Epstein dropped out after the third term, saying that he had become "too much of a businessman to enjoy being a student, and I didn't like being a student at all." He said in 1964 that he "felt like an old man at the age of 21". He also revealed that he would have liked to produce a theatre play, or even act, "in something by Chekhov", or a "straight drama" by John Osborne.

In late April 1957, while a RADA student, Epstein was arrested for soliciting an undercover police officer for sex near the Swiss Cottage tube station. (Homosexual sex for men was illegal in Britain at this time.) He appeared in a Marylebone courthouse the next day and pleaded not guilty. He was sentenced to two years' probation. While still serving probation in May 1958, he was assaulted by a casual sex partner in Liverpool and extorted for hush money. Epstein reported the encounter to the police, forcing him to testify in court and reveal his sexual orientation to his family. The court barred the press from revealing Epstein's identity during the trial. His assailant was sentenced to serve 2 years in jail, and Epstein was not charged.

After his withdrawal from RADA, Epstein returned to Liverpool, where his father put his son in charge of the record department of the family's newly opened NEMS music store on Great Charlotte Street. Epstein worked "day and night" at the store to make it a success, and it became one of the biggest musical retail outlets in Northern England. The Epsteins opened a second store at 12–14 Whitechapel, and Epstein was put in charge of the entire operation. He often walked across the road to the Lewis's department store (which also had a music section) where Peter Brown was employed. He watched Brown's sales technique and was impressed enough to lure him to work for NEMS with the offer of a higher salary and a commission on sales. Through his tireless work in the record department at NEMS, Epstein gained considerable knowledge of the pop music business.

The Beatles
Epstein first noticed the Beatles in issues of Mersey Beat and on numerous posters around Liverpool created by his commercial artist associate Tony Booth, before he asked Mersey Beat editor Bill Harry who they were. Harry had previously convinced Epstein to sell the magazine at NEMS, with the Beatles featured on the front page of its second issue. The Beatles had recorded the "My Bonnie" single with Tony Sheridan in Germany, and some months after its release Epstein asked his personal assistant Alistair Taylor about it in NEMS. Epstein's version of the story was that customer Raymond Jones walked into the NEMS shop and asked him for the "My Bonnie" single, which made Epstein curious about the group. Taylor later claimed that he had used the name of Jones (a regular customer) to order the single and paid the deposit, knowing that Epstein would notice it and order further copies. Harry and McCartney later repudiated Epstein's story, as Harry had been talking to Epstein for a long time about the Beatles—the group that he promoted the most in Mersey Beat—with McCartney saying, "Brian knew perfectly well who the Beatles were; they were on the front page of the second issue of Mersey Beat". On 3 August 1961, Epstein started a regular music column in the Mersey Beat called "Stop the World—And Listen To Everything in It: Brian Epstein of NEMS".

The Beatles were due to perform a lunchtime concert at The Cavern Club on 9 November 1961. According to club owner Sytner, Epstein had visited the club quite a few times previously on Saturday nights, once asking Sytner to book a group for his twenty-first birthday party. Epstein asked Harry to arrange for Epstein and his assistant Taylor to watch the Beatles perform. The club allowed Epstein and Taylor to enter without queuing. They bypassed the line of fans at the door and heard Bob Wooler, the resident disc jockey, announce a welcome message over the club's public address system: "We have someone rather famous in the audience today. Mr Brian Epstein, the owner of NEMS ..." Epstein later talked about the performance: "I was immediately struck by their music, their beat and their sense of humour on stage—and, even afterwards, when I met them, I was struck again by their personal charm. And it was there that, really, it all started".

After the performance, Epstein and Taylor went into the dressing room (which he later described as being "as big as a broom cupboard") to talk to the group. The Beatles, all regular NEMS customers, immediately recognised Epstein, but before he could congratulate them on their performance George Harrison said, "And what brings Mr Epstein here?" Epstein replied with, "We just popped in to say hello. I enjoyed your performance." He introduced Taylor, who merely nodded a greeting, said, "Well done, then, goodbye" and left. Epstein and Taylor went to Peacock's restaurant in Hackins Hey for lunch, and during the meal Epstein asked Taylor what he thought about the group. Taylor replied that he honestly thought they were "absolutely awful", but there was something "remarkable" about them. Epstein sat there smiling for a long time before exclaiming, "I think they're tremendous!" Later, when Epstein was paying the bill, he grabbed Taylor's arm and said, "Do you think I should manage them?"

The Beatles played at The Cavern Club over the next three weeks, and Epstein was always there to watch them. He contacted Allan Williams (their previous promoter/manager) to confirm that Williams no longer had any ties to the group, but Williams advised Epstein "not to touch them with a fucking barge pole" because of a Hamburg concert percentage that the group had refused to pay.

Management contract
In an afternoon meeting with the group at NEMS on 3 December 1961, Epstein proposed the idea of managing the Beatles. John Lennon, George Harrison, and Pete Best arrived late for the meeting, as they had been drinking at The Grapes pub in Mathew Street. McCartney also did not arrive on time because he had just got up and was "taking a bath", as Harrison explained. Epstein was upset, but Harrison placated him by saying, "He may be late, but he'll be very clean." Lennon had invited Wooler to be at the meeting so that he could give his opinion of Epstein, but he introduced Wooler by saying, "This is me dad." Epstein was reticent throughout the short meeting, only asking if they had a manager. After learning that they had not, he said, "It seems to me that with everything going on, someone ought to be looking after you." He had further meetings with the group on 6 and 10 December 1961.

McCartney, Harrison, and Best were under 21 and therefore needed the consent of their parents to enter into a contract. Best and his mother—Mona Best, owner of the Casbah Coffee Club—were impressed with Epstein's professional image as were the other Beatles, because he was a businessman, wore expensive suits, and owned a large car. Best's mother said that Epstein "could be good for them [the Beatles]". McCartney's father was sceptical about a Jewish manager and warned his son to be careful about finances. Lennon's aunt and guardian, Mimi Smith, was against the idea, believing that Epstein would lose interest when something attracted his attention, but Lennon, who had just turned 21, ignored his aunt's advice.

The Beatles signed a five-year contract with Epstein on 24 January 1962, giving Epstein 10 to 15 per cent of their income. They signed a new contract in October 1962 which gave Epstein 15, 20, or 25 per cent of revenues, depending on how much he helped the band earn. The Beatles would then share any income after various expenses had been deducted. Epstein then formed a management company, NEMS Enterprises, telling his parents that managing the group was only a part-time occupation and would not interfere with the family business.

The Beatles signed Epstein's first management contract, but Epstein did not. He later told Taylor, "Well, if they ever want to tear it up, they can hold me but I can't hold them". (English law would have enforced the contract through the doctrine of part performance.) The contract stated that Epstein would receive a management commission of 25 per cent of the group's gross income after a certain financial threshold had been reached. The Beatles argued for a smaller percentage, but Epstein pointed out that he had been paying their expenses for months without receiving anything in return. On 1 October 1962, four days before the release of "Love Me Do", Epstein signed Lennon and McCartney to a three-year NEMS publishing contract.

In 1963, Epstein advised the creation of Northern Songs, a publishing company that would control the copyrights of all Lennon–McCartney compositions recorded between 1963 and 1973. Music publisher Dick James and his partner Charles Silver owned 51 per cent of the company, Lennon and McCartney 20 per cent each, and Epstein 9 per cent. By 1969, Lennon and McCartney had lost control of all publishing rights to ATV Music Publishing. Epstein's death in 1967 marked the beginning of the group's dissolution and had a profound effect on each Beatle.

The Beatles' appearance on stage
Epstein had no prior experience of artist management, yet he had a strong influence on the band's early dress code and stage demeanour. They had previously worn blue jeans and leather jackets, and they would stop and start songs when they felt like it or when an audience member requested a certain song. David Pomerran Szatmary states that when Epstein first saw them at the Cavern Club he thought, "They were a scruffy crowd in leather, and they were not very tidy and not very clean. They smoked as they played and they ate and talked and pretended to hit each other." Epstein encouraged them to wear suits and ties, insisted that they stop swearing, smoking, drinking, or eating on stage, and also suggested the famous synchronised bow at the end of their performances. McCartney was the first to agree with Epstein's suggestions, believing that they reflected Epstein's RADA training. Epstein explained that the process from leather jackets and jeans to suits took some time: "I encouraged them, at first, to get out of the leather jackets and jeans, and I wouldn't allow them to appear in jeans after a short time, and then, after that step, I got them to wear sweaters on stage, and then, very reluctantly, eventually, suits." Epstein took the group to Wirral to see his friend, master tailor Beno Dorn, who made them their first suits based on a design they had previously seen, which Epstein approved: "I thought it was an excellent design at the time."

Lennon resisted wearing suits and ties, but later said, "I'll wear a suit; I'll wear a bloody balloon if somebody's going to pay me." Epstein began seeking publicity by "charming and smarming ... the newspaper people", as Lennon said in 1972. According to McCartney, "The gigs went up in stature and though the pay went up only a little bit, it did go up"; they were "now playing better places". The group was now far more organised, having one single diary in which to record bookings, rather than using whoever's diary was at hand. The group usually called Epstein "Mr. Epstein" or "Brian" in interviews, but in private the group abbreviated his name to "Eppy" or "Bri".

Record contract
Starting shortly after he met the Beatles, Epstein made numerous trips to London to visit record companies in the hope of securing a record contract, but many rejected him, including Columbia, Pye, Philips, Oriole, and most notoriously Decca. On 13 December 1961, at Epstein's invitation, Mike Smith of Decca travelled from London to Liverpool to watch the group at the Cavern, which led to an audition in London on 1 January 1962 (see The Beatles' Decca audition). Decca informed Epstein one month later that the audition tapes had been rejected. The Beatles later found out that Epstein had paid Decca producer Tony Meehan (ex-drummer of the Shadows) to produce the studio recordings. While Epstein was negotiating with Decca he also approached Ron White, an EMI marketing executive with whom he had a business relationship. White told Epstein he would play the Beatles' recording of "My Bonnie" the band made in Germany with Tony Sheridan for EMI's four A&R directors. However, White only played it for two of them—Wally Ridley and Norman Newell.

In early February 1962, Epstein visited the HMV store (owned by EMI) in 363 Oxford Street, London to have the Decca tape transferred to 78 rpm acetates. An HMV disc-cutter named Jim Foy liked the recordings, suggesting that Epstein should contact Sid Colman, the head of EMI's record publishing division, which controlled the publishing company Ardmore & Beechwood. Colman and his colleague Kim Bennett liked the Beatles' recording of "Like Dreamers Do" and sought to have EMI record Lennon–McCartney original songs, with Ardmore & Beechwood retaining the publishing rights; they sent Epstein to George Martin, the A&R manager of EMI's Parlophone label. Epstein met Martin on 13 February, where he played the acetates of the Decca audition. Epstein left the meeting optimistic, but Martin "wasn't knocked out at all" by the "lousy tape".

Martin later claimed that Epstein's conviction that the Beatles would become internationally famous finally convinced him to offer a recording contract. In fact, however, EMI managing director L. G. ("Len") Wood instructed Martin to sign the Beatles in May 1962, largely to appease the continued interest of Ardmore & Beechwood in Lennon–McCartney song publishing. Martin met with Epstein again on 9 May and offered him a standard EMI recording contract for the Beatles to record six "sides" (equivalent to three two-sided single releases) in their first year. Upon signing the contract, Epstein immediately sent a telegram to the Beatles (who were in Hamburg) and to the Mersey Beat music journal in Liverpool.

The recording contract gave the Beatles one penny (1d) for each record sold, which was split among the four members, meaning that each earned one farthing per copy. The royalty rate was further reduced for singles sold outside the UK; the group received half of one penny per single, which was again split amongst the whole group. Martin scheduled the first recording session to be on 6 June 1962 at Abbey Road Studios. Epstein later renegotiated EMI's royalty rate and, on 27 January 1967 the Beatles signed a new nine-year contract with EMI. The contract stipulated that 25 per cent would be paid to NEMS for the full nine years even if the Beatles decided not to renew their management contract with Epstein, which was up for renewal later that year.

Dismissal of Pete Best
By early 1962, the Beatles had played several gigs with Ringo Starr on occasions when Pete Best was ill, and they had performed at a recording session with Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison in Hamburg. The Beatles enjoyed Ringo's drumming style and social demeanor with the band, whereas Best rarely socialized with the other band members after gigs. Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison had also long believed Best to be a stylistically limited drummer. McCartney later remarked, "It had got to the stage that Pete was holding us back. What were we gonna do—pretend he was a wonderful drummer?"

After the group's first recording session on 6 June 1962, George Martin felt that using an experienced studio session drummer rather than Best would improve the recording (this was in accordance with normal practice at the time). Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison decided Best needed to be replaced and, uncomfortable with sacking him themselves, asked Epstein to sack Best so that Starr could join the band. Epstein was aware the Beatles had discussed replacing Pete but hoped it would not happen, as he was not yet fond of Starr. Epstein agonised about the decision, asking the Cavern's disc jockey Bob Wooler if it were a good idea. Wooler replied that Best was "very popular with the fans," who would not like it at all. Despite his reservations, Epstein accepted the Beatles' decision: "They liked Ringo, and I trusted the boys' judgment. If they were happy, so was I."

Epstein's task of sacking Best was complicated by the fact that he was under contract to provide management to all four members of the Beatles. Epstein thus had to secure paid work for Best if he was to leave the group. Epstein consulted a lawyer, who informed him that the Beatles could not simply expel Best under the terms of their contract; they could only legally disband and then re-form with Starr. Epstein planned to have Best become the drummer for the Merseybeats as an alternative that would satisfy his commitment to provide Best work.

In the meantime, Starr was playing with Rory Storm and the Hurricanes, the resident group at Butlins' holiday complex in Skegness. Epstein searched for drummers who could temporarily fill in for Best until Starr was available to join the Beatles, such as Joe Brown's drummer, Bobby Graham. He also offered the position to Johnny Hutchinson of the Big Three, a group that Epstein managed at that time as well. Hutchinson turned down the offer, saying, "Pete Best is a very good friend of mine. I couldn't do the dirty on him"—although Hutchinson did play for The Beatles at short notice when Best did not turn up on the evening of his dismissal and for two subsequent bookings, until Starr was able to join.

Epstein finally dismissed Best on 16 August, more than two months after the first recording session at EMI Studios. He called Best and Neil Aspinall to his office on Whitechapel Street, where he informed Best that the Beatles would replace him with Starr. When Best asked why, Epstein told him, "Mainly because they think you're not a good enough drummer. And also because at EMI Studios, George Martin said, 'the drummer isn't good enough'."

With the band's lineup now solidified, Epstein had his solicitor draw up a new management contract for the Beatles.

Beatles last official live appearance in the UK
The Beatles made their last official live appearance in Britain on 1 May 1966, at the NME Annual Poll-Winners' All-Star Concert at the Empire Pool, Wembley Park. Although the concert was televised, the cameras were switched off while the Beatles played, because Brian Epstein and ABC TV had failed to agree over terms. They were filmed receiving their awards, however.

After Candlestick Park
The Beatles' hectic schedule kept Epstein very busy between 1963 and 1965 with touring plus television and film work. Their last live concert was at Candlestick Park in San Francisco on 29 August 1966, and Epstein's management duties then changed to reflect the changing nature of their career. He pressured them to continue touring, but they steadfastly refused.

Business dealings
Epstein once offered all four Beatles a fixed wage of £50 a week for life. Harrison remembered that he was earning £25 a week at the time, which was more than the £10 a week that his father was earning. The group declined Epstein's offer, believing that they were worth much more than £50 a week.

NEMS had a staff of twenty-five at the time of its move from Liverpool to London in 1964. NEMS booked the Beatles' concerts, and it also presented groups as an opening act. It accrued money as promoter, booking agent, and manager for all concerts. The Beatles were constantly in demand by concert promoters, and Epstein took advantage of the situation to avoid paying some taxes by accepting "hidden" fees on the night of a performance, which he always kept in a brown paper bag.

Epstein also successfully managed Gerry and the Pacemakers, Billy J. Kramer and the Dakotas (who had four hits with Lennon–McCartney songs), the Fourmost (Lennon wrote their first two singles), the Cyrkle (Epstein's first American group), and Cilla Black (who was Epstein's only female artist), as well as Tommy Quickly and Sounds Incorporated (later known as Sounds Inc.). He also managed the Moody Blues for around a year from late 1965 to late 1966. Epstein sent his roster of artists on "package tours" around the UK, a common practice at the time. This involved short sets by each act, alternating with a compère or a comedian. Epstein once revealed that even though he was entitled to be reimbursed by acts for expenses incurred, he paid for his own flights to and from the United States, as he did not see himself as being part of a touring group. Photographs, transport, and international telephone calls were paid from his own 25 percent share in profits.

The Beatles toured the Philippines in July 1966, playing two shows at the Rizal Memorial Football Stadium in Manila. Epstein unintentionally snubbed the nation's first lady Imelda Marcos when presented with an invitation to a breakfast party. He had politely declined on behalf of the group, as it was their policy never to accept such official invitations. The Beatles and their entourage were ejected from their hotel on the same day and given a police escort to the airport, even though Epstein had publicly apologised for the misunderstanding in a televised statement, which was not seen or heard because of static. The entourage boarded the plane for home, but Epstein and Beatles' assistant Mal Evans were ordered off, both believing that they would not be allowed back on the plane. Epstein was forced to give the tax authorities £6,800 worth of Philippine peso notes earned from the Manila shows and to sign a tax bond verifying the exchange before being allowed back on the plane with Evans.

Epstein added the Vic Lewis Organisation to NEMS in 1966, and later brought impresario Robert Stigwood in as a manager. He once offered to sell the control of NEMS to Stigwood, without telling any of his artists about the offer. McCartney was taking a more active interest in NEMS' finances, as it became known that some artists with more ruthless managers claimed to be benefiting from more commercially advantageous terms, such as the Rolling Stones under the management of Allen Klein. After Epstein's death, Clive Epstein assumed control of NEMS as the company's second-largest shareholder. Stigwood then tried to take over management of NEMS but all four Beatles vigorously objected, with Lennon saying, "We don't know you. Why would we do this?"

McCartney admitted that they had always signed all the contracts that Epstein presented to them without reading them first, but after Epstein's death Lennon complained, "Well, he was alright. I've found out since, of course, that he wasn't quite as honest to us as he made out." Despite this, other interviews with Lennon report him as being loyal to Epstein's memory: "We had complete faith in him when he was running us. To us, he was the expert." When asked in 1964 about his standing as a manager or businessman, Epstein replied, "Fair, as a businessman, fair. I've got a business background, and probably a reasonable business brain. I'm no, sort of, genius [laughter]." Asked about his deficiencies, Epstein replied, "I'm probably too conscious of ideas, rather than finance behind ideas."

According to Time, Epstein made $14 million in five years while managing The Beatles.

Merchandising
Before the Beatles achieved nationwide success in Britain, Epstein had permitted a company (run by his cousins and initially catering to fan club members), to produce Beatles sweaters for 30 shillings (£1.50) and badges for 6 pence (6d) (2½p). It sold 15,000 sweaters and 50,000 badges as the group's popularity grew. When Beatlemania swept the UK in November 1963, Epstein was besieged by novelty-goods companies desperate to use the Beatles name on plastic guitars, drums, disc racks, badges, belts and other merchandise. Epstein refused to allow the Beatles to endorse any product directly, but through NEMS Enterprises he granted discretionary licences to companies who were able to produce good-quality products at a fair price, even though many companies were already selling products without a licence.

During the first Beatles trip to the United States, merchandisers pitched many products to Epstein, including Beatles clocks, pens, cigarette lighters, plastic wigs, bracelets, games, etc., but he rejected them all. This was because he had already allowed David Jacobs, the lawyer for NEMS, to give away 90 per cent of merchandising rights to Nicky Byrne in the UK. This was later deemed to be a disastrous mistake, as it left only 10 per cent for Epstein, NEMS and the Beatles, but David Jacobs subsequently renegotiated the royalty rate to 49% at Epstein's behest in August 1964. Byrne then took over Epstein's Stramsact merchandising in the UK and set up Seltaeb (Beatles spelled backwards) in the United States. While the Beatles were ensconced in the Plaza Hotel in New York City, Epstein was further besieged by calls and visits from promoters, retailers, television commentators and hustlers.

Mindful of the number of records the group was selling in the United States, Capitol Records sent a well-spoken Yorkshire woman, Wendy Hanson, to the Plaza Hotel to act as Epstein's secretary and to filter his calls. Hanson later worked solely with Epstein in his Albemarle Street office in London, which was separate from the NEMS office. Lennon later said, "On the business end he [Epstein] ripped us off on the Seltaeb thing." McCartney said years later, "He [Epstein] looked to his dad for business advice, and his dad knew how to run a furniture store in Liverpool."

Lenmac
Epstein asked chartered accountant James Trevor Isherwood to set up a company to collect Lennon and McCartney's PRS payment, called Lenmac, which he did on 12 May 1964. When he first visited Epstein's office, Isherwood was surprised to learn that Epstein took 25 per cent of the gross income, and not the 10 per cent that he believed most other managers received at that time. All of Epstein's expenses were deducted from his artists' gross income, including office rental, staff wages, travel, telephone costs, and entertaining expenses. Before his death, Epstein knew that the renegotiation of his management contract (up for renewal on 30 September 1967) would lower his management fee from 25 to 10 per cent, and that NEMS would no longer receive a share of the Beatles' performance fees, reducing its revenues still further.

Publishing
The Beatles entered into a publishing agreement with Dick James Music (DJM), so James set up a company called Northern Songs. James and his financial partner and accountant, Charles Silver, would each receive 25 per cent of the shares. Lennon and McCartney received 20 per cent each, with Epstein receiving the remaining 10 per cent. The Beatles' PRS income increased rapidly, so Epstein asked Isherwood to devise a way of avoiding the tax that Lennon and McCartney would owe. Isherwood suggested a stock market flotation for Northern Songs. He also suggested to Epstein that during the flotation Lennon and McCartney should move to houses near Isherwood's own in Esher. Lennon, Harrison and Starr agreed, while Epstein and McCartney remained in London.

Promoter and presenter
After settling in London in 1965, Epstein rented an office in Monmouth Street, and later bought the lease of the Saville Theatre on Shaftesbury Avenue. He promoted new works by writers such as Arnold Wesker in productions that occasionally fell foul of the Lord Chamberlain for including "obscene" content or nudity. In 1966 Epstein reinvented it as a music venue featuring various US acts. On 20 February 1967 Epstein sacked the manager of the theatre, Michael Bullock, for lowering the safety curtain the previous day shortly before the end of a Chuck Berry concert that Epstein was attending with Lennon and Starr. Two fans had climbed onto the stage to dance, the curtain came down, and they were pushed from the stage. Although Bullock had not given the order, he was held responsible.

In the wake of the Beatles' success Epstein was asked to appear on several music-based TV programmes in Britain. He also hosted a regular part of the US television show Hullabaloo, filming his appearances in the UK.

Personal life
Throughout Epstein's life, he was known to be kind and caring to his family, friends of his family, and business colleagues. When Lennon married Cynthia Powell, on 23 August 1962, Epstein served as best man and paid for the couple's celebratory lunch afterwards. During Cynthia's pregnancy Epstein paid for a private room in a hospital and offered the Lennons the sole use of his flat at 36 Falkner Street, Liverpool, when they needed a home. He also agreed to be godfather to Lennon's son Julian.

Sexual orientation
Epstein's homosexuality was not publicly known until some years after his death, although it had been an open secret among his friends and business associates.

While Epstein was in the British Army, he commissioned a tailor to make him an officer's uniform. He wore the uniform when cruising the bars of London, but was arrested one night at the Army and Navy Club in Piccadilly by the military police for impersonating an officer. Epstein managed to avoid a court martial by agreeing to see an army psychiatrist, who learned of Epstein's sexuality. After ten months he was discharged from the army on medical grounds for being "emotionally and mentally unfit". Epstein later stated that his first homosexual experience was when he returned to Liverpool after being discharged.

Epstein spent a year studying acting at RADA, but dropped out shortly after his arrest for "persistent importuning" outside a men's public toilet in Swiss Cottage, London. Cottaging, as it was called, was one of the few public ways that gay and bisexual men could meet at the time, especially if they were closeted. When Epstein first saw the Beatles perform he noticed their stage attire first, saying, "They were rather scruffily dressed, in the nicest possible way, or I should say in the most attractive way—black leather jackets, jeans, long hair of course." McCartney said that when Epstein started to manage the Beatles they knew that he was homosexual but did not care, because he encouraged them professionally and offered them access to previously "off-limits" social circles.

Although the group, Lennon in particular, often made sarcastic comments about Epstein's homosexuality to friends and to Epstein personally, no one outside the group's inner circle was allowed to comment. Ian Sharp, one of Lennon's art-school friends, once made a sarcastic remark about Epstein, saying, "Which one of you [Beatles] does he fancy?" Sharp was sent a letter by Epstein's office within 48 hours that demanded a complete apology. Sharp apologised, but was then completely ostracised. McCartney sent him a letter directing him to have no contact with any of them in the future. Epstein went on holiday to places such as Amsterdam, Torremolinos and Barcelona or Manchester at weekends, as the attitude towards homosexuals there was more tolerant than in Liverpool, even though Liverpool did have several gay bars.

In his autobiography, Pete Best stated that Epstein drove them both to Blackpool one evening where Epstein expressed his "very fond admiration." Epstein then supposedly said, "Would you find it embarrassing if I ask you to stay in a hotel overnight?" Best replied that he was not interested, and the two never mentioned the incident again. There were reports of a brief sexual encounter between Lennon and Epstein during a four-day holiday in Barcelona in April 1963. Lennon admitted in a 1971 Rolling Stone interview that he knew Epstein was a “fag” (British slang for gay) and that he (Lennon) enjoyed “playing a bit faggy and all that”. Addressing the rumours again later, Lennon told Playboy in 1980: "Well, it was almost a love affair, but not quite. It was never consummated ... but we did have a pretty intense relationship." A fictionalised account of the Spanish holiday is featured in the 1991 film The Hours and Times.

Drug use
After the start of his management career, Epstein started taking stimulants, usually Preludin, which did not require a prescription at the time. Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, and Starr had also taken it since their days in Hamburg. Epstein explained his use of the drug as the only means of staying awake at night during numerous concert tours. In 1964, Peter Brown suspected that Epstein was taking too many pills, as he would often cough at parties, which Brown realised was Epstein's way of secretly putting pills into his mouth without anyone noticing. McCartney often met Epstein at late night clubs in London, and remembered that Epstein would often grind his jaws (possibly due to bruxism), once saying to him, "Ugghhh, the pills". Epstein also developed dependencies on the drug carbromal, a barbiturate-like sedative/hypnotic drug. In 1964, after having been introduced to cannabis by Bob Dylan in New York, Epstein was observed by McCartney standing in front of a mirror, pointing at himself and repeatedly saying "Jew!", while laughing loudly, which McCartney found hilarious and "very liberating". Epstein later became heavily involved in the 1960s drug scene. During the four months when the Beatles' album Sgt. Pepper was being recorded, Epstein spent time on holiday, or at the Priory Clinic in Putney, where he tried unsuccessfully to curb his drug use. He left the Priory to attend the Sgt. Pepper launch party at his house on 24 Chapel Street, but returned to the Priory immediately after.

Epstein added his name to an advertisement that appeared in The Times on 24 July 1967, which called for the legalisation of cannabis, the release of all prisoners imprisoned because of possession, and research into marijuana's medical uses. The advertisement was sponsored by a group called Soma and was signed by sixty-five people, including the Beatles, Scottish psychiatrist R. D. Laing, sixteen doctors, and two members of Parliament. Epstein responded to questions about the advertisement by saying, "My opinion is that pot smoking is definitely less harmful than drinking alcohol. I am not addicted to either, but I have been very drunk and very 'high'." In June 1967, after McCartney had admitted to LSD use, Epstein defended him to the media, stating that he too had taken the drug.

Gambling
In August 1965, the Beatles and Epstein visited Elvis Presley at his house in Perugia Way in Los Angeles, where Elvis's manager, Colonel Tom Parker, set up a roulette wheel and several packs of playing cards. Epstein immediately asked to play, as he was known for his love of gambling. McCartney frequently visited gambling clubs in London, such as Epstein's favourite club Curzon House, where he often ran into Epstein. He once saw Epstein put a Dunhill cigarette lighter worth £100 on the table, then lose it during a game of cards. Epstein often lost thousands of pounds by playing baccarat or chemin de fer (the original version of baccarat when it was introduced in France), but would stay at Curzon House the whole evening, eating an expensive meal and drinking fine wines. The club never presented Epstein with a bill, as they knew he lost so much in the casino.

Death
Epstein attended a traditional shiva (week of mourning) in Liverpool after his father died, having just come out of the Priory Clinic where he had been trying to cure his acute insomnia and addiction to amphetamines. A few days before his death he made his last visit to a Beatles recording session Magical Mystery Tour on 23 August 1967, at the Chappell Recording Studios on Maddox Street in Mayfair, London.

On 24 August, Epstein asked personal assistant Peter Brown and business partner Geoffrey Ellis down to Kingsley Hill for the bank holiday weekend. Approximately 50 miles (80 km) from his home in Chapel Street, Kingsley Hill was Epstein's country home in Warbleton, East Sussex. After they arrived, Epstein decided to drive back to London alone because an expected group of friends he had invited failed to arrive, although they did turn up after Epstein left. Epstein phoned Brown at 5 p.m. the next day from his Chapel Street house in London. Brown thought that Epstein sounded "very groggy" and suggested he take a train back down to the nearest railway station, in Uckfield, instead of driving under the influence of Tuinal. Epstein replied that he would eat something, read his mail, and watch Juke Box Jury before phoning Brown to tell him which train to meet. He never called again.

Epstein died of an overdose of Carbrital, a hypnotic preparation combining the barbiturate pentobarbital with the bromide carbromal, in his locked bedroom on 27 August 1967. He was discovered after his butler who, having been unable to rouse Epstein via his locked bedroom door, called Epstein's PA, Joanne Petersen. She arrived, failed to rouse him, and called his doctor who, with the butler, broke down the door and found Epstein in his bed, appearing to be asleep, an open book near his hand and some digestive biscuits on the bedside cabinet. When they realised that he was dead, staff swept the house for contraband and then called the police. Epstein was found on a single bed, dressed in pyjamas, with various correspondence spread over a second single bed. At the statutory inquest his death was officially ruled an accident, caused by a gradual buildup of Carbrital combined with alcohol in his system. It was revealed that he had taken six Carbrital pills to sleep, which was probably normal for him, but in combination with alcohol, his tolerance was reduced.

The Beatles were on a retreat in Bangor in North Wales at the time, with the Indian guru Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Epstein had previously agreed to travel to Bangor after the August Bank Holiday. The second of two shows by Jimi Hendrix at Epstein's Saville Theatre was cancelled on the evening of Epstein's death.

Peter Brown wrote in his memoir, The Love You Make: An Insider's Story of the Beatles, that he had once found a suicide note written by Epstein and had spoken with him about it. According to Brown the note read in part, "This is all too much and I can't take it any more." Brown had also found a will in which Epstein left his house and money to his mother and his brother, with Brown also being named as a minor beneficiary. When confronted with the notes, Epstein told Brown that he would be grateful if Brown did not tell anyone, and that he was sorry he had made Brown worry. He explained that when he wrote the note and composed the will he had simply taken one pill too many, and that he had no intention of overdosing, promising to be more careful in the future. Brown later wrote that he wondered if he had done the right thing by not showing the note to Epstein's doctor, Norman Cowan, who would have stopped prescribing drugs. The coroner, Gavin Thurston, told the Westminster inquest that Epstein's death was caused by an overdose of Carbrital and ruled it as an accidental death. The pathologist, Donald Teare, stated that Epstein had been taking bromide in the form of Carbrital for some time, and that the barbiturate level in Epstein's blood was a "low fatal level".

The Beatles did not attend Epstein's funeral, both to allow his family some privacy and to avoid attracting fans and the media. According to Geoffrey Ellis, chief executive of NEMS Enterprises, the day before the funeral George Harrison had given Nat Weiss, Epstein's good friend and confidant, a single flower (Ellis remembers it as a chrysanthemum) wrapped in a newspaper on behalf of all four Beatles, with instructions to place the flower on Brian's coffin as a final farewell. However, flowers are forbidden at Jewish funerals and burials. Weiss and Ellis discussed this dilemma while walking back to the grave, where they observed two men beginning to shovel dirt onto the casket. Ellis later wrote: "Nat, who himself was Jewish, cast the newspaper package unopened onto Brian's coffin, where it was swiftly covered by earth." Epstein was buried in section A grave H12, in the Long Lane Jewish Cemetery, Aintree, Liverpool. The service at the graveside was held by Rabbi Norman Solomon, who said, disparagingly, that Epstein was "a symbol of the malaise of our generation". A few weeks later, on 17 October, all four Beatles attended a memorial service for Epstein at the New London Synagogue in St John's Wood (near Abbey Road Studios), which was officiated by Rabbi Louis Jacobs. The Bee Gees' 1968 song "In the Summer of His Years" was written and recorded as a tribute to Epstein.

Legacy

Epstein was upset that he was not honoured along with Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, and Starr when they received the MBE in 1965, though Harrison once said that the MBE stood for "Mister Brian Epstein"; The Beatles were among the earliest entrants into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, but Epstein was not included in the Hall's "Non-Performers' Section" until 2014, and not without controversy as he was inducted alongside Rolling Stones manager Andrew Loog Oldham who refused to attend, in part in protest at what he perceived as the indignity of a joint induction. Martin Lewis, previously Taylor's assistant, created the official Brian Epstein website, which included a petition that Epstein be inducted into the Hall of Fame. Lewis also organised the 1998 re-publication, in the United States, of Epstein's 1964 autobiography A Cellarful of Noise.

McCartney summarised the importance of Epstein when he was interviewed in 1997 for a BBC documentary about Epstein, saying: "If anyone was the Fifth Beatle, it was Brian." In his 1970 Rolling Stone interview, Lennon commented that Epstein's death marked the beginning of the end for the group: "I knew that we were in trouble then ... I thought, 'We've fucking had it now. In 2006, Cynthia Lennon said: "I think Brian's one of the forgotten people. It's almost as if he's been written out of the [Beatles] story. I don't think they'd have got anywhere without Brian." The first contract between the Beatles and Epstein was auctioned in London in 2008, fetching £240,000.

Epstein's influence on the Beatles and his complicated personal life continue to provoke controversy. In 2013, author Vivek Tiwary released the graphic novel The Fifth Beatle: The Brian Epstein Story. A film of the same name was scheduled for release in 2014, originally to be produced by Bruce Cohen and directed by Peyton Reed. Tiwary said about that project that the film would "be less a music bio and more of an inspirational human-interest story about an outsider". Tiwary and named co-producers Stuart Ford and Simon Cowell originally set the film for release in 2016, but in March 2016 it was announced that the project would be a television series.

Another biopic, Midas Man directed by Joe Stephenson has wrapped filming and is scheduled to be released.

Epstein was once asked about the future of the Beatles and their "fresh honesty" (as he put it), which the interviewer thought could be "corrupted by time". He replied by saying, "I think they will go in the reverse direction, and become more honest."

On 27 August 2022, the 55th anniversary of his death, a bronze statue of Brian Epstein was unveiled near the former site of his family's NEMS record shop in Liverpool. "NEMS" is short for North End Music Stores. One of the statue's sculptors, Jane Robbins, is a cousin of McCartney.

title: Brian Epstein