Three decades ago, honorable Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was establishing the renowned Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since the three decades of being established, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has protected the individual rights and freedoms of thousands of Canadians. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has become a part of the national identity and has become a big patriotic symbol for the country. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the document the truly separates Canada from all the other powerful nations and is really something that Canadian take a pride in. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms brings up many questions, but the biggest and most common question is How effectively does Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect your individual rights? . To exactly know how effectively it protects your rights you can look at situations where it has protected and has not protected the rights of Canadians. The Charter of Rights and Freedom protects legal rights of Canadian whether they are a teenager or an adult, protects equality rights of Canadian and provides government services to all Canadians no matter what, ensures all laws are passed according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and provides equality rights and fundamental freedoms to Canadians for practicing their religion and other rights without interference.
One of the Legal Rights the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects is: The right to be free of imprisonment, search, and seizure without reasons backed by the law. “In a undisclosed school in Canada, there was a sudden police checking, in which police dogs roamed around the hallway of the school to see if there was any suspicious substance or object. During the checking, the police fo...
... middle of paper ...
...I truly think that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has paved a path for creating a free and democratic Canada and I believe it will create Canada as the greatest democratic nation.
Works Cited
Benjamin, S. (2013, 09 10). Quebec Seeks Ban On Religious Symbols In Public Work Places. Retrieved 12 10, 2013, from huffingtonpost.com: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/09/quebec-religious-symbols-_n_4072327.html
Brosnahan, M. (2013). Edmonton inmates file lawsuit alleging abuse in max security prison. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: CBC News.
Marotte, B. (2013, 06 16). Sikhs celebrate reversal of Quebec’s soccer turban ban. Retrieved from www.theglobeandmail.com: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/sikhs-celebrate-reversal-of-quebecs-soccer-turban-ban/article12593818/
Nelson Education. (2008). Issues For Canadian. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Nelson Education.
In this instance the government regulation to keep the school safe is interfering with Rajiv’s fundamental freedom of conscience and religion stated in section 2 of the charter, and it is doing so unjustly. While the information given in the story was scarce, there were no reports of a Kirpan being used a weapon before, any problems with weapons, or any attempt to find an alternative instead of disallowing the Kirpan completely . In the case Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys The Supreme Court of Canada decided that the decision to prohibit the wearing of a Kirpan to be a violation of one’s fundamental freedom. This is important because a precedent has been set by the Supreme Court of Canada. After the Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys case the court decided that if that given the premise a student has not used the Kirpan as a weapon before, and sincerely believes that a metal Kirpan is essential in paying respects to their religion, it is within their rights to wear one. This important as it proves that the government regulation seized Rajiv’s Kir...
There was a short time where all was calm right after the civil war. king charles the second and his father were both dead so Charles brother took over. this is king James the secondf and he was a Catholic sao he appointed many high positions in the government. Most of his sibjects were protestant and did not like the idea of Catholicism being the religion theyd have to abide by. like his father and brother king james the second ignored the peoples wishes and ruled without Parliament and relied on royal power. an English Protestant leader wanted to take the power away from james and give it to his daughter Mary and Her husband William from the Netherlands. William saled out to the south of england with his troops but sent them away soon after they landed
Apart from the other laws in Canada’s constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important law that affects every Canadian’s rights and freedoms. It was created in 1981 by former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau to provide legal protection for the most important rights and freedoms. These rights include fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights, and legal rights. Most but not all articles included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are protected in the constitution. However, if a Canadian feels that their rights are violated, they can challenge laws and unfair actions using the justice system. In my opinion, I believe the Canadian Charter of Human Rights somewhat protects Canadians’ rights and freedoms to some extent depending on the situation.
The inclusion of the Notwithstanding Clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was an invaluable contribution in the evolution of the liberal democratic state. Not an endpoint, to be sure, but a significant progression in the rights protection dynamic. Subsequent to its passage in 1982 it became the primary rights protecting mechanism, however, its raison d`etre was as a neccessary concession, the pivotal factor allowing the patriation of the constitution. Many legislators present at the constitutional conference in 1981 opposed in varying degrees the entrenchment of a "bill of rights" in the constitution. The premier of Saskatchewan, Allan Blakeney, A preeminent liberal legislator at the time, recognized this potential document as an invitation to judicial review. He feared a conservative judiciary might hinder enlightened policies and sought authority beyond the ambit of an entrenched rights protection act. At the other end of the political spectrum opposition was in the form of an allegiance to parliamentary supremacy as expressed most notably by Sterling Lyon, the conservative premier of Manitoba. Imbedding section 33, commonly referred to as the Notwithstanding Clause, into the constitutional document alleviated these concerns to a degree that permitted their compliance. It is well established that the impetus for the Notwithstanding Clause was of a political nature. To insert this so inspired clause into an intended sanctuary from capricious legislative acts appears tantamount to allowing the fox to guard the chicken coop. Conceivably the same legislative majority that would create the laws abridging rights could exem...
Moreover, although no powers or rights have been explicitly ‘reserved’ to the people, supporters of the charter nevertheless appear to give Canadians hope that the possibility may exist. COMPARISON OF BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE CANADIAN CHARTER... ... middle of paper ... ...
This great country known as Canada, is governed smoothly because of the agreements and rules that have been in place since the beginning of confederation. The Canadian Constitution is one example of these rules. The Canadian Constitution is not just one single documentation, it is a collaboration of documents that make up one enormous document (Dyck 261). The six basic principles of the constitution are: responsible government, federalism, judicial review, the rule of law, constitutional monarchy and democracy; which all helped to shape the Constitution and therefore Canada (Dyck 266).
In the summer of 1787, delegates from the 13 states convened in Philadelphia and drafted a remarkable blueprint for self-government, the Constitution of the United States. The first draft set up a system of checks and balances that included a strong executive branch, a representative legislature and a federal judiciary. The Constitution was remarkable, but deeply flawed. For one thing, it did not include a specific declaration, or bill, of individual rights. It specified what the government could do but did not say what it could not do. For another, it did not apply to everyone. The "consent of the governed" meant propertied white men only. The Bill of Rights did not come from a desire to protect the liberties won in the American Revolution, but rather from a fear of the powers of the new federal government.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted under the Pierre Trudeau government on April 17, 1982. According to Phillip Bryden, “With the entrenchment of the Charter into the Canadian Constitution, Canadians were not only given an explicit definition of their rights, but the courts were empowered to rule on the constitutionality of government legislation” (101). Prior to 1982, Canada’s central constitutional document was the British North America Act of 1867. According to Kallen, “The BNA Act (the Constitution Act, 1867) makes no explicit reference to human rights” (240). The adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms significantly transformed the operation of Canada’s political system. Presently, Canadians define their needs and complaints in human rights terms. Bryden states, “More and more, interest groups and minorities are turning to the courts, rather than the usual political processes, to make their grievances heard” (101). Since it’s inception in 1982 the Charter has become a very debatable issue. A strong support for the Charter remains, but there also has been much criticism toward the Charter. Academic critics of the Charter such as Robert Martin believe that the Charter is doing more harm than good, and is essentially antidemocratic and UN-Canadian. I believe that Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic, although, the Charter itself represents a democratic document. Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic because the power of the executive is enhanced at the expense of Parliament, and the power of the judiciary is enhanced at the expense of elected officials, although, the notwithstanding clause continues to provide Parliament with a check on...
Many people and nations around the world are deprived of human rights. The government in the countries or nations usually can not help the people being deprived. Either because the government is too poor to, it is not one of the things the government is looking into, or the government does not know or care. Because of this certain people, or even whole populations are denied human rights and their living conditions and way of life are usually not on the positive side of things. There are many wealthier countries trying to help but sometimes that is not enough. To what extent should Canada have a role in working to increase human rights protection in other nations?
The Bill of Rights was created because the states believed that the federal government would have too much power and they wanted to have more individual rights. Around this time the colonies had just been under the British rule, which oppressed the people and give them very limited freedoms. The states or the colonies were kind of afraid that this would happen all over again within this new government forming in the form of the Constitution. Most of the state at this time believed that the Constitution alone was enough but others felt that they needed more assurances. In the end, the federal government complied with these states and gave them the Bill of Rights.
The litigation of R. v. Buhay is a case where the Charter of rights and freedoms was violated by the policing parties but maintained and performed by the Supreme Court of Canada. This litigation began after two individuals; of which one was Mervyn Buhay, rented a locker at the Winnipeg bus depot. Buhay began to distract the security guards while his friend placed a duffel bag in the locker they had rented. After they left, the security guards were so engrossed by the smell coming from the locker that they unlocked it to find a sleeping bag full of marijuana in the duffel bag. Buhay was arrested the day after the bag was taken into possession even though no warrant was received to search the locker in the first place. During the first trial, due to the violation of the Charter by the police officers, Buhay was acquitted. The Crown, however, appealed this ruling and the case was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada where once again Buhay was acquitted in a 9-0 ruling. Although Buhay committed a crime by possessing marijuana, the police violated the Charter by searching Buhay`s locker without a warrant or his consent, making the Supreme court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay reasonable. The Supreme Court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay was reasonable due to the fact that the police violated the Charter of rights, no warrant was received to unlock the locker let alone seize the duffel bag, and lastly because the bus depots terms for the locker were not efficiently provided to the customers making them aware of any reasonable search conduct.
In addition to Canadian peacekeeping missions, the establishment of freedom and charter of right further lead to changes in Canadians society and legal court. The main purpose of the charter of rights is to “Protect minorities from preliminary majorities”(The Canadian Encyclopedia). By ensuring protections and releasing the pressure of minorities, the economic, social, and political opportunities between different ethical citizens are enhanced. After the charter was proposed, an amending formula states it requires “at least 50%” consents of Canadian citizens instead of a request from a specific group(The Canadian Encyclopedia). Canadian governments also surveyed 300 Canadians about their ideology of the previous legal system in order to construct
If the Charter claims that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and expressions, then why is the discussion of prohibiting public employees from wearing clothing with religious symbolism even brought up? Why are the majority – 60 percent – of Quebecers in favour of the Charter's ban on religious symbols? Perhaps it is difficult to understand the importance of such religious symbols when someone is not practicing any religion and are not required to wear anything to show their faith. However, imagine having something that you find greatly important and highly value being taken away from you. It does not have to be a cross or a hijab, maybe it is a favourite piece literature, or a piece of jewelry passed down from an important family member, whatever it may be, it holds high sentimental value. Taking away an object of high value would offend and upset anyone, no matter what that object may be. When it comes to taking away someone's right to wear whatever they wish, and on top of that halting their right to properly practice their religion is a definite infringement of the Rights and Freedoms possessed by any person living in Canada, which is just
headdresses and the stigma around them. Women Working with Immigrant Women (2000) released an issue in which experiences reported by Muslim women wearing hijab and comments made by employers illustrate the barriers and types of discrimination women experience. One woman was “told by an employer that she should remove ‘head cap’” (p.1), this is an excellent example when illustrating the ignorance of the uneducated. The employer did not refer to the correct term for her “head cap” most likely because they do not have knowledge on the matter or did, but, instead decided to be disrespectful by referring to it incorrectly. One woman was told, “she would be hired on condition of removing her hijab” (p.2) while another woman was told by a job search facilitator that her “chances are limited at finding a job when she is wearing hijab” (p.2). It can be proven that discrimination against Muslims in the workplace is not a myth, but instead a crystal clear fact. The job search facilitator’s clear knowledge of what kind of individuals are hired for jobs allowed for the presumption that a woman who wears a hijab would not make it in that category.
In the 1980’s legal tension involving police searches was a direct result of the war on drugs campaign. Officers were encouraged to stop and seize or search suspicious vehicles to put a halt on drug trafficking (Harns, 1998). But placing this aggressive approach into effect had many negative outcomes. One problem was that it put police on a thin line with the constitutional laws. To no surprise, pretty much no data estimating how often police searches fall outside constitutional laws exist. Only cases that catch the courts attention are logged into the record books. A case study held in “Middleberg” on suspect searches reports that 70 of the 86 searches didn’t result in arrest; citations weren’t presented nor were any charges filed. Just about all of the unconstitutional searches, 31 out of 34, weren’t reported to the courts, nor were they intended to be reported.