Canadian Morality and the Law
In legal theory, there is a great debate over whether or not law should be used to enforce morality. The sides of the debate can be presented as a continuum. At one end, there is the libertarian view, which holds that morality is an individual belief and that the state should not interfere in the affairs of the individual. According to this view, a democracy cannot limit or enforce morality. At the other end, there is the communitarian position, which justifies the community as a whole deciding what moral values are, and hence justifies using the law to enforce community values. For libertarians, judges should play a prominent role in limiting the state, while for communitarians, judges should have as small a role as possible. In between these two extremes sit the liberal egalitarians, who attempt to reconcile democratic decision-making about moral values with liberalism. The problem is made more complex when one considers that both law and morality are contested concepts. Two recent cases where this continuum can be illustrated are Canada [Attorney-General] vs. Mossap, and Egan vs. Canada. In this essay, I will attempt to explore some of the issues produced in these two cases. I will begin with a summary each case, followed by an analysis of the major themes involved. I will then place the issues in a larger, democratic framework, and explore the role of law in enforcing morality in a democracy. I will then prove how the communitarian position - as articulated by Patrick Devlin - supports the decisions given in Mossap and Egan, and how even the great proponents of libertarianism - Mill and von Hayek - would agree that the decisions were just. A conclusion will then follow.
...
... middle of paper ...
... legal interpretation. They question for the judges wasn't "Should we reinterpret this law" but . Both judges concluded that if the people, as a collective, had condoned homosexuality, then Parliament should have enacted (or in this case, amended) the proper legislation. But the fact that Parliament did not shows that "public morality" is still homophobic. Both judges accepted their role as facilitators of the public will. They would have been justified in interpreting the law in a way that the people, represented by the legislature, did not approve of. The verdicts in Mossap and Egan served the will of the people. If that's not democracy, I don't know what is.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
David Dyzenhaus and Arthur Ripstein, eds. Law and Morality: Readings in Legal Philosophy. (University of Toronto Press, 1996).
1 See Hobbes, Thomas. For more details.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has long been the legal document that protects Canadian citizens from infringements made by unscrupulous politicians and legislators. However, there are questions explored about the Sections of the Charter and in those of Section 7 in particular. This is because of the protective function of Section 7 and its obligations of the protection of a citizen’s rights to life, liberty and security of the person. There are third parties that could be posing “threats” to Charter interests and therefore the extents of Section 7 in terms of its protective function for individuals’ rights are put into question. Section 7 of the Charter says that “[E]veryone has the right to life, liberty and the security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” The meaning of Section 7 is to adhere to each individual’s right to the sanctity of life, their physical liberty in a narrow sense, and the integrity of the person is to be kept secure. However, what would the extent of Section 7 be or moreover, what is the extent of each protected interest? The objective of this paper is to examine the extents of Section 7 of the Charter in which the focus is on the protected interests of life, liberty and security of the person. Each protected interest will be discussed in depth with its relationship to a specific Canadian court case. This will help to determine the extent of Section 7 and therefore help understand how much the Charter protects the freedom of Canadian citizens. For right to life, the First Nation communities in Canada had ‘high risk’ of threats to health in their water systems according to Health Canada. The focus of this topic...
To be a true disciple of Jesus one must not disown or deny Jesus but
Tension in J.B. Priestly's An Inspector Calls From the outset, the author Priestly holds the audience's attention with a mixture of suspense, expectation, and sheer enjoyment of the quality of his writing. The author transforms the convivial atmosphere of the dining room into an inquisition on to why, where and who could have been the instigator of this young girl's suicide? In the first few pages Priestly describes how at rise of the curtain the four Birlings and Gerald are seated at the table with Arthur
Democracy is more than merely a system of government. It is a culture – one that promises equal rights and opportunity to all members of society. Democracy can also be viewed as balancing the self-interests of one with the common good of the entire nation. In order to ensure our democratic rights are maintained and this lofty balance remains in tact, measures have been taken to protect the system we pride ourselves upon. There are two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were implemented to do just this. Firstly, Section 1, also known as the “reasonable limits clause,” ensures that a citizen cannot legally infringe on another’s democratic rights as given by the Charter. Additionally, Section 33, commonly referred to as the “notwithstanding clause,” gives the government the power to protect our democracy in case a law were to pass that does not violate our Charter rights, but would be undesirable. Professor Kent Roach has written extensively about these sections in his defence of judicial review, and concluded that these sections are conducive to dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature. Furthermore, he established that they encourage democracy. I believe that Professor Roach is correct on both accounts, and in this essay I will outline how sections 1 and 33 do in fact make the Canadian Charter more democratic. After giving a brief summary of judicial review according to Roach, I will delve into the reasonable limits clause and how it is necessary that we place limitations on Charter rights. Following this, I will explain the view Professor Roach and I share on the notwithstanding clause and how it is a vital component of the Charter. To conclude this essay, I will discuss the price at which democr...
Piggy tries to do what’s best for everyone. He was the ‘word of reason.’ But since nobody respected him, he was never given power. The author states, “ ‘I got the conch,’ said Piggy indignantly. ‘You let me speak!’ ‘The conch doesn’t count on top of the mountain,’ said Jack. ‘So you shut up.’ ‘... I got the conch!’ Jack turned fiercely. ‘You shut up!’ Piggy wilted.” (Golding 42.) Jack treats Piggy as if he is unimportant. All characters show cruelty towards Piggy one way or another. Because Piggy has the mentality of an adult, the boys refuse to listen since they want their freedom. The author indicates, “... Roger with a sense of delirious abandonment, leaned all
a fast pace and is set over a period of five days. It is carefully
play we get to see how all of these people added to Eva Smith's misery
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?
1999) pg. 9. The exact quote reads, "so any injury a prince does a man
(7) H. L., Hart, The Concept of Law, ch. VIII, and D., Lyons, Ethics and the rule of law, Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 78 ff,
Act 3 Scene 5 of William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. Romeo and Juliet is full of exciting incidents which are intertwined. to create the plot itself. The audience has already witnessed many key events in Act 3 Scene 5. Romeo has already spent his first night with Juliet in her chamber at the house of Capulet,.
Cahn, Steven M. and Peter Markie, Ethics: History, Theory and Contemporary Issues. 4th Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Robert N. Clinton, ‘Judges Must Make Law: A Realistic Appraisal of the Judicial Function in a Democratic Society’ [1981-1982] 67 Iowa L. Rev. 711 http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ilr67&div=38&g_sent=1&collection=journals accessed 12 February 2012
leave. My feet took me home, led me to my bedroom where I sat rigidly
... in setting standards for society to conform to. Therefor Hart supported the committee with a more liberal view and Devlin didn’t with a more authoritarian, paternalistic view. It is clear there are both case and statute law which reflect both viewpoints. In the case of Brown it shows how law enforces moral values and places the public good over individual freedom. However the law on homosexuality now reflect a more liberal view and so gives freedom and individual choice.