Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The Charter in promoting basic human rights and freedom in Canada
The Charter in promoting basic human rights and freedom in Canada
Essays canadas charter of rights and freedoms
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an integral part of the Canadian constitution. The charter sets a precedent for all laws in Canada, and any law that contradict the charter are unable to stand legally, and therefore are unconstitutional. The charter is key to ensuring the freedom of Canadians as it serves as a means to ensure that Canada’s status as a country which provides equality and freedom to all by securing the rights of the citizens and taking bureaucratic power away from the government. The charter makes it so that each individual, regardless of societal status or other social attributes are entitled to the same treatment by the law and the enforcement of the law. If there are any infringements, there are legal procedures …show more content…
This is because the charter enforces strict restrictions on laws that can be seen as limiting the freedoms. The first section of the charter states that the charter rights cannot be broken unless there are reasonable limitation which benefits society. This section of the charter allows the government to allow camouflage discriminatory laws under the false pretense that it is helping society, when there is a group of people who are suffering because of the policy. The government may not have thought the policy was unfair or discriminatory, but if it causes prejudice to another group, it causes problems within society and makes the society worse overall. In the famous case of R v Oakes, Mr. Oakes argued that the reverse onus legislation conflicted with his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The reverse onus principle was used in the Canadian Narcotics act to ensure more drug charges to laid upon offenders. This was in direct contradiction of section 11(d) which states that everyone is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The reverse onus clause violated the rights of Canadians and therefore could not stand. This is because the charter rights hold precedent over other laws, and limitation may only be placed if the infringement is beneficial to society. The precedence of charter rights ensures that all Canadians cannot be taken …show more content…
The charter bars the government from applying an oppressive law that restricts the rights of citizens beyond a reasonable limit. It provides equal standings to all Canadians, disregarding any social status or personal identification. The charter also ensures that unfair laws can be challenged if a person believes that a set of laws restricts their rights, as the society is constantly changing to new norms. The Canadian charter of rights and freedoms is a incredibly powerful document which ensure the safety and security of all of the citizens of Canada. It is the most heavily relied upon document in the Canadian legal system, and what would our society look if this document did not
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important document that allows us to live our lives without arbitrary governmental control, although there may be certain times when rights should be limited. The R. v Oakes case is a perfect example of this situation coming into play. David Edwin Oakes was caught with an unlawful possession of hash oil and was automatically convicted of trafficking, under section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act. By looking at the Charter, it was clear that section 8 of the NCA violated his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, guaranteed in section 11.d. With that in mind, the respondent brought in a motion that challenged section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act. Since the Supreme Court and the Crown were confident that the suspect was trafficking narcotics, they created a four criteria ruling, in order to reasonably limit the rights of the respondent. This is permissible under section 1 of the Charter, which states that “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms…only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law.”2 The respondent’s case passed the first criterion which stated that “the reasoning for limiting the Charter must be proven important enough to override a constitutionally protected right.” The case did not pass the second criterion which stated that “there must be an appropriate connection between the limitation of rights and the objective of the legislation.”2 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and the respondent was released. After reviewing the case it was clear that even though the suspect did not have his rights limited against him, limiting rights should be used more often in severe cases.
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 ... ...
The Constitution of the United States is one of the most iconic and important documents of all time. However, when it was first generated, its writing and ratification caused some major concerns. The purpose of the Constitution was to address the great number of issues of a new nation. To be more specific, the Constitution was meant to resolve the political, economic, and social problems of the country. Nevertheless, the document spurred much discussion and concern over people’s rights, the economy, and political corruption.
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).
Department of Justice (2010): Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I. (Last retrieved: December 7th, 2010).
"Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 2nd ed. 1982. N. pag. Print.
The French Revolution was a tumultuous period, with France exhibiting a more fractured social structure than the United States. In response, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen proposed that “ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities, and of the corruption of governments” (National Assembly). This language indicates that the document, like its counterpart in the United States, sought to state the rights of men explicitly, so no doubt existed as to the nature of these rights. As France was the center of the Enlightenment, so the Enlightenment ideals of individuality and deism are clearly expressed in the language of the document. The National Assembly stated its case “in
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.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II April 17, 1982. Often referred to as the Charter, it affirms the rights and freedoms of Canadians in the Constitution of Canada. The Charter encompasses fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights, language rights and equality rights. The primary function of the Charter is to act as a regulatory check between Federal, Provincial and Territorial governments and the Canadian people. Being a successor of the Canadian Bill of Rights that was a federal statute, amendable by Parliament, the Charter is a more detailed and explicit constitutional document that has empowered the judiciary to render regulations and statutes at both the federal and provincial levels of government unconstitutional. Although the rights and freedoms of Canadians are guaranteed, Sections one and seven of the Charter permit the federal and provincial governments to limit the rights and freedoms enjoyed by Canadians. Section one of the Charter designated ‘Rights and freedoms in Canada’ states “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” This section is frequently referred to and better known as the reasonable limits clause. The second rights and freedoms limiting section of the Charter, known as the ‘notwithstanding clause’ is Section thirty-three entitled ‘Exception where express declaration’ declares
Systemic discrimination has been a part of Canada’s past. Women, racial and ethnic minorities as well as First Nations people have all faced discrimination in Canada. Policies such as, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, provincial and federal Human Rights Codes, as well has various employment equity programs have been placed in Canada’s constitution to fight and address discrimination issues. Despite these key documents placed for universal rights and freedoms Aboriginal and other minority populations in Canada continue to be discriminated against. Many believe there is no discrimination in Canada, and suggest any lack of success of these groups is a result of personal decisions and not systemic discrimination. While others feel that the legislation and equality policies have yet resulted in an equal society for all minorities. Racism is immersed in Canadian society; this is clearly shown by stories of racial profiling in law enforcement.
Since the beginning of American history, citizens who resided the country lacked the basic civil rights and liberties that humans deserved. Different races and ethnicities were treated unfairly. Voting rights were denied to anyone who was not a rich, white male. Women were harassed by their bosses and expected to take care of everything household related. Life was not all that pretty throughout America’s past, but thankfully overtime American citizens’ civil liberties and rights expanded – granting Americans true freedom.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 7, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11. Web.
Canada is perceived by other nations as a peace-loving and good-natured nation that values the rights of the individual above all else. This commonly held belief is a perception that has only come around as of late, and upon digging through Canadian history it quickly becomes obvious that this is not the truth. Canadian history is polluted with numerous events upon which the idea that Canada is a role model for Human Rights shows to be false. An extreme example of this disregard for Human Rights takes place at the beginning of the twentieth-century, which is the excessive prejudice and preconceived notions that were held as truths against immigrants attempting to enter Canada. Another prime example of these prejudices and improper Human Rights is the Internment of those of Japanese descent or origin during the Second World War. Also the White Paper that was published by the government continues the theme of Human Rights being violated to the utmost extreme. All these events, as well as many others in history, give foundation to the idea that “Canada as a champion for Human Rights is a myth”.
Firstly, the act makes it possible for government officials to remove a dual citizen’s citizenship if they assume that the person never intended to reside in Canada, which could happen when the Canadian decides to work or study abroad, or to marry and move in with someone outside of Canada (Canadian Bars Association). However, first class Canadians who do not have other citizenships can work, study, or marry freely anywhere and anytime without worrying that spending time outside of Canada might put their citizenship at risk. Meurrens suggests that second-class citizens will fear accepting a job offer, studying and travelling abroad because of the new regulations of the citizenship act (Meurrens). Bill C-24 violates the Charter of Rights section 6 that citizens are allowed to enter, remain in, or leave Canada, and mobility rights of citizens (Amnesty International Canada). Secondly, the law allows government officials to revoke citizenship from a dual citizen based on criminal convictions happened outside of Canada, regardless whether the administration or judicial system under which the Canadian was condemned is undemocratic or lacks the rule of law (Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers). In addition, the rule of revoking citizenships from dual