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
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
I, Sam Grace Saji, will be ruling on the validity of the law and legal proceedings in Clearwater v. the Queen. During the proceedings, the appellant raised several Charter considerations: s. 2(b)(c)(d), s. 7, and s. 9.
S. 2(b)(c)(d) states that everyone has the fundamental freedoms of thought, opinion and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association. As Mr. Clearwater explicitly said that he hoped that the minister would be released and the fact that the Friends of the North had no criminal history, labeling the Friends of the North a criminal organization and arresting Mr. Clearwater for expressing his opinion was unconstitutional. Nowhere in Mr. Clearwater’s speech was any kind of harmful or malicious intent detected, only unhappiness with the current state of matters. Therefore, Mr.
…show more content…
1 to justify the arrest unconvincing. According to s. 1, all of the rights and freedoms set in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are guaranteed and are only subject to reasonable limits that are prescribed by law in a free and democratic society. While the issue at hand is a pressing and substantial matter, the arrest was not prescribed by law and Mr. Clearwater’s rights will be severely impaired if his arrest was justified. Moreover, Mr. Clearwater’s arrest essentially signifies that the man should have just remained silent and not exercised his constitutional right to express his opinion; sending a negative message about the government to society that may cause people to see the government as suppressing dissenting voices. Nothing that Mr. Clearwater said can be used to label him as the supporter of a criminal organization, especially considering the fact that he said that he did not agree with the criminal methods of the Environmental Liberation Movement (assuming that the “maybe” does not mean a wavering stance). In conclusion, the government failed to justify Mr. Clearwater’s arrest under the provisions of s.
319(2) of the criminal code lead to the infringement of his rights of freedom of speech as guaranteed by s. 2(b). However, his appeal got denied and he was anyways tried and convicted. It was after this that he went to the Court of Appeal of Canada who decided that his freedom of speech is indeed being suppressed by the s. 319(2) of the criminal code and thus the case was further sent up to the Supreme Court of Canada. The question to be answered by the Supreme Court here was that whether or not his freedom of speech infringed by the s. 319(2) and if so, how can it be protected by s. 1 of the
This action violated Korematsu’s basic constitutional rights. The fourth amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." The government’s actions clearly stepped over the boundaries of the constitution. As a U.S. citizen he should not have been pushed around like that. Korematsu decided to take his case to the court.
The parties proceeding the case are the Attorney General of Nova Scotia, appellants: vs. Susan Walsh and Wayne Bona, respondents, and the Attorney General for Ontario, the Attorney General
This case commentary discusses the different approaches used to be taken in Victoria and NSW, presuming that the admissibility of the Evidence in ss 97, 98 and 101 is of the same decision, not separate decision .
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...
It has been said the Cape Fear River is the lifeblood of Southport. If this is correct, then Whittler’s Bench must be the heart. This riverfront setting at the foot of Howe Street has been a local gathering point for over two hundred years. Find a parking place (waterfront parking is in high demand so early morning parking is easiest) and visit Waterfront Park or take your fishing rod and visit the City Pier. Enjoy the cool breeze and river view. Watch the sail boats and power boats cruise the river. Oceangoing cargo ships and tankers make their way up and down the Cape Fear under the guidance of a local river pilot. Ferries shuttle people and cargo to Fort Fisher and Bald Head Island across the river. The cacophony of the gulls
Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbeck Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112 House of Lords
Four out of the seven judges disagreed while the three agreed with the decision of the Court of Appeal .They believed that section 319(2) infringed section 2(b) of the Charter, which was restricting the individuals’ freedoms they deserved, because an addressed speech that might be offending may be perceived as an expression that should be protected under section 2(b). Although the infringement that one section of the Charter had over the other, the judges concluded that there wasn’t a similarity between the effects of the freedom of expression and the objective. Hence, Keegstra’s conviction was
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
As part of the constitution that states the rights of individuals in United States, in the “Bill of Rights”, or the first ten amendments, the first amendment claims and prohibits the Congress from hindering individuals to exercise their freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and the right to petition. In the article The Hell You Say by Kelefa Sanneh, there was a debate about what is free speech and who has the power to control free speech. The article asked the question “who is censoring whom?” to the readers to engage them and actively think about the topic. Although, the article claimed that “Free speech can be harmful, and its defenders should be willing to say so”, it did not clearly indicate any pros or cons of any side the reader
Although the government has no direct place in the silencing an individual’s convictions; however unpopular, no such immunity is given in the case of one’s peers. The judgement of one’s peers is almost always enough to silence any dissenting opinions. The social cost of an unpopular opinion Twain writes: “... can ruin a man in his business, it can lose him his friends, it can subject him to public insult and abuse, it can ostracize his unoffending family, and make his house a despised and unvisited solitude (Twain).” It is quite ironic that freedom of speech stresses being free, but nevertheless comes with such a great cost to the individual. With such great expense at stake, exercising one’s right to honesty always comes second to maintaining social status. Furthermore, Twain compares the costs of free speech to murder. He writes of free speech: “It ranks with the privilege of committing murder: we may exercise it if we are willing to take the consequences (Twain).” Twain rather amusingly juxtaposes the crimes of murder and free speech. The two actions are in theory completely unalike, the former to be punished and the latter to be defended. Yet Twain instead comes to the conclusion that they are actually both privileged and are punished in the same way. Both when committed, immediately condemn an
Mason, The Hon Sir A, 1988, ‘The use and abuse of precedent’, Australian Bar Review, vol. 4, no.1, pp. 93.
First and foremost, when it comes to the Supreme Court on civil liberty cases, they must balance someone’s freedom with what the government thinks is in the best interest for the public good. For instance, because of the war on
The constitution also prohibits speech that advocates the forcible overthrow of the government. Political speech, it is argued, must be circumscribed by the need for national stability and ethnic