Alotta Gannja Case Study

With the government’s public service force not being allowed to wear religious clothing, this right is being compromised. Workers who do wear religious clothing were being stripped of their freedom to practise their religion, and the PQ is thus in violation of another section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Additionally, section 2 clause (b) presents the freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression. This too is being dishonoured, as religious clothing is a form of expression of one’s beliefs, and the government was looking past this. While some may argue that Section 1 of the Charter declares that the Rights and Freedoms are set out with “reasonable limits” there is little reason in the argument presented by the PQ. These reasonable limits are why general public decency and dress codes are permitted, however, there is no reason to limit the wearing of religious

The case being presented is the Kahkewistahaw First Nation v. Taypotat, which is a 2015 Supreme Court of Canada decision. The Kahkewistahaw First Nation developed an election code, which required that candidates who wished to be a Band Councilor or Chief must have achieved at least a grade 12 education (CanLII, 2015). The Chief for the majority of the previous three decades (27 years), 76 year old Louis Taypotat, had only attained a grade 10 education, which caused him to be disqualified from candidacy (CanLII, 2015). Taypotat opposed the process of the development of the election code, his disqualification, and the constitutionality of the election requirement (CanLII, 2015). His main argument was that the requirement for a candidate to possess a Grade 12 education violated section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states that, “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability”, and that educational attainment is analogous to race and age (Canadian Charter of Rights

In Canada deprivation of citizenship has a long history. There are many grounds you can be deprived of citizenship and the grounds are changing. For example if you procured citizenship by fraud then government can deprive the citizenship, another example is before WWI , you could be deprived of citizenship because you work for enemy. During the WWI your citizenship can be deprived just because you are citizen of country at war with Britain. And before 1977 in RSC 1952 the ground for deprivation including “any offence involving disaffection or disloyalty to Her Majesty” after 1977 the fraud become the only ground for deprivation. In 2005, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration rejected treason and terrorism

This case involves the appellant, Shiwprashad, who after 14 prior criminal record charges, including assault and threatening death, committed robbery (p5). His last conviction prior to the robbery was entered October 20th, 2008, for the sexual interference and sexual exploitation of his 15-year-old step daughter. He pleaded guilty and received a 12-month conditional sentence for sexual interference on top of 100 days he had spent in pre-sentence custody. For the sexual exploitation aspect of the crime he received a 90-day intermittent sentence (p6). Being his sexual interference charge was so severe, on July 8th, 2009, he was reported to be “inadmissible to Canada on the basis of serious criminality pursuant to s. 36(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA)”

As a Canadian-Muslim woman, I proudly wear my hijab, a choice that is completely my own and not influenced by others. Wearing my hijab does not cause any physical or psychological harm to anyone so than why should I be forced to remove it, if I want a good job working in Quebec? Have we really become so intolerant and insecure of ourselves that even the sight of a religious symbol has become unbearable and strikes fear in our society? The proposed charter is an infringement on my basic rights as a human. What I choose to wear is my personal choice; a freedom I thought I had as a Canadian citizen by birth. -Hagirah Farooq, student, Longueuil, Que.

In 1985, Canada implemented the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Under Section 15 of the Charter, all Canadians regardless of their (1)“race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability” were officially given the right to be protected by the law, and benefit from the law without discrimination.

In MacDonald’s article, The barbaric cultural practice of election pronouncements, he looks at how the current Canadian political election has created this barrier between Muslims and Canadians.

According to the 2011 Census, there are 1,054,945 Muslims and 468,670 Sikhs that live in Canada. The number of Muslims and Sikhs that live in Canada are rising every year and as the number rises so does the number of hate crimes, especially against people that represent their faith through articles of clothing. The views on these articles of clothing are split between every individual, everyone has different opinions about them. There is a lack of knowledge from the general population about why people choose to represent their faith. But whose voice has the authority on this matter of the situation? Which matters more public opinion or legislation? I argue that there is a disconnect between public actions and the legal sphere and

Government who lost all judgment up until then. The Supreme court deemed it was unconstitutional to ignore the needs of certain individuals. As a result, in B.C. the province must pay for interpreters that are mandatory for people with communication disabilities. The Supreme Court made an astute decision to support equality rights by valuing it over taxpayers’ money, and to confirm everyone in Canada is having a fair and equitable life. As important as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is, the protection of new and resident canadians are also important. Canada protects it with Canada’s immigration and refugee

Canada criminal responsibility a person that is arrested has the right to an attorney and the reason for the arrest must be given in detail. Once under arrest the person has the right to remain silent, if not anything they say would be used as evidence against them. Canada Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ensures that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. “All offences in Canada may be classified as indictable (the more serious) or summary conviction (the less serious)” (Criminal Procedure, n.d.). Any person that is convicted of has the right to a second tribunal.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, Chapter 6 and others; advocacy groups, lobbyist, and political parties are among the “standard” pathways to the Canadian constitution. Different opinions and political ideologies can be proposed and open for public debate. However, as mentioned in the video, sometimes the motives, and analogies of different Islamic political leaders can be questionable. Currently, many Muslims might feel vulnerable and oppressed due to recent events lead by different Islamic groups. As a result, they might feel alienated and

Nantiya Ruan, currently a Professor at the University of Denver's Sturm College of Law, has years of experience representing plaintiffs in complex litigations in the United States, including cases on civil rights, employment discrimination, and compensation. In this article, much is spoken about the various laws protecting one against religious discrimination, including the Free Exercise Clause, the First Amendment, and the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, among others. The article places emphasis on several cases where the courts have denied religious expression in the workplace. To solve these inconsistencies, Ruan devises three approaches for the courts to provide protection for respectful religious expression. Ruan states that, "This

Section 7 in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person”,

Recently there has been a push towards banning religious symbolism from the media, especially the hijab. The hijab is a veil that Muslim women wear around their heads to cover their hair and their bosoms; it symbolizes faith and modesty. Many people fear or in some cases feel “bad” for people who wear the headscarf including niqabs and burqas because they are uneducated and/or ignorant of Islamic teachings which lead them to create inaccurate assumptions and accusations on the matter. Most may believe banning the headscarf will benefit the community in ways that they believe will make people feel more comfortable and they also believe that it will benefit the women who wear the hijab because of the belief that Muslim women who wear the headscarf are oppressed, however, banning the headscarf would lead to the contradiction of Canadian values, discrimination, and go against the religious beliefs of Muslims.

Canada has overcome many challenges throughout it’s upbringing, but still has to face new and prominent challenges every day. One of the more notable disputes Canada has to deal with is upcoming technology, and its effect on modern day society. Does society allow security to go through phones and other personal property, or does it consider that a breach of an individual’s rights. Although it’s a topic no one wants to touch, the large influx of refugees and the situation in the eastern countries has become a very prominent issue in Canada’s recent years. Lastly, but most importantly, freedom of speech has become an extremely tricky subject, once again dealing with fundamental human rights. Curb one’s freedom of speech, a basic and important human right, or pertain to the feelings and thoughts of society, sheltering those who might get offended. These are arguably the most prominent issues in society, and the debate as to what the right answer is will last for many years to come.