Argument Analysis: Secularism In Canada

After the 1980 referendum, a new crisis emerge to implicate Levesque and other provincial premiers to Trudeau threats of repatriate the constitution and enshrined the Charter of Rights from Britain. In November 198, Leveque and other premiers who opposed to Trudeau plan gather in Ottawa to negotiate the Trudeau’s proposal. However, Trudeau quick won over the English-speaking support by the promise of “Notwithstanding Clause” which limit the power of the federal government over provincial authority. Levesque felt betrayed by the former allies who signed the agreement with Trudeau, but Levesque refused to sign the agreement. Trudeau succeeded in achieving his objective; the right of Francophones outside Quebec to have their own schools; the Anglophones who come to Quebec from different provinces to have right would have access to English school. Nevertheless, Trudeau’s new constitution did not recognized Quebec as distinct society and no veto rights, but gave Quebec the right to opting out with no financial

On the international stage, Canada is often viewed as a secular and multicultural nation. Throughout the history of the country, immigrants have come to Canada seeking a country which is accepting of diversity in ethnicity, language, religion, and culture. Especially since the 1970s, when multiculturalism was introduced by former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, thus becoming an official policy of Canada, the diversity of the nation has increased greatly, (Wang & Handy, 2014, p. 1561). However, while Canada has become a more multicultural country as a whole, it has not necessarily become more religiously pluralistic. In fact, it has been argued that Canada remains and will continue to be an overwhelmingly Christian country and many immigrants

Politicians in Quebec have passed a controversial religious neutrality bill which would require people receiving and giving services to expose their faces and could mean that the Muslim niqab or burqa could be banned in public.

Many Canadians of the 21st century still often wonder, was the creation of the Charter of Rights & Freedoms a mistake? It is believed that the Charter 's creation was a significant benefit as it guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all areas and levels of government. However, many believe the Charter makes Canada more like the United States, especially by serving corporate rights and individual rights rather than group rights and social rights. Also, there are several rights that should be included in the Charter, such as a right to health care and a basic right to free education. With this, by guaranteeing certain political rights and civil rights to every Canadian citizen, it is evident that the creation of the Charter of Rights & Freedoms was not a mistake, and was truly a benefit to all Canadian citizens for many important reasons. One important reason is that Charter guarantees all Canadians their legal rights as it promises rights of people in dealing with the justice system and law enforcement are protected. In addition with the guarantee of Canadians legal rights, is their language rights which is to assure people have the right to use either the English or French language in communications with Canada 's federal government and certain provincial governments. As well as guaranteeing all Canadian 's equality rights to promise equal treatment before and under the law. The

As Canada continues to socially progress, the Charter has made Canada struggle to become a more just society. The Charter as part of the evolution of the constitution does not suddenly place Canada in a brighter light where justice is eminent and achieved easily for society as a whole. Likewise, the method of appointing judges to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has forced the judicial interpretation of the Charter to be perceived negatively by the rest of Canada.

Various previous attempts to reach an agreement have failed, as they have been unable to address these issues. However, one of these agreements resulted in the implementation of a constitutional amendment in which implemented the Canadian Bill of Rights that is commonly known as the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms. Secondly, this constitutional amendment allowed Canada to make its own constitutional changes and not Great Britain. However, these major changes were made without the consent of Quebec. The fact that these changes were made without Quebec means that a quarter of Canada’s population did not agree with the terms. It is simply unacceptable that the Constitutional amendments made in 1982 made an effort to recognize and accommodate Canada’s multicultural and Aboriginal populations, yet do nothing in regards to accommodating the distinctive character of Quebec.

For most Quebecers, November 15, 1976 serves as a memorable date that triggered an array of effects that have come to define today’s Quebec. The date marks the Quebec general election in which the Parti Québécois (PQ) led by René Lévesque, defeated the Quebec Liberal Party, led by Robert Bourassa (Gossage & Little, 2012, p. 265). The victory caused many repercussions and reforms in rural zoning, auto protection, and laws on political party funding (Dickinson & Young, 2008, p. 333). Most notably, the triumph left federalists feeling powerless, particularly in Quebec’s English-speaking community, who were very concerned about the possibility of Quebec independence. Moreover, the bringing in of the Charter of the French Language (Bill 101) on August 26, 1977 contributed to the enlarging strain in Quebec’s English-speaking community (Gossage & Little, 2012, p. 266). As a result, a great deal of research has been made on the intense psychological transformations felt by Quebec’s English-speaking communities following the historic election.

This essay will argue the reasons behind the notwithstanding clause remaining within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In this paper, I will provide reasons as to why the clause should be kept within the Charter beginning with the arguments that it is an essential element in critical policy decisions being made by politicians and it 's hard to remove which requires the amending formula to be used if changes are to be made. On the other side, its use in policy can create grave and problematic judicial activism in the eyes of those who oppose it. In the next few paragraphs, I will define my terms, introduce a brief history of the charter and the notwithstanding clause and describe the positions from both sides regarding its use,

McRoberts argues that Anglophone Canada has never been responsive to Quebec and its distinct needs. But to make matter worse, Anglophone Canada has taken on the opinions of Trudeau, and as such view giving any extra powers to Quebec as unfair. Thus, true recognition of Quebec has not happened, and the outlook for its future is not very bright. Seymour adds to this by stating what English Canada has not recognized is Quebec`s linguistic identity, as French, and its cultural identity, as bilingual. Finally, Gagnon and Taylor argue that the only way to properly recognize Quebec is through asymmetrical federalism. This will allow Quebec sufficient autonomy to protects its own culture as it sees

In many ways, contemporary Quebec is a drastically different society than the Quebec of the early twentieth century. No longer can the majority of Quebecers be described as religious, rural, and conservative; instead they are generally secular, urban, and liberal. This transformation has come about largely because of the change in values that occurred as Quebec modernized: today’s Quebec is built around the values of secularism, gender equality, and the primacy of the French language, principles that would have seemed outlandish a few generations ago. Change triggers the urge to ask questions, and in this case, the question raised is whether or not Quebec society is better off as a result of its commitment to these values. In my opinion, one

some of the people in Quebec, the stated intention is to get Quebec independence. The Clarity Act was the PQ's plans to hold another referendum. They want to create a "winning conditions" and that is what they intend to do. The government of Canada has the right and obligation to indicate what, in a referendum on secession, it would consider to be a clear majority on a clear question. In conclusion it is proved that due to the Constitution Act,

Quebec is excluded from the current collective vision even if Canada tries to compensate and keep them in our society because the Quebecois feel that not all these powers and rights from the compensation it cannot help protect their identity and

The quote by Jean Charest describes the wishes of Quebec citizens. He underlines that the Quebecois want to be recognized as “being different”, having their own unique “history” and “identity”. Cherest claims as well that wanting these to be recognized causes no threat to national unity. Jean Charest is a Quebec Politician, meaning that he speaks for the whole province when making statements such as these, therefore it can be assumed that this quote is relaying the thoughts of the collective not just the individual. I disagree to this quote to a partial extent as it falsely claims to have had no threat to Canada’s national Unity and indirectly elevates the idea of Quebec separatism, I however agree that this province should remain its own nation

In a country abundant with natural resources, a bright and competent population, and a kind, revered reputation, the shared thoughts of a well educated and astute leader and one’s cabinet sharing the same characteristics is critical. Our country is based on an multicultural population with differing views and ways of life, considering the the priceless value of the the Canada’s assets, it is imperative that it is handled in the best way possible, and, as time goes on, the ones involved in the control of our country will become more apt, leading to better control of our issues over time. European, Asian, African: all with varying religions, perspectives, ways of being, and all have important roles in our diverse, hard-working country. Ergo, the sharing of thoughts of views when thinking for Canada is imperative. For example, when France put in place a ban on all face/head coverings,

But wait! Surely secularism does exactly that, imposing the views of the nonreligious onto the religious? No. Secularism has never been a