Bill 60

A great example of the changes done to ethnic minority human rights is the use of religious garbs in places where wearing something that covers your head, face, or eyesight is not allowed (e.g. school). It can also be the use of religious garbs while participating in an athletic event or police work (RCMP and city/provincial police).14 “In December 2007, the Alberta Soccer Association approved the wearing of sports-friendly hijabs, joining British Columbia and Ontario.”15 This shows that Canadian sports organizations are willing to let people wear their religious garbs during athletic activities, as long as they are athletic friendly.16 The federal government of Canada has also removed a law which forced people who work in the RCMP to wear RCMP Stetsons. This law was removed in Marsh 1990 because it would not allow people of the Silk faith to wear turbans, a religious garb of the Sikh people.17 These changes to laws affecting ethnic minority human rights show that the Canadian government and organizations are trying to be as fair as possible (i.e. the Canadian government will be reasonable, and will not, for example, allow people to wear their religious garbs as helmets),18 and that the religious beliefs of minorities are no longer ignored. Because of the changes to ethnic minority human rights, Canada is as a “just

In Canadian history, nationalism and sovereignty tend to be common themes prevalent since Confederation. A well-known example of this in Quebec was during the Quiet Revolution which strengthened the need for change through Premier Lesage’s reforms and in turn, developed a strong sense of nationalism in Quebec. In contrast to beliefs that the rapid modernization of the Quiet Revolution had a positive impact on Quebec, it rather had a negative impact on Quebec and its citizens and identity. The three consequences which arose in Quebec as a result of the revolution are the encouragement of separatism, the elimination of traditional values and roles and the establishment of powerful bureaucratic control. Quebec’s attempt to be more like the

The entrenchment of rights in the Canadian Constitution comes after long experience with a system of parliamentary supremacy. The American judicial tradition of treating the written constitution as fundamental law cannot have an instant Canadian counterpart. Thus, it does not follow that the Canadian courts will necessarily claim a role comparable to that of courts in the United States, nor is it clear that the representative bodies in Canada would tolerate such a judicial assertion of power. Opposition by government bodies to the Charter have already occurred in Canada, where the Parti Quebecois government of Quebec invoked the “notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” clause for the purpose of protecting their language laws from attack under the charter. This report will attempt to note some of the common and distinctive features of the text of the two constitutions as well as to how they differ.

One of the most misinterpreted aspects of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the freedom of expression. Group organizations have misused this much too often. In the past, many extremist groups have misused this right to protect themselves. A great example is the Westboro Baptist Church. This church is one of the many groups across North America that uses the Charter to protect themselves. The Charter protects them even though their actions and messages are harmful and not beneficial to society. If the Charter was to recognize these groups as dangerous, they wouldn’t have the chance to misuse these freedoms. Also, the fact that if a Canadian citizen were to use the excuse of the freedom of expression to defend their actions, they wouldn’t

“Section 27 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires that the Charter “be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.” The Official Languages Act has significantly made an effective contribution on Canada’s immigration success. It has allowed Pierre Elliott Trudeau to further expand his ideas on allowing individuals of all ethnicities and races to live their lives freely. English and French languages can be used in all government institutions of Canada, communicating freely within the public area and in the home. Both the English and French languages can be used in debates, courts, schools and any public institution. The importance of the Official Languages Act is to guarantee equality rights such as privileges and status between the French and English Canadians. Nevertheless, Pierre Elliot Trudeau was productive in ensuring the equal opportunities and rights of citizens. In modern day society, Pierre Trudeau’s accomplishments in enacting human rights has significantly improved. Overtime, it has diversified the cultures in schools and other public institutions. More individuals are becoming acceptant of race, ethnicity, homosexuality and religious beliefs. Due to the result of the diversity of cultures in schools, it has brought humans closer to one another and accepting of ones’

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is without a doubt one of Canada’s most important section entrenched in the Canadian Constitution. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights enacted into the Canadian Constitution as part of the Canada Act in 1982. However, the Charter was Canada’s second attempt to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens all throughout the country and on every level of government. The Canadian Bill of Rights, which preceded the Charter was enacted in 1960. However, being only a federal statute rather than a full constitutional document, it had no power and application to provincial laws. In addition, the Supreme Court of Canada only narrowly interpreted the Bill of Rights, therefore rarely unlawful laws were declared inoperative and continued to exist. As a result, the ineffectiveness of the Bill of Rights led to many movements to improve the protection of rights and freedoms in Canada. However, similar to its predecessor, the Charter is not without faults, and loopholes. In some cases, it has even infringed upon certain liberties and democratic rights and freedoms. In other cases, the Charter has incited conflicts between liberty and democracy and raised questions that speculate whether it is truly democratic.

The purpose of this act is to encourage and monitor the sharing of information between Government of Canada institutions in order to protect Canada against activities that threaten the security of Canada, but this bill not only fails to fix those flaws, it recreates and causes more underlying problems without adding any meaningful safeguards to ensure the expansive powers it grants will not be similarly abused. The bill allows information sharing across 17 government institutions for a wide range of purposes, most of which have nothing to do with terrorism. After the bill was passed, it has raised serious concerns regarding the potential impact is has on the basic civil liberties of all Canadians. The new legislation significantly expands CSIS’

The Special Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate was implemented in 1980 in the wake of the Quebec referendum on independence. The goal of the committee was to hear submissions from the public on amendments to the Constitution. In a three-month consultation period, 914 individuals and groups submitted briefs before the committee (Clément, 2015). Hoping to have a direct impact on the Canadian constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, five organizations

In 1976 Rene Levesque won the provincial election and became premier of Quebec with his party, Parti Quebecois. The separatists wanted to strengthen the French language and didn’t care about official bilingualism. So not long after taking office, the Parti Quebecois passed Bill 101, which is also known as the Charter of the French Language. It decreed that French was the single official language of the province of Quebec and that employees of the government had to work in French. Outdoor commercial signs had to be in French only and the children of immigrants would have to go to French schools. The Quebecois likes this new law because they thought their language and culture was becoming endangered. Birth rates in Quebec had gone down and the

The necessity to limit the rights and freedoms of Canadians is illustrated and reinforced through the governments use of reasonable limits, ‘notwithstanding clause’ to limit individual rights and freedoms, and the occasional need for the government to have power extended above and beyond the limits prescribed in the Charter.

In 1980 The PQ government called a referendum asking weather Quebec should have a new agreement with the rest of Canada. The No side won by a slim margin. In response to the referendum Pierre Trudeau promised to reform the Constitution. "Do you want "a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations"? That was the heart of the question placed before the people of Quebec in the May 20, 1980 referendum. René Lévesque's Parti Québécois was asking Quebecers for a mandate to negotiate "sovereignty-association", an idea that inflamed federalists and separatists alike.

It is believed that Canada was in violation of the human rights when they forced the aboriginals to get assimilated into a Eurocentric society. There were instances of children being forced from homes into Christian schools. This was violation of human rights ( Asch 98).

As we know from section two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms everyone has certain fundamental freedoms, and among those rights is the freedom of conscience and religion. Secularism comes as a shock to Canadians because of how many people immigrate to Canada because of its positive attitudes towards multiculturalism. After presenting opposing arguments with concern to the promotion of a secular state through a device such as the Québec Charter, I will that the Charter because it violates basic human rights and forces secularism onto the Quebecois.

The debate on banning religious symbols in Quebec, and Quebec wanting to be their own country has been an issue for quite some time. The province we formally known as Quebec established a shield against themselves to advocate that they would like things to go their own way. It is said that they would like to form a place where religion is neutral (Hughes, 2013). Time after time, we get new reports on Quebec being disturbed at the sight of all the different symbols in their province; they aren’t too fond of multiculturalism. We know all of Canada to be a place where everyone can be comfortable in their own skin. Our country is a place of diversity and has not changed until a province like Quebec wants to turn away from our multiculturalism and change the Charter of Rights to please themselves, but why?

Despite what backers of bans claim, restrictions on religious apparel unfairly impacts individuals trying to practice their own religions, and are discriminatory because the effects of these laws obstruct particular religions disproportionately. While governments do have a responsibility to establish and ensure domestic tranquility, prohibiting religious clothing isn’t the proper or effective way to do so. First of all, many currently enacted laws already authorize police and government officials to ask individuals to remove religious coverings in court and during traffic stops as well as in certain legislative buildings (Barker). Therefore, it is unnecessary to ban veils altogether when authorities do not require such an extreme step to identify