Canada 's Protection Of Its Rights

The rights of many people versus the rights of an individual is certainly a vexing concept. Like a delicate balancing act; if one side is favoured over the other it causes a rift in the already strained relationship between the minority and majority. Evidently, the justification of taking any side must be valid, according to the theories of H.L.A. Hart. In the past, Canadian law has violated the rights of minorities; however, these violations have decreased in their severity as time has passed on. Some cases where the balance between minority and majority rights is questioned is in The Canadian Indian Residential School System, Bill 101, Equality in the Workplace and The Public Service Act.

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.

For many Canadian citizens, including Julie believe that you should only have been allowed to hold one passport from one country, in nineteen seventy seven when Canada changed their rules to, you are able to hold two passports for two different countries it caused an uproar in some particular ground and or individuals. It can be seen that Julie was very passionate about being a Canadian citizen and that she believes that being loyal to Canada was a necessary factor of being Canadian, considering this it can be concluded that Julie was patriotic, she had love and devotion for “her” country. On the contrary, certain individuals, immigrants for example, or humans with parents of different ethnic background, may disagree with this statement due to their circumstances. They may consider it a gift because they are able to live here in Canada, or they are able to see both parents, either way nationalism comes into place for both opinions. For the people who believe that dual citizenship is an intruding factor of being loyal to Canada nationalism comes into place starting with all those people who have patriotic feelings, efforts and, principles. They all have came together to form those groups, likewise, the people who do have dual citizenships. Thus, nationalism plays a fairly big role within the idea of being a true, loyal Canadian

In the eyes of a Canadian, the notion of human rights has evolved drastically over time. Change is ignited when someone feels as though they are being treated unfairly and action is taken to reverse this oppressive environment. There has been a historical pattern of unjust and inhuman acts towards perceived racially inferior groups in Canadian history during the 20th century. The uprising of Black Civil Rights was a crucial step towards an equal and just society; despite Canada’s influence in the fight against the Nazis’ repressive actions in WW2, the fight for racial

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

“Most of the rights can be exercised by any legal person, but few of the rights belong exclusively to citizens of Canada”. (Reference8). With the Charter of Rights and Freedoms the Canadian society has a clear view of human rights and freedoms, and ways to enforce these rights. If the laws or governments action violates our Charter, we have the right to ask the court to address this. “At first Canada was able to take in the disrespectful and racist actions towards us Canadians” (Reference9), also we could be imprisoned without a good reason. But when the Charter stepped in, the government or the police must have a good reason or consent from the court to take actions against us. Meaning because of the Charter the government or police cannot harm us Canadians till they have a valid reason or consent from court. Part of our rights is to have a fair and a quick public trial by an impartial court to prove us either innocent or guilty of our crime. “The Indian Act of 1876 affected first nations who had concluded treaties with Canada’s government “. (Reference10) also they banned traditional ceremonies and the people needed the government’s permission to wear traditional clothes. Later on when the charter was introduced to the Constitution, those problems were fixed. Lastly women weren’t allowed to vote till 1920, because of Canada’s Election Act which banned women from

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

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was established in 1982 and was put into place by the Trudeau government. The purpose of the Charter was to protect the rights of Canadian individuals and to establish independence from Britain. However, one section of the charter sparked much controversy, this was section 33, also known as The Notwithstanding Clause. The purpose of this clause was to allow the state to override a right protected by the charter, for various reasons. These reasons include economic, social or because other rights were found to be more important (Blakeney, 2010) In order for the notwithstanding clause to be put into effect the legislature must declare that they plan to use this clause, and after five years the

Issue: Bill-C24 has come under fire by critics for violation of constitutional rights of naturalized Canadians. The biggest controversy surrounds the citizenship revocation clause that critics argue undermines the citizenship of naturalized Canadians.

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.

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)”

After the storm clouds of apartheid lifted to reveal the Rainbow Nation of South Africa in 1994, the first democratically elected government was tasked with drawing up a new constitution that would properly enshrine the human rights that had so long been denied the majority of citizens. One source drawn upon in developing the new constitution was the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, itself then little more than a decade old. It is not necessary to be a constitutional scholar to detect many similarities between the two; indeed, Canada’s pride in this connection is such that it is highlighted on the Government of Canada 's webpage on bilateral relations with South Africa, which boasts “South Africa 's 1996 Constitution and Bill of Rights draw heavily on Canada 's Charter of Rights and Freedoms”.

Many people believe The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, founded by Pierre Elliott Trudeau benefited and became the base for our country’s foundation. It is believed by many, that the Charter created individual rights and freedom. However, while all this may be true, I will argue that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms negatively impacted Canada, and that Canadians are still feeling these effects today. I will also examine the Charter did more harm to Canadians than good. The Charter Rights and Freedoms affected the operation of trials along with judiciary powers, multiculturalism and provincial rights, which undermined Canadas intended democracy and de-centralized government.

The current collective vision of national identity in Canadian society is that Canada is a pluralistic society, where their is many members from all different types of ethnic groups and where Canada accepts all immigrants from around the world. Canada is also known as one of the most multicultural nation states, which allows individuals to practice and maintain their culture and traditions without fear of their rights being restricted. Canada is welcoming and open to the many different cultures and ethnicities from around the world, everyone is also equal under the law. Through Canadian history many members were excluded from our current collective vision. Some members of the current collective vision feel excluded, because of how with a

Since its inception in 1982 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, very much like its primary architect Pierre Trudeau, has been one of the most celebrated yet controversial elements of Canadian politics and governance. Revealing how this dynamic emerged requires a nuanced understanding of the motivation behind the Charter and the techniques it employed to succeed. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, like the entire patriation process, was motivated by and mobilized support through, constitutionally enshrining democratic core values, multiculturalism and a sense of nationalism. However, it should not be seen as merely a symbolic gesture on the part of Britain and Canada or merely a strengthening of core values. Instead it was a fundamental reinvention of Canadian federalism that shifted power away from the provinces to the federal government and from the Parliament to the courts. This was accomplished by incentivizing provincial acceptance, developing common interests, and, as a result, formalizing a national identity where the protection and expansion of core values was encouraged as fundamental. This dynamic allowed the reinvention to, by and large, succeed.