Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms Analysis

The United States Bill of Rights came into being as a result of a promise made by the Fathers of Confederation to the states during the struggle for ratification of the Constitution in 1787-88. A great number of the states made as a condition for their ratification, the addition of amendments, which would guarantee citizens protection of their rights against the central government. Thus, we have a rather interesting situation in which the entrenchment of a bill of rights in the American Constitution was done by the virtual demand of the states, they themselves fearing a central government which was not legally constrained and restricted as far as its powers were concerned.

Apart from the other laws in Canada’s constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important law that affects every Canadian’s rights and freedoms. It was created in 1981 by former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau to provide legal protection for the most important rights and freedoms. These rights include fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights, and legal rights. Most but not all articles included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are protected in the constitution. However, if a Canadian feels that their rights are violated, they can challenge laws and unfair actions using the justice system. In my opinion, I believe the Canadian Charter of Human Rights somewhat protects Canadians’ rights and

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II April 17, 1982. Often referred to as the Charter, it affirms the rights and freedoms of Canadians in the Constitution of Canada. The Charter encompasses fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights, language rights and equality rights. The primary function of the Charter is to act as a regulatory check between Federal, Provincial and Territorial governments and the Canadian people. Being a successor of the Canadian Bill of Rights that was a federal statute, amendable by Parliament, the Charter is a more detailed and explicit constitutional document that has empowered the judiciary to render regulations and statutes at both the

In a more recent court decision, Carter v. Canada was a game-changer for the movement to grant Canadians the right to die with dignity. In a unanimous decision, the justices of the high court struck down on the federal prohibition on doctor-assisted dying. It was argued that the law violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since the law regarding doctor assisted dying was created because of Carter v. Canada, the immediate and known risks associated with doctor assisted dying are being addressed and managed by establishing a strict but fair criteria for determining who can access doctor assisted dying and the safeguards that are in place to safely administer it. To meet the criteria, he/she must be a competent adult, clearly consent to the termination of life, have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, and experience enduring suffering that is intolerable in the circumstances of his or her condition. Doctors are required to use their knowledge, skill and judgement to assess an individual’s aptness for doctor assisted death, in conjunction with the above-mentioned criteria. We must recognize that within these criteria are sub-criteria’s and there are many steps to this procedure.

I found myself thinking sociologically when I realized that equality in Canada is less practiced as what the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982 claims. In this constitution, it is stated that every individual should be treated equally regardless of their race, ethnicity, colour, religion, sex, age, and any disability; however, in reality, individuals experience inequality in the form of racism throughout the Canadian society. For instance, a few months ago, a black male was asked to leave the St. Laurent shopping centre by the mall securities as the position of his pants were viewed as not family-friendly but this type of fashion is normal for teenagers who are influenced by the hip-hop culture. As the man did not want to cause any trouble,

The right to life is considered a fundamental freedom of all citizens in society. For example, in section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter), every Canadian is granted the right to “life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice” . However, this freedom rests on a delicate balance and has been contested in various situations to determine its scope. Originally, the preservation of life was considered as an absolute necessity and was therefore entrenched in Canadian constitutional law. However, recently this necessity has been questioned for its assumption that all individuals desire to live at all costs. Instead, the Courts have recognized that “in certain circumstances, an individual 's choice about the end of [their] life is entitled to respect” . As such, this paper will examine a legal case that exemplifies the changing societal beliefs, and will analyze the specifics of the law, paying close attention to the nature of the legal conflict, policy implications, and its contribution to the understanding of Canadian law.

Firstly, through my observations of the different courts it was evident the administration of justice is done in due time, and the process is not expedited without an outstanding reason as it can lead to misguided verdict. Furthermore, the criminal trial process in our society focuses on equality and promotes this principle by entitling an accused of even the most heinous crimes to civil liberties and processes as not to compromise the criminal trial process. A fair trial is an intrinsic right of all members of society making it fundamental to our being, and is ergo ensured to us all under s.11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was established in 1982 and is the biggest turning point of Canadian history regarding human rights. Before the Charter, rights and freedoms were protected in Canada by a variety of laws, including the 1960 Bill of Rights. Although important, none of these laws were part of the Constitution, therefore lacking the supremacy and permanence of the Charter. This Charter is constitution that protected people from being neglected or mistreated by the government, a problem that had been occurring for many years prior. For example, events such as the Regina Riot, where men fought desperately for their unjust situations but were violently forced to stop. Or, the treatment during the great depression in which the government

The Supreme Court of Canada uses the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to limit the scope of legislation and administrative power by implementing section one of the charter; which results in an open dialogue between the government and the courts on various legislation deemed unconstitutional. In this essay I will discuss the extent in which section one of the Canadian Charter allows the Supreme Court of Canada to dictate legislation, how they go about narrowing legislation and administrative power through the Oaks test, and the history of the Supreme Court from 1982 – present day will be analyzed resulting in an understanding of the legitimacy the courts play with such a role.

Former United States Attorney General Ramsey Clark wrote in the New York Times, "A right is not what someone gives you; but what no one can take away." It is in this vein that a country drafts legislation to protect the rights of their inhabitants. In the United States there is the Bill of Rights, which consists of a preamble and the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, 1787 . The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the first part of the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982 . Both of these documents provide for the rights and freedoms that both countries see as inalienable to their respective populations.

The right to vote in a fair election is fundamental to Canadian democracy. While protected under law, there are tactics which have been used to prevent individuals from exercising this right. In the 2008 and 2011 federal elections, some voters received fraudulent “robo-calls,” instructing them to vote for candidates who were not running for election, or directing them to incorrect or non-existent polling stations. This was a calculated act of voter suppression presenting serious consequences for democracy in Canada. First and foremost, it was a deliberate attempt to deprive Canadians of their right to vote. As such, victims of these calls, as well as many other citizens, were left feeling disillusioned with our electoral system and mistrustful of politics in general. This has not been aided by the fact that only one person was ever charged in connection with the scandal. What that has proven, however, is that it is possible to utilize robo-calls to commit election fraud with relatively little consequence. The use of robo-calls poses a harmful impact to Canadian democracy by denying citizens their right to vote, fostering distrust in politics, and setting a dangerous precedent for future electoral fraud.

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”.

The Canadian constitution is the foundation that forms and brings together our nation government and its legal system. You can also consider the constitution as a rulebook. It contains rules and regulations that political parties must follow in order to adopt, amend, or revoke a law. The constitution has three main sources. In 1867 the British North American Act passed, which was the first source of the constitution. A change was made to the BNA act and was patriated in 1982. It was then officially called the Constitution Act 1867. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were included in the amendments that were added to the Constitution in 1982. The act was renamed Constitution Act 1982. The second source is the unwritten set of rules and conventions, which is crucial in Canadian law. These rules usually are developed and later on used by important politicians and government officials. The last source of the constitution is the court rulings and decisions. When there are disputes or conflicts to solve, the courts are called upon to resolve them. The charter of rights and freedoms is known as the most important piece of paperwork to any living Canadian. (Alexandraowicz 104). It is made up of 34 sections and 9 subsections. The most significant subtopics in the charter are our fundamental freedoms, legal and equality rights. These rights allow us to speak and do as we will under a reasonable limit, protect us under the law, treat us fairly,

Every human in the United States has every single human right in the books, while other countries may not provide the proper amount of human rights to provide to everyone in there country. When living the the United States we take for granted how good we have it while do not have the privilege. Canada isn't a bad country, and definitely follows more human rights then the rest of the world might. The first human right that Canada breaks is that they do not provide clean water to every citizen in their countries. Fresh water supply is most certainly a major human right that everyone should get in order to maintain their health. No human can live without water for more than three or even four days so it should be giving to everyone in the country of Canada. Something else that was definitely wrong is that the government was taking kids away from their families and even sometimes families, and family. It wouldn't feel nice to come home and never again have full rights of your own son or daughter. Your children are your most prized possession and one day the government can take them away because they feel as if they need to, and there is nothing you can do about it. Also the government of Canada was caught not giving their immigrants there full

Discrimination concerns have also become a problem regarding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the past, homosexuals were discriminated and penalized for their sexual orientation. They were murdered in the early twentieth century and then later on imprisoned as time passed. Discrimination also arose if employers discovered of their employees homosexual orientation, which caused them to lose their employment. The equality rights have also been violated concerning marriage benefits and the definition as well – (1) 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. Before the definition of marriage was changed, homosexuals were not included under the law stating marriage as the union between a man and a woman. The government found it unconstitutional and changed it so it would correspond to the changes in the twenty-first century and reflect Canadian society in the present stating that marriage is a civil act