Communities Rights to Enforce Moral Conviction through Law

To what extent was Pierre Trudeau’s vision of a “just society” actually achieved in Canada in (and since) the 1970s? Canada is a just society because of the changes to women's legal rights, ethnic minority human rights, and multiculturalism.

To tell the truth, firstly, I think Canada has too many laws because of the lack of universality reflected by its laws.Nowadays, the society and also the quality of people are both developing rapidly day by day.However, from a deeper point of view, we could easily seek out the truth under the “peaceful” and “harmonious” surface of the modern

n response to the criticisms of those who are anti-judicial activism, “supporters of judicial activism say such activism through judicial review is necessary because it allows the courts to step in and fill gaps in the law where minorities are not protected because of political pressures and where politicians are afraid to legislate” . This raises the argument that judges and the judiciary play a balanced activist legislative role in such a way that it protects the rights of minorities from legislation or regulation imposed by the government. Within our democratic system, legislators will pay attention to what the majority wants and they will pursue public policies, which favour the majority. This leaves minority interests vulnerable to the legislations and regulations imposed by the government. By playing an active role, the judiciary ensures that the rights of the minorities are protected and that law does not contravene with the Charter of Human Rights and the Constitution of Canada. Through this kind of judicial activism, the courts strike a balance with the legislatures role. This is not to say that the judiciary takes on the role of policymaking and the legislature, but rather that both institutions embrace what is referred to as a “dialogue” where there is a balance between judicial decision-making and legislative-executive decision making . However, according to MacKay, “it is legitimate for the courts to engage in a form of judicial policy making so long as they do

In contrast to the Canadian parliamentary system, which has remained fairly static and unchanged since Victorian times, the Canadian legal system has undergone a tremendous evolution over the last century and a half. When looking at Canadian history in depth one discovers the repeated movement to take power from the superiors or the overruling and place it into the palms of the people. As seen through examples our western law (canadian law) has slowly branched off from the supremacy of God (mosaic law), to the supremacy of the monarchy (bristish law), finally to a realization of the importance of citizen participation in the creating, governing, and administrating of the laws (Greek law).

Dwelling in the deepest recesses of the mind, hidden in the various cortexes of the brain, the fundamental nature of every human lurks seeping into the actions of the individual. Can morality ever dictate a society? The individual contradicts the group and morals become subjective. Morals form ethics, ethics form laws, but all must have nearly universal agreement in order to be validated. Due to this unavoidable variation of an individual’s morals the necessary consensus of morals prevents the establishment of a true moral based society.

In August 2015, the case Miller V Davis brought to light the complicated relationship between law and morality. Indeed, Mrs Davis a county clerk in Rowan county (Kentucky), is being sued for not delivering marriage licences to same sex couples as she believes that homosexuality is morally wrong. Thus, despite the fact that same-sex marriage has been made legal by the U.S Supreme Court since June 2015. Ought individuals to apply the law though it is in inadequacy with their moral beliefs? Do the law should be totally free from any moral influence? Many legal scholars have argued on these questions, as well as trying to define the terms “law” and “morality”. While no one has agreed to a universal definition, law can be defined as a “body of rules, whether proceeding from formal enactment or from custom, which a particular state or community recognizes as binding on its members or subjects”. On the other hand, morality is referred to as an “ethical wisdom” , the set of common values unifying a society. This essay will discuss the role of morality in the law, while analysing different legal school of thoughts arguing on the topic. First of all, positivists such as Bentham, Austin and Hart, argued that morality should not interfere with the law as it is created by a legitimate authority. On the other hand, naturalist theorists, such as Aristotle, Fuller and Dworkin, believed in the existence of a “higher law”, highly influenced by morals, has to be integrated in a legal system

In common law, judges interpret the law and judge apply it based on precedent from previous cases; compared to civil law which focuses on written legislature. In Canada, judges are given the chance to be activists. If a judge believes a citizen’s rights, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are being violated, they are given the power to rule against the unconstitutional law made by the elected branches of government; this concept is referred to as judicial activism (Hausegger, Hennigar, & Riddell, 2015, p. 123). Judicial activism ensures the individual rights of each person are upheld, but the concept is controversial. Judicial activism is problematic because it awards an authoritarian level of power to unelected judges, which goes against Canada’s democratic ideology where elected officials decide and vote on the laws (Cameron, 2009, p. 27). I argue that judicial activism should not be a part of Canada’s judicial process because it gives too much power to the courts and disrupts the democratic process of

In Canada, several key Aboriginal principles challenge modern liberal ideology. One of these principles is the importance of the collective, whereas liberalism focuses on individual freedom and equality. The value system of the dominant socio-cultural system in Canada is liberalism, which places emphasis on the individual, individual rights, and private property. This is in contrast to the value system of Native peoples which places a far higher value on the collectivity or upon the community. Liberalism, with its individualism, ignores the value that the community has to Aboriginal people. Aboriginal form of life places more emphasis on the communal and the spiritual than does the individualistic and materialistic. Collective beliefs

F.L. Morton examines the political impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by comparing pre-Charter practices to post-Charter developments in five different areas: judicial behaviour, public policy, interest group behaviour, federalism, and executive behaviour. Morton presents the Charter through its continuity and change, beginning with the move away from Britain’s “unwritten constitution” and distinguishing the doctrine as constitutional supremacy that still depends on public opinion. He argues that due to the Charter’s constitutionality, Canadian courts are able to have a more active and influential role in interpreting and enforcing the listed rights which is a negative development in Canadian democracy.

I argue that people have the duty refuse a government that is corrupt, and distance themselves from these unjust institutions. A person does not necessarily have to work to eliminate unjust practices, but definitely has the duty to disagree with any kind of those actions they see, and not to participate in such acts. The individual has an important responsibility in showing clear criticism towards unjust institutions. It may seem like the society will become unstable if this concept is followed, because a society might not be able to function when everybody believed that man is first and the subject is afterwards. Even though this principle is debatable if it becomes universalized, this does not mean that it But, even if Thoreau's principle does become implausible when universalized, does this mean that it cannot affect all people’s action. This action of placing morality before law can be practiced by those who understand their individual duty to be

The majority of Canadians normally hold similar political notion that, unlike firm beliefs that varies in due time, are more widespread and are considered as the base for political culture. It is these values and attitudes that Canadian citizens share that compose the heart of Canada nation state political culture system. The political culture in general demands other things such as regional or even linguistic aspects to be able to fully explain Canadian society and how it sees politics; nevertheless for this paper, it will only focus on the similarities that Canadian share in their political attitudes of a nation culture as a whole. It will talk about on the likeness of thought that differentiate them from other countries. To be able to understand Canada political culture, one has to understand some historical events that straightening the view point of those living in Canada. Canada is most of the time seen as a multi-cultural country, a country that is built on two society and language the French and the English; yet however there are the common beliefs that all Canadian share. Canada founded it nation through advancement, deciding to exonerate itself from the British Empire slowly with time and change, unlike our neighbor the United State who gain their independence through the revolutionary war,

Because of diverse beliefs and differing stances on controversial issues, moral code and written law will not comply. Moral codes vary from person to person, so no law will ever manage to accommodate all beliefs. Written law is made to benefit the greater good, but the greater good is different to everyone. People typically view themselves as more important and consider what they want to be the greater good, but this cannot always be the case. Sometimes these two things clash, as the written law does not follow what many consider to be benefitting the majority.

In 2011, three legal and constitutional scholars, Peter Aucoin, Mark D. Jarvis and Lori Turnbull set out to write a book detailing what they believed to be obvious and egregious errors in the way in which the current form of responsible government as it was practiced in the Canadian federal government, fell short of operating within basic democratic parameters. Canada has a system that is based one the Westminster system, in which its the Constitution act of 1867 is influenced by British principles and conventions. “Democratizing the Constitution reforming responsible government” is a book that makes an analysis for the reform of responsible government in Canada. The authors believe that from the unclear rules, pertaining to the role and power of the prime minster foresees for a failing responsible government. In this essay the functions of the government , conventions of the constitution, the a proposal for reform will be addressed.

If morality is so significant that one could justify breaking the law we must consider the importance of being moral in the first

In this way, society is guided by a morality, which is based in sympathy and enabled by self-interest.