Essay On Election Act

Did the obtaining of evidence breach ss.8, 9 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

“The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to come from within”. (Gandhi) A lawful and fair democracy is one that represents the people, where the will of the people is done not where the government’s will is enforced. Here in Canada we believe a democratic government is well suited for its people but like any other system it has its flaws. This country was a model democracy. Canada’s wealth, respect for legal, human and civil rights almost promises that this country has the potential to uphold a legitimate democracy. Reading headlines today concerning the state of democracy in Canada we can see how our political system is slipping. A democracy should uphold the rights of its people rather than the rights of a

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.

Voting has not always been as easy as it is today. It is interesting to examine how far America has progressed in its process of allowing different types of people to be able to vote. Voting was once aimed at a particular group of people, which were white males that owned their own property. Today, most people over the age of eighteen can vote, except for the mentally incompetent or people who have been convicted of major felonies in some states. The decline of voter participation has always been a debate in the public arena. According to McDonald and Popkin, it is “the most important, most familiar, most analyzed, and most conjectured trend in recent American political history (2001, 963)” The question is, how important is voter

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important milestone in Canadian history. An effort through rigorous debate and compromise gave birth to this document that defines our collective values and principles by guaranteeing and protecting the fundamental rights of its citizens. Prior to the Charter, there was no gurantee in Canada that rights and freedoms would not be taken away by legislation. The Charter also allows courts to render the constitutional duty so that any decisions made are consistent with those rights and freedoms. The Charter was established firmly in “The Constitution Act, 1982”, with the declaration of this act Canada escaped from the severe practice of concept of parliamentary supremacy. The Charter has an enormous effect on court’s decision power to award justice to important and debatable issues about policies that affect public. In awarding the verdict courts are not even reluctant to rewrite laws that violate the testament of the Charter. The judges have a duty to regulate the rulings of both provincial and federal governments which, disagree with the root value of Charter.

The courts found that If section 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada infringes or denies the rights and freedoms guaranteed by ss. 2(a), 7, 12, 15, 27 and 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is s. 251 justified by s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and therefore not inconsistent with the Constitution Act, 1982?

Canada). As shown by McGuinty’s secret meeting, this process lacks all the things mentioned above; therefore, I believe that McGuinty chose the wrong process to make this decision. The right process would have involved those that would be affected by this decision. Instead they were purposely kept in the dark, which eliminated the possibility of free speech.

The Charter is part of Canada’s constitution; the highest law of Canada, which sets out the framework for how Canada is to be governed. The CCORAF sets out those rights and freedoms that Canadians feel are necessary to maintain Canada as a free and democratic community. The Charter created several constitutional protections for individuals, which apply to all laws and government. However, each right comes with a responsibility that all citizens need to enforce to their daily lives. If all Canadians are capable of taking control over their duties, not only would Canada have a higher quality of life, but take a positive turn in citizenship and identity. The CCORAF is an effective way to address citizens’ needs and wants in society. The Charter states that Canada’s government is justified in restricting rights, only if they are necessary to maintain Canada’s incredible status. Although looked in a wider view, not many rights have been restricted in the past, and to come. Democratic, Equality and Legal rights are all various aspects in which the Charter protects the society’s freedoms and privileges. Voting is an excellent advantage Canadians receive, as not all countries have this beneficial opportunity ahead of them. Compared to other nations, Canada’s

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.

Three decades ago, honorable Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was establishing the renowned Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since the three decades of being established, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has protected the individual rights and freedoms of thousands of Canadians. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has become a part of the national identity and has become a big patriotic symbol for the country. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the document the truly separates Canada from all the other powerful nations and is really something that Canadian take a pride in. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms brings up many questions, but the biggest and most common question is How effectively does Canada’s Charter of Rights and

Manifesto sees the decision of the supreme court as “clear abuse of judicial power” (1).

First of all, the election of 1800 pushed the two men to violence. Evidently, the election of 1800 was a huge and long fight between the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists. Each party strongly believed that the other side should not gain the presidency. Federalists brought up a weird idea to attack Thomas Jefferson, who was a Democratic-Republicans’ candidate. They claimed that Jefferson was a deist that he could end the United States up with a bloody chaos. While Federalists were giving absurd reason to pull Jefferson out of the presidential election a lot as they could, the Democratic-Republicans denounced the fact that the Federalists’ power was too centralized. They also added some specific flaws the Federalists made under Adam’s

Freedom of expression, set under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is one of Canada’s most valued rights in the bill of rights of the Constitution. It has paved the way for the society in which thirty-five million people reside today. With this level of influence and admiration, it is truly a fundamental right. However, many ground-breaking cases have illustrated the need to limit freedom of expression. A prime example is the landmark case that took place in 1990 surrounding high school teacher, James Keegstra. This Supreme Court case touched mainly upon two sections of the Charter, and one section of the Criminal Code of Canada. These two sections in the Charter included section 1 (reasonable limits), and

I have proposed in these first paragraphs that there are problems with having judges at the head of the legal and moral trajectory of our nation, but surely I am not the first to propose such a thing. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms addresses this issue by having the threat of a legislature disregarding the Supreme Court. Sections 1 and 33 give parliament just such authority. At the beginning of this essay I made the statement that putting our rights under reasonable limits

Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, everyone is guaranteed certain rights. One that stands out and is essential to our society is the fundamental freedom of expression. Anyone can speak their opinion in public. However, the government can in some instances limit these freedoms. The question that causes a lot of debate is in what instances can the government genuinely limit people’s rights while being justified in doing so. I believe the restrictions on speech in Canada are appropriate. I believe that the government was correct in not intervening with the debate between Mark Steyn and the Muslim petitioners because his article did not warrant enough to risk the safety of Muslims, and by coercing Maclean’s to post an opposing viewpoint would be a violation of their fundamental freedom of expression.