Is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Perfect? Introduction 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
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
Introduction On 26 September 2002, Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who born in Syria, was arrested at John F. Kennedy International Airport while he was waiting for his flight . Mr. Arar was held in solitary confinement without any charges by United States authorities for two weeks without having access
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
Bill C-51 was passed on June 2015 and has since caused a lot of controversy among Canadian citizens. The legislation was created to stop future terror attacks on the country and to slow down radicalization. Instead, Canadians find that the bill strips them of their freedom and promises little improvement to public safety. Not only that, but some also find it dangerous in terms of its potential impacts on constitutionally and internationally protected rights, on the rule of law, and on the health of Canada’s democracy. In the end, this legislation is not only unsuccessful in countering terrorism, but is also counter-productive in that it is reckless, dangerous and ineffective towards supporting Canadians’ rights and freedom.
THE PATRIOT ACT Serene Blackmon Global Issues Savannah State University Abstract In this paper I will discuss and explain the patriot act. I will also explain and discuss the provisions of the Act and the rationale behind each major component. Finally I will give my thoughts and views on the Patriot Act and talk about if I think this act is necessary to keep the United States safe and limit terrorist attacks.
After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001 the United States became a very different place. This drastic change was caused by the initial emotional reactions that American citizens, as well as government leaders had towards the tragic event. The government, in an effort to assure that these events never happen again passed the USA PATRIOT Act, which is an acronym that stands for the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. The major goal of this act is to combat terrorism by giving the government more leeway in what areas they are allowed to use their surveillance tools and also to what circumstances these tools can be used. The major issue that arise with this act are the fact that many of the act can be seen as unconstitutional.
Name Professor Class Information Date Article and Statute Summary and Analysis PART 1 Since the 9/11 attacks on U.S. soil at the outset of the twenty-first century, western states have enacted vast changes in the way that they deal with terrorist groups and terrorists. Due to the fact that civilian casualties have escalated as a result of terrorist acts, western polities have steered away from a punitive paradigm that criminalizes terrorist acts and aims at penalizing individuals who perpetrate such acts. Instead, there has been a dramatic shift towards a preventative approach in which terrorist acts are prevented prior towards any manifesting and inflicting harm on innocent victims. In Jonathan Shapiro’s “An Ounce of Cure for a Pound of Preventive Detention: Security Certificates,” published in Queen’s Law Journal in 2008, discusses the paradigm shift in Canadian foreign policy as it pertains to terrorism through a cogent discussion of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The IRPA authorizes the government to detained suspected terrorists amidst deportation proceedings. However, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decision that the Charter was provisionally violated by certain provisions of the Act, which is the central point of contention Shapiro has in this article. Indeed, he critiques the approach of the Supreme Court in the Charkaoi v. Canada decision, positing that the security certificate process violates several of the liberty and equality
I. Introduction In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks US Congress passed legislation known as the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 commonly known as the USA Patriot Act. This paper will attempt to prove that not only is the USA Patriot Act unconstitutional but many of its provisions do nothing at all to protect Americans from the dangers of terrorism.
Sebastian Velez-Bolivar CLN4U/C Ms. Senn May 13th 2016 (Working title) This paper will explore the act of racial profiling and the constitutional rights it infringes upon, as that leads to a number of psychological and social damages within Canadian society. Today public and police encounters can be harmful and stressful events that are largely experienced by minority groups. As a multicultural nation, Canada is supposed to preserve its core values, such as freedom from discrimination, but this is not always the case. According to The Racial Profiling Debate In Canada, “In the criminological literature, racial profiling is said to exist when the members of certain racial or ethnic groups become
Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Bill C-51 has been a controversy since it was hastily pushed through parliament by the Conservatives in a knee-jerk reaction to two attacks on Canadian soil that were deemed as “acts of terrorism.” Surely Canadian’s agree with laws that protect us from acts of terrorism, but Bill C-51’s broad generalizations and definitions can easily result in manipulating this law to target non-terrorist groups and individuals.
Racial Profiling applied in the War on Terrorism Ian J Watterson HSM 311: Ethics & Homeland Security Instructor: Christina Spoons July 13th, 2017 Racial profiling is a futile method in preventing domestic and international terrorism. But regardless of this fact, the United States has attempted to employ this technique in its counter-terror and espionage efforts dating back as early as World War II. And as long as this has been present in has been a point of contention and discussion amongst the American populace, as this country has well documented accounts of this throughout their history that include: the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII, the profiling of minorities and low-income areas during the War on Drugs,
September 11, 2001 was the day where everything in America had changed. A series of four terrorist attacks destroyed the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. As a reaction to this, Congress passed the Patriot Act, severely limiting citizen’s civil liberties as promised by the Constitution. American’s civil liberties and constitutional rights cannot be denied and/or put into jeopardy to protect national security, for it goes against American ideals and may persecute non-partisan individuals, while allowing the executive branch to unconstitutionally abuse their power.
Controversy has presented its self over a newly introduced bill known as Bill C-51. Inside its contents there are drastic changes to be implemented into Canadian Law and Canada’s national security. Many of these changes show little regard for the rights and freedoms of Canadians. The vague language of the Bill is concerning for the public, as it contains the word “may” which is open to interpretation. The Bill would allow CSIS to arrest people it suspects “may” commit terrorist acts, opposed to “will”, allowing the government to decide what they deem as not appropriate. It also allows sharing of one’s personal information without consent, and is not limited to criminal history. People are being asked to give up their right, freedoms and privacy to allow government officials to pass a bill that could cause more harm than good.
Surveillance and biopolitical governance are terms usually associated with the internal surveillance methods of the United States, especially in light of the Snowden NSA leaks. However, Canada has developed an elusive biopolitical national security policy that has both social and political consequences. In April 2004, the Canada’s federal government introduced