Quebec’s proposed Charter of Value exists to certify the rights and values of its society, while

This charter means that everyone no matter what race, religion, sex, national origin, age or mental and physical abilities they have they are protected. The charter allows people to have basic human fundamental rights that most government rules and regulations were restricting before it came into act. The freedom of speech, religion and to associate yourself with whoever you want are just some of those rights that are being offered with the entrenchment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Finally the last achievements that Pierre Trudeau did that assisted in making Canada better are the legalization of laws on abortion, homosexuality and lotteries.

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.

One of the most misinterpreted aspects of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the freedom of expression. Group organizations have misused this much too often. In the past, many extremist groups have misused this right to protect themselves. A great example is the Westboro Baptist Church. This church is one of the many groups across North America that uses the Charter to protect themselves. The Charter protects them even though their actions and messages are harmful and not beneficial to society. If the Charter was to recognize these groups as dangerous, they wouldn’t have the chance to misuse these freedoms. Also, the fact that if a Canadian citizen were to use the excuse of the freedom of expression to defend their actions, they wouldn’t

“Section 27 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires that the Charter “be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.” The Official Languages Act has significantly made an effective contribution on Canada’s immigration success. It has allowed Pierre Elliott Trudeau to further expand his ideas on allowing individuals of all ethnicities and races to live their lives freely. English and French languages can be used in all government institutions of Canada, communicating freely within the public area and in the home. Both the English and French languages can be used in debates, courts, schools and any public institution. The importance of the Official Languages Act is to guarantee equality rights such as privileges and status between the French and English Canadians. Nevertheless, Pierre Elliot Trudeau was productive in ensuring the equal opportunities and rights of citizens. In modern day society, Pierre Trudeau’s accomplishments in enacting human rights has significantly improved. Overtime, it has diversified the cultures in schools and other public institutions. More individuals are becoming acceptant of race, ethnicity, homosexuality and religious beliefs. Due to the result of the diversity of cultures in schools, it has brought humans closer to one another and accepting of ones’

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 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

“The Quebec Charter of Values” a bill that does just this, in other words Bill 60, was established to balance the state and promote equal opportunities between men and women. The hope that Bernard Drainville had by establishing Bill 60 is the opportunities it will create and allow for a more equal and balanced society for the citizens of Quebec. The controversy that this bill has received has only increased from when the bill was first established to when the bill was tabled. The arguments that have

Pauline Marois graduated with a bachelor’s degree in social services from the University of Laval in 1971 (Parti Québécois, n.d.). She then went on to proceeded, in 1976, to obtain a master’s degree in business administration from the University of Montreal (Parti Québécois, n.d.). She is the leader of the Parti Quebecois since 2007, and is also the Prime minister of Québec since 2012 (Parti Québécois, n.d.). Pauline Marois and the Parti Québécois proposed Bill 60, also known as the Charter of Values, in fall of 2013 (Riga, 2014, para. 7). Therefore the purpose of this paper will be to analyse the goal of this bill, the ways it may be achieved, and the central criticisms of it.

The “Sons of Freedom” are a small radical group that diverged from a religious sect known as the Doukhobors.  This zealous and revivalist subsect evolved from the Doukhobors only to gain the government’s attention for their extremely radical acts.  They have initiated bombings, arson, nudist parades, and hunger strikes, all in protest to the land ownership and registration laws of Canada.  Such obscene and violent demonstrations have caused a great deal of conflict between the Sons of Freedom and the Canadian government’s legal system and have also generated much public resentment.  However, should the State of Canada have imposed laws upon this minority group that blatantly conflicted with their religious beliefs?

Should this charter begin to take effect, Quebecois will likely push secularism steps further until the population of Quebec shows no religious affiliations in public. I feel that this is a form of oppression placed upon Quebecers.

Rather than encouraging the values of tolerance and respect, a ban on the burqa will only remove the face veil from the public. In countries such as France and Belgium where burqa bans have been put into effect, studies have shown an increase in discrimination, including acts of violence, towards women wearing face veils following the introduction of the ban.

The most significant issue with these laws banning religious symbols and head coverings in public is that they force Muslim women to become secluded in French society. As a result of the 2011 law, Muslim women cannot go out in public while they wear hijabs, niqabs, or burqas. Author Melanie Adrian explains that Muslim women must choose between their religion or retaining the right to go out in public without being punished. She states that these laws targeting French Muslim women “has compromised their ability to live authentically as contributing members of society.” Many women who refuse to remove their niqabs and burqas have made the decision to work from home in order to avoid going out in public. However, other Muslim women have organized

The debate on banning religious symbols in Quebec, and Quebec wanting to be their own country has been an issue for quite some time. The province we formally known as Quebec established a shield against themselves to advocate that they would like things to go their own way. It is said that they would like to form a place where religion is neutral (Hughes, 2013). Time after time, we get new reports on Quebec being disturbed at the sight of all the different symbols in their province; they aren’t too fond of multiculturalism. We know all of Canada to be a place where everyone can be comfortable in their own skin. Our country is a place of diversity and has not changed until a province like Quebec wants to turn away from our multiculturalism and change the Charter of Rights to please themselves, but why?

Many would consider Canada a diverse country. These are people that come from all around the globe who bring their religions, different cultural beliefs, and practices with them. But when people try to ban religious headgear such as the Hijab our diversity goes down. Those who favor this position are going against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the diverse people of Canada. That will also encourage other people to speak up and ban more religious items or practices. The clearest solution to this problem is that we don’t ban religious clothing or items and allow people to practice their religion in Canada.

Recently there has been a push towards banning religious symbolism from the media, especially the hijab. The hijab is a veil that Muslim women wear around their heads to cover their hair and their bosoms; it symbolizes faith and modesty. Many people fear or in some cases feel “bad” for people who wear the headscarf including niqabs and burqas because they are uneducated and/or ignorant of Islamic teachings which lead them to create inaccurate assumptions and accusations on the matter. Most may believe banning the head scarf will benefit the community in ways that they believe will make people feel more comfortable and they also believe that it will benefit the women who wear the hijab because of the belief that Muslim women who wear the headscarf are oppressed, however, banning the head scarf would lead to discrimination, the contradiction of Canadian values, and go against the religious beliefs of Muslims.