The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms

Issues of censorship in public schools are contests between the exercise of discretion and the exercise of a Constitutional right. The law

This document supports limiting online student speech because the court ruled that even though it happened out of school, the school’s reason was strong enough to justify their actions toward K.K.

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.

Censorship cases often bring about debates over students’ first amendment rights. Students’ first amendment rights are important to preserve so that students can not be excluded from meaningful works or literature. It is understandable for the government to design educational plans as a way to get its voice into classrooms, but “the truth-promoting function of the First Amendment provides no reason, however, to question the right of students to explore a variety of ideas and perspectives, and to form and express ideas of their own” (Brown, 1994, p. 30). Schools already place a restriction on religious material or material addressing current political controversy (Brown, 1994).

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 Canada Act in 1982. However, the Charter was Canada’s second attempt to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens all throughout the country and on every level of government. The Canadian Bill of Rights, which preceded the Charter was enacted in 1960. However, being only a federal statute rather than a full constitutional document, it had no power and application to provincial laws. In addition, the Supreme Court of Canada only narrowly interpreted the Bill of Rights, therefore rarely unlawful laws were declared inoperative and continued to exist. As a result, the ineffectiveness of the Bill of Rights led to many movements to improve the protection of rights and freedoms in Canada. However, similar to its predecessor, the Charter is not without faults, and loopholes. In some cases, it has even infringed upon certain liberties and democratic rights and freedoms. In other cases, the Charter has incited conflicts between liberty and democracy and raised questions that speculate whether it is truly democratic.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms upholds the individual rights of all Canadians. Agree or disagree with the following statement.

Des Moines is an important case for free speech in the United States. It affirms that students don’t lose their rights when they go to school. However, it also affirmed that schools can limit speech that “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others” (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969). However, the Court has ruled that there are times that the school can limit speech. In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled in Bethel v. Fraser that students can be disciplined for using vulgar and offensive language in school (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p. 25). This case differed from Tinker v. Des Moines because that case was about political speech or expression. Another example of where school can limit the First Amendment is school sponsored newspapers. This was affirmed by the Court in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988). That decision stated that schools can reasonably limit the content of school-sponsored newspapers (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p.

The Canadian Charter of Rights has been entrenched in the Constitution Act of 1982 since 1982 and affected the lives of countless Canadians ever since it was passed, with most if not all of the effects being positive. This can be proven by the fact that the act that the act has only faced two amendments in the 35 years it has been in effect. Furthermore, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has five components; Fundamental Freedoms, Democratic Rights, Mobility Rights, Legal Rights, and Equality Rights. All of these were designed to make sure that Canadians face no discrimination, and are not denied any basic rights. This can be seen by seeing how much the quality of life for Canadians has increased over the time the Charter has been embedded in the Constitution, by how much the Charter actually does protect the rights of Canadians.

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.

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

To what extent has Canada affirmed collective rights for Aboriginals? Has Canada done their job properly by confirming collective rights for one of our main collective groups in Canada? From looking into some of the issues involving our Aboriginal peoples with the Government, it’s clear that the government has done a very weak job of affirming their rights. The government hasn’t completely affirmed the rights of our Aboriginals through the Indian Act, the issue on housing of the Attawapiskat peoples, and the land claims/rights of the Lubicon Cree.

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.

Joel Feinberg, defines the Offense Principle as “ it is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it is probably necessary to prevent serious offense [as opposed to injury or harm] to persons other than the actor, and would probably be an effect means to that end if enacted.” (Feinberg, 1984). I believe that this principle serves as the best way to analyze R. V. Keegstra. There are many factors that fall under the Offense Principle, such as extent, duration, social value of speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, and the general interests of the community at large, however, I will only touch a few. Based off of these factors, Keegstra and Zundel should be prosecuted, but not those from “Go Yankee, go”. Zundel and “Go Yankee, go” are to be discussed in a later section of this essay.

All of humanity has one true factor in common, the claim to be treated within the respectful parameters of their human rights. Human rights can be defined as the rights in which one is entitled to due being human and entail the preservation of one’s respect, dignity, equality, and freedom. In the history of Canada, there are many moments in which the government and its people act in protection of these rights. The establishment of Medicare in Saskatchewan as an example took place on July 1st, 1962 and marked the start of Canada’s free healthcare reputation. The provincial government at the time, Co-operative Commonwealth Federation or the CCF party under the leadership of T.C. Douglas, passing the Medicare Act in Saskatchewan was brought about by the popularity the concept had with the people. The year of 1971 also contained an event that well framed the conservation of human rights the implementation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Policy. Canada had already appointed the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism in efforts to maintain an equal balance of British and French elements within the country and the Canadian Multiculturalism Policy was presented to address the other cultures present in the community that is Canada. The Constitution Act of 1982 or rather in particular, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a grand part of Canada’s history with regards to human rights. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted under the Liberal

In the majority of expression cases, educators have challenged reprisals for their speech outside the classroom including their Internet speech. During the 1970s and early 1980s, courts relied on the Pickering guidelines in striking down a variety of restrictions on teachers’ rights to express views on matters of public concern. Since the early 1980s, however, courts have seemed increasingly inclined to view teachers’ and other public employees’ expression as relating to private employment disputes rather than to matters of public concern.