The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms

R. V. Keegstra : In Support of the Dissent Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirement for PHL613, Philosophy of Law Sean Peters 500 204 129 April 11, 2012 Table of Contents Introduction 1 Overview of R. V. Keegstra 2 Why does Freedom of Speech in Democracy Matter? 2 Factors of the Offense Principle 3 Why not Moralism? 4 Philosophical Analysis 4 Criticism 6 Recommendations 7 Conclusion 8 Appendices 9 Appendix 1 - Research and Methodology 9 Works Cited 11 Introduction What does freedom of expression really mean? Why is it important to our democratic society? In the landmark case of R. v. Keegstra (1990), the issues of freedom of expression

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 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.

BACKGROUND OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS 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.

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

First Amendment Rights Relating to the Censorship of Books 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 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

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 and Freedoms(CCORAF) Guarantees a Free and Democratic Society The Charter of Rights and Freedoms upholds the individual rights of all Canadians. Agree or disagree with the following statement.

Everyone in America should be guaranteed the freedom of speech granted by The Constitution. In 1988, the court ruled in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier that schools \could limit freedom of speech in school if they had “educational concerns” (Jacobs). The problem is that “educational concerns” is too vague and school districts are able to use this as a loophole to get away with removing articles that do not need to be removed. Often, the concern is based on perception and image more than anything else. Angela Riley’s article “20 years later: Teachers reflect on Supreme Court’s Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier ruling” quotes Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center. LoMonte explained that “‘A

To what extent has Canada affirmed collective rights for Aboriginals? 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.

Every person is qualified to receive human rights, including the right to life, liberty, and security under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is a wide range of human rights and not every state/province can guarantee that there will be no violations against these rights. The principle of human rights declared that people need human rights, from the time that they are born no matter where they live. For instance, “Canadian mining corporations operating abroad, represent a challenge to international and Canadian legal human rights protection. Over 1,000 Canadian mining companies operate in more than 100 countries, making it difficult to effectively regulate corporations without violating each country’s sovereignty”. Canadian

Freedom of Speech Freedom of Speech, part of the First Amendment, is a privileged right that should not be taken lightly. The Milo Bill is said to protect students’ right to their freedom of speech on school grounds. It was introduced at Tennessee’s State House and is named after Milo Yiannopoulos,

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.