The Charter Of Rights And Freedoms

There are higher courts assuring that the judges follow the law at all times. The Canadian Charter of rights gives us our rights and freedoms so people will have their rights protected while in court. A part of democracy is everyone having their rights and this advantage of an independent justice system ensures citizens that they will have them. The rights of the people need to be protected and with higher courts ensuring that they are creating an equal and secure justice system. People will not be afraid to go to court or unsure if their rights apply during the trial. The promise of rights and freedoms is not a threat to democracy, especially if it is helpful and provides for each citizen across Canada. In fact, it also forces judges to be under a law since they are people too. They are not the law, they just enforce it and this rule guarantees that a judge cannot just do whatever they feel like doing and give out unfair sentences or wrong decisions. This provides Canada with a democracy and no threat towards

n response to the criticisms of those who are anti-judicial activism, “supporters of judicial activism say such activism through judicial review is necessary because it allows the courts to step in and fill gaps in the law where minorities are not protected because of political pressures and where politicians are afraid to legislate” . This raises the argument that judges and the judiciary play a balanced activist legislative role in such a way that it protects the rights of minorities from legislation or regulation imposed by the government. Within our democratic system, legislators will pay attention to what the majority wants and they will pursue public policies, which favour the majority. This leaves minority interests vulnerable to the legislations and regulations imposed by the government. By playing an active role, the judiciary ensures that the rights of the minorities are protected and that law does not contravene with the Charter of Human Rights and the Constitution of Canada. Through this kind of judicial activism, the courts strike a balance with the legislatures role. This is not to say that the judiciary takes on the role of policymaking and the legislature, but rather that both institutions embrace what is referred to as a “dialogue” where there is a balance between judicial decision-making and legislative-executive decision making . However, according to MacKay, “it is legitimate for the courts to engage in a form of judicial policy making so long as they do

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.

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 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.

Canada has become a country where laws such as: assisted suicide, prostitution, and abortion are becoming easily altered by higher powers; the power of the judges. Canadian judges are changing certain laws that affect the quality of living. The question comes down to who is truly in charge of law making in Canada? The government may make the laws, but judges may reject and change the entirety laws through the use of the entrenchment of the Charter. Additionally, judicial supremacy retains their power through a paradoxical parliamentary supremacy. Furthermore appointing government officials and electing government officials plays a tremendous part in correlations to Canadian democracy. To summarize, judiciary are too powerful through the entrenchment

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.

Canada adopted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms after Pierre Trudeau's ideology, work and effort of a Canadian Constitution and for constitutional rights and freedoms. Trudeau was a patriot and believed in an independent nation. He wished for Canada to have its own identity and therefore helped pass the Constitution Act of 1982. The legislation went through long political and legal battles, but, Trudeau was able to make the legislation into effect. Queen Elizabeth II, signed the legislation and officially made it law. Moreover, the constitution was consisted of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Consequently all people in Canada had fundamental rights and freedoms. This included freedom of expression, the right to a democratic government, mobility rights, the legal rights of people accused of crime and many more rights we now take for granted. These rights made Canada a democratic nation and helped form it into one of the best places to live. In addition, Trudeau included homosexuality, abortion, religious and indigenous rights. He decriminalized homsexuality, liberalized divorce law, legalized contraception, legalized abortion and also created The Rights Of Indigenous People of Canada. He included rights for all individuals, for individuals to be treated equally. At the time, many disagreed on homosexuality, abortion, contraception and providing Indigenous people with specialized rights to

Many people believe The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, founded by Pierre Elliott Trudeau benefited and became the base for Canada’s foundation. Ironically, it is assumed that the Charter created individual rights and freedoms. However, I will argue that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms negatively impacted Canada, and that these affects are still being delt by Canadians. For these reasons, I will also examine the Charter did more harm to Canadians than good. The Charter Rights and Freedoms affected the operation of trials along with judiciary powers, multiculturalism and criminal law rights, which undermined Canadas intended democracy and assisted in generating a centralized government.

Since the Constitution Act of 1982, the Supreme Court has gained the power to be the final court of appeal for Canada and use the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a way to interpret human rights in a new codified form. This new found capability, to rule whether or not a law was constitutional, puts much importance into a sole branch of government that remains unelected. For this reason, among many, the Supreme Court of Canada much show their transparency within their process or else risk accusations of judicial corruption (Gall, Makin, & Rémillard, n.d.). In other words, the Court must remain accountable to the people as is the rule of law to uphold the understanding of Canada as a Liberal democracy (Malcolmson, Bateman, Myers & Baier, 2016, p. 10).

Some people has argued that the government justified its action for the protection of Canadians. During times of war, Canadians have feared for their safety and therefore, decreases their quality of life. For instance, news about the bombing and Pearl Harbour has spread throughout Canada, and the likeliness of Japan’s attack on Canada had increased. The government could not take risk, therefore they took aside the rights of a group of persons for the protection of all Canadians. This was not only acceptable, but also necessary for Canada to survive. Also, the FLQ fighters murdered an innocent government official and posed a threat to many citizens in Quebec. In addition to this, it is stated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms only apply to reasonable limits. Lastly, Ukrainian Canadian were considered enemy aliens, a huge

The first point of discussion is about the court’s role. Since the Charter, countless discussions about the court’s responsibilities have occurred. Regardless of whether it is benefitting Canada or not, it is undeniable that Canada has experienced the “judicializing” of its government . The effect of having the some of the power of Parliament shifted into the hands of the Judiciary. Previously, the judicial branch’s duty is to deal punishments to those who break the law. It was up to

For instance, if the parliament, acting on public opinion, was to make a law severely curbing the rights of some minority, the supreme court has the right to struck it down as unconstitutional, irrespective of the public support behind that law. This principle takes into account the notion that popular sentiments should not always be reflected in state policies, especially when they contradict the law. The process of judicial elections, however, is entirely based on public support as the basic legitimizing criteria for the justice system and fails to consider the fallibility of popular opinions. And, when judges are elected to their offices, the cannot work irrespective of public opinion which helped them gain their seat in the bench. Therefore, election of judges contradicts the basic principles of democracy as well as independence of the judiciary.

When a lot of people are murdered, kidnapped, robbed or imprisoned, it is very easy to point fingers when citizens are asked why their lives are the way they are. In Venezuela, all of these things happen, and everyone has the same answer when they are asked that question: “Thanks to the government”. According to a Washington Post article published in 2009, there are about 40 political prisoners in Venezuela. These prisoners vary from students who protested in marches to mid-aged men who criticized the government of Hugo Chavez. But they all have one thing in common, they wanted a change. They spoke their opinions, and were punished for it. Physically punished. According to a Reuters article “The Committee Against Torture said complaints included reports of beatings, burnings and electric shocks in efforts to obtain confessions”. In Venezuela, there are many different violations of the 30 articles addressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But I will specifically address Article 3: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”. Article 5: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. And Article 9: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile”. I will address the unfair imprisonment of Leopoldo Lopez, a candidate for president who went to jail for “disrupting the peace” and the unfair imprisonment of my friend Marco Coello, who was put in jail and was tortured for

In David Kenny’s article ‘Merit, Diversity, and Interpretive Communities: The (non-party) Politics of Judicial Appointments and Constitutional Adjudication’ he argues that judicial diversity may result in a broader interpretation of the Constitution. Kenny’s article analysed the political nature of judicial appointment and the impact it may have on Constitutional interpretation. Furthermore, the Kenny argues that if the interpretive community of judging was more diverse, it would eventually lead to more interpretations of the Constitution. I agree with Kenny’s view, for example, if diversity among the judiciary is lacking it is probable that ideas and perspectives will remain narrow within the interpretive community. As a result, this paper