The International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights

As human beings and citizens of the world, everyone values their privacy. It is a right that is often looked over and taken for granted by most. Since the beginning of time, there have been concerns about individuals’ rights to privacy and their personal information remaining confidential. Our founding fathers had concerns about this which is why, “…this right has developed into

Privacy is one of the most controversial, yet most essential topics in the discussion of civil liberties. Some treat it as a necessity along with life, liberty, and property, whereas other people see it as something that shouldn’t get in the way of things like security (Sadowski).

America was founded of the ideals of free speech and equality, but if one tries to exercise these rights to the fullest extent, one’s privacy would be jeopardized. The purpose

Being in the privacy of one’s home, gives you comfort, the means to say what you feel, or how you feel. What if someone was listening? Wouldn’t that be uncomfortable? Knowing everything said in one’s house is being heard, and the family inside of it has no clue. One’s house doesn’t seem so comfortable anymore does it? The U.S. Patriot Act violates many privacy and freedom rights given to you buy the bill of rights. The U.S. Patriot Act was written after 9/11 a tragic event in American history that eventually lead to the Afghanistan war. Although the Afghanistan war is over, the Act is still in place and has not been removed. The purpose of this essay is to inform the people of America that the U.S. Patriot Act rapes the nation of its rights.

This essay will argue the reasons behind the notwithstanding clause remaining within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In this paper, I will provide reasons as to why the clause should be kept within the Charter beginning with the arguments that it is an essential element in critical policy decisions being made by politicians and it 's hard to remove which requires the amending formula to be used if changes are to be made. On the other side, its use in policy can create grave and problematic judicial activism in the eyes of those who oppose it. In the next few paragraphs, I will define my terms, introduce a brief history of the charter and the notwithstanding clause and describe the positions from both sides regarding its use,

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights granted constitutional status that was introduced in the Constitution Act of 1982 by Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau. The Constitution Act is also known as the repatriation of the Canadian Constitution. The Charter had several purposes; the first is “to outline and guarantee the political rights of Canadian citizens, as well as the civil rights of anyone who is residing on the territory of Canada” (The Canadian Charter. 1). Secondly, “It balances the rights of legislatures and courts through the ‘notwithstanding’ clause, which gives the federal and provincial parliaments limited powers to override court decisions “, while section 2 of the bill enshrines the freedom of the press, allowing the media to release controversial reports without fear of the state (Ibbitson. 2012). thirdly, it criminalized discrimination in society, government rulings and the judicial system and provides a set of ethical principles for all Canadians to follow, while promoting equality throughout the country.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has significantly enhanced the power of the judiciary in Canada. Within the Supreme Court of Canada judges have been given the judiciary power and this amount of power is not excessive. Again, in the Supreme Court of Canada judges are federally appointed. Most of these appointments are made by the minister of Justice after Cabinet consultation and approval. In some other cases, appointments are made by the Prime Minister.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of Canada’s written constitution called the Constitution Act in 1982 it was the second main aspect of the Act and it guaranteed fundamental, democratic, legal, egalitarian, and linguistic rights and freedoms against government intrusion, it imposed formal new limitations on the governments in interaction with its citizens. The charter has made society more equitable for visible minorities through its use of its Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and Section 15 which say that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of law without discrimination, but does the Charter really represent Canada’s egalitarian society or are we just saying we care without actually taking action. In this paper it will be shown that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has not made Canadian society more equitable and will discuss the right side and the left side of the debate, while agreeing with the left sided critiques. The right winged perspective on the Charter argues that the groups are not seeking equality, but, instead, are asking judges to grant them political advantages through favorable Charter decisions ( Smithey, S. I., 2001, p. 2) while the left winged perspective is the Charter not only does not go far enough, but actually retards egalitarian progress in Canada and that the Charter is essentially a classically liberal document designed to constrain state action rather than to require the

The phenomenon of entrenching the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not new to Canadian citizens, but it is a notion that is perceived in several ways. Many view it as a feature that disregards the fundamental right to democracy, an integral part of Canada’s political system. A functioning democracy is an important factor in providing citizens with the utmost rights and freedoms deserved. Society’s full potential is not being achieved if there are individuals who believe their principle of democracy is being violated. This violation nonetheless, true or not, should not be ignored.

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 Freedoms protect your individual rights? To exactly know how effectively it protects your rights you can look at situations where it has protected and has not protected the rights of Canadians. Within the Middle East, the largest population of the men and women are Muslim. The Muslim religion suggests that women wear a veil or hijab, which is a headscarf that only exposes a woman’s eyes, accompanied by a burqa, which is a full body cloak. The sole purpose of the clothing is to cover a woman’s feminine features from men’s eyes. The Quran, an Islamic scripture, supports and slightly obligates the uniform by saying that women are to be conservative, “let them wear their head covering over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments” (Quran). It could be inferred that women

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms entrenched under the CA 1982 act in the Canadian constitution is seen as a decisive indicator of national identity by the majority of Canadians. The charter’s role in Canadian society ranges from providing individuals with intrinsic human rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of belief and acts particularly as a concrete limit on ‘tyranny of the majority’, advocating and enforcing basic rights of individuals and minorities. It is however worthy to note that CA 1982’s involvement as a platform to increased activism of the Supreme court in Canada is highly controversial. Employing the charter as a basis to the interpretation of different situations, the Canadian Supreme Court has in many occasions

The United States’ decision to not join the ICC is largely contested today; however, many may be unaware that though its role is currently vehemently debated, the United States was once instrumental in the creation of the Court. Even prior to World War I, the United States was a proponent of international courts, as well as was the creator of many standards of global law now incorporated into the Rome Statute that created the International Criminal Court. Among these contributions are, “Inclusion in the jurisdiction of the Court of crimes committed during internal armed conflicts, and the drafting of a supplemental code explaining the precise actions and intent that must be proved for each of the crimes in the Statute…” (AMICC

The conception of human rights and freedoms is the cornerstone of American traditions, law and the indicator of democracy. The approach of prevailing interest in personal privacy, property privacy and non-interference of state authorities in private affairs is the basic ground for modern organization of American society. For centuries the courts have been standing safeguards of protection of persons against unreasonable intrusion of the State, generally interpreting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with preference of personal human rights protection. Nonetheless in the end of the 21st century there appeared several factors which so much influenced our society that the matters

As we see, beside to privacy right, there are other rights that should be considered as well. So the someone privacy right should be respected as far as it does not provide possibility of break other people‘s right.

     Over the past few years, the International Criminal Court (ICC or “the Court”) has been igniting controversy the world over. As more countries rallied behind it, more objections have been made, particularly from Americans, regarding what many view as fundamental flaws. I have chosen two papers to compare and contrast the different viewpoints taken by the authors when reflecting upon America’s involvement with the ICC. One calls for total rejection of the ICC, the other weighs the risks and benefits and calls for revision but acceptance.