The International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights

‘Article 3 no torture, Inhuman or degrading treatment’ (liberty-human-rights.org.uk). No one should be tortured, abused, beaten, or treated in a degrading way everyone has a right to be treated as a human without being bullied or treated wrongly for example when you go in a hospital they have signs up to ask you no to abuse them as they are trying to

Article 10: All persons deprived of the liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.

Many Canadians of the 21st century still often wonder, was the creation of the Charter of Rights & Freedoms a mistake? It is believed that the Charter 's creation was a significant benefit as it guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all areas and levels of government. However, many believe the Charter makes Canada more like the United States, especially by serving corporate rights and individual rights rather than group rights and social rights. Also, there are several rights that should be included in the Charter, such as a right to health care and a basic right to free education. With this, by guaranteeing certain political rights and civil rights to every Canadian citizen, it is evident that the creation of the Charter of Rights & Freedoms was not a mistake, and was truly a benefit to all Canadian citizens for many important reasons. One important reason is that Charter guarantees all Canadians their legal rights as it promises rights of people in dealing with the justice system and law enforcement are protected. In addition with the guarantee of Canadians legal rights, is their language rights which is to assure people have the right to use either the English or French language in communications with Canada 's federal government and certain provincial governments. As well as guaranteeing all Canadian 's equality rights to promise equal treatment before and under the law. The

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was constructed to replace the Bill of Rights, 1960. In the 1960’s-1970’s Quebec was extremely discontent with being apart of Canada due to the language barer and being a minority. Many citizens in Quebec even wanted to separate themselves from Canada and form their own nation. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau decided that the new charter in order to ensure the rights of people residing in Quebec. In order to do this Trudeau had to create an amending formula for the British North-American Act. This would grand Canada its independence from Brittan. After gaining independence Pierre Trudeau also included the new Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This charter created a great amount a controversy among many

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 Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty guidelines issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, including the Revised Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards Relating to the Detention of Asylum

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution and it was added to the Constitution in 1982. The Constitution has many laws about the essential guidelines one must follow in our country. It also governs how the government/ organizations should treat their citizens. The Charter allows the citizens and newcomers to feel like they are appreciated and also safe. However, there are situations where the Charter cannot protect you. The Charter can be stretched and can be looked at from different perspectives which is why these cases are very controversial. In Canada, we have many levels of courts so if someone was rejected by a lower court, they can appeal to a higher one. Cases that include an individual that feels as if their rights haven’t been respected take months because the appeal to present their case in front of a higher court can take weeks. It is the understanding of the individual that the if he/she brings a case to the court, they will win because courts are equal and unbiased but when that is not always the case. There are many cases when the judge cannot decide because both the challenger and the law are correct. In today’s society, equality issues are ever growing, these cases are brought based on section 15 of the charter that promises Canadians are fair and equal trial regardless of the differences. Decisions are very tough, so they are usually made on the grounds of evidence, statutes and precedent cases.

Since the creation of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 7 has had a brilliant and vital lifespan. Furthermore, cases such as Carter have shown the brilliance and significance of the section in preserving the rights of Canadians. In this essay, I will be discussing section 7 of the Charter, and constructing an argument as to why the section still has its flaws. Thus, although section 7 of the Charter has had an illustrious career, it is still prone to issues that are based upon it being limited to violations that are in accordance with “fundamental justice”. To accomplish the task at hand; I shall firstly, introduce section 7 and also introduce the broad legal and social issue at hand, while also presenting the cases that I will be exploring throughout the essay. Secondly, I shall analyze section 7 on the basis of the research completed by scholars, media reports, and other relevant research materials. Furthermore, I will demonstrate as to how this research has assisted in analyzing and contextualizing the cases I’ve identified. Lastly, I shall conclude by discussing further questions I would like to pursue in the future, and the direction I will take with this.

The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights stands as the current gold standard for every individual’s rights. Focusing on culture, one may see that cultural rights are not clearly defined and are oftentimes in conflict with other types of rights. In this paper, I will first discuss the United Nations’ use of ‘cultural’ in its universal human rights in relation to the concept of cultural relativism. Then, using South African and American practices, such as virginity testing and discriminatory criminal justice system respectively, I will describe and analyze practices violate the UN’s universal human rights in addition to the practices’ use for the community or society as a whole. Lastly, I will compare the American Anthropological Association’s rights to culture to the UN’s universal human rights by analyzing the limitations of each.