The Nation Of Canad A Long Standing Picture Of Equal Democratic Rights

Lawrence v. Texas: The Justification for the Decision and its Significance for the LGBTQ+ Community

Section 15 highlights an individual’s rights to equality, thus making discrimination unconstitutional. As per the precedent that was set by the case titled Vriend v. Alberta, the termination of an employee based on sexual orientation is unlawful. While section 15 of the charter does not explicitly include sexual orientation, the ruling judge decided to read into the law. In Vriend’s case, he was fired for the sole purpose that his employers did not approve of his sexual orientation and that is parallel to Andrew Beckett’s termination. Both Vriend and Beckett were known to administer competent performance within their field and were unjustly fired because of their employer’s attitude towards sexual orientation. These two cases being coincidentally similar should not reflect differing outcomes, if the judge can read in on Vriend’s case then the same would be possible with

A great amount of problems still exist in LGBT workplaces, rights in the sphere have evolved and there are signs for a better and brighter future for the community. “The government has announced that it will be advancing legislation to amend section 37.1 of the employment equality act, which currently allows religious—run institutions, such as schools and hospitals to discriminate against LGBT employees. But the amendment will not protect every worker, as Rob Buchanan reports.” (BUCHANAN)

Robin Blencoe was a minister of the British Columbia government who was accused of sexually harassing his assistant, Fran Yanor in March 1995. In the Blencoe v British Columbia (Human Rights Commission case) h became the respondent in the case. Once he was accused, Blencoe stepped down from his position and a month later he was removed from his cabinet by the premier. Along with this, he was dismissed from the NDP caucus. Four to five months later, Blencoe was yet again faced with two complaints of “discrimination conduct in the form of sexual harassment” (Westcoastleaf, page.2) by two other women who were employees of Blencoe named Andrea Willis and Irene Schell. There were various incidents that took place in between March 1993 and March

The appellant Delwin Vriend’s employment as a laboratory operator at the King’s College in Edmonton was terminated after he revealed that he was homosexual. Despite Vriend’s great work performance, his termination appeal and reinstatement was rejected (Vriend v. Alberta, 1998 at para 7). Since discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation was not included in the

The history of LGBTQIA+ rights in the United States is long and complicated. The identities within the LGBTQIA+ community that are accepted have shifted over the years as the majority of the population comes to understand some identities to be commonplace and struggles to understand others. However, the gaining of rights and acceptance by the LGBTQIA+ community has nearly always been tied to legal recognition. Lawrence v. Texas questions whether or not a Texas statute that bans homosexual sodomy is constitutional. Although LGBTQIA+ rights issues are controversial, the statute that convicted John Lawrence and Tyson Garner for having private, consensual gay sex as well as the means of conviction are clearly unconstitutional on several grounds,

The move towards an intersectional approach is evident in several Supreme Court rulings. “Some courts and tribunals have started to acknowledge the need to make special provision for discrimination based on multiple grounds and to recognize the social, economic and historical context in which it takes place” (Ontario Human Rights Commission). Although still in its infancy the court’s understanding of the intersectional approach has provided the Supreme Court of Canada to include comments on multiple grounds of discrimination and intersecting grounds. The Mossop case SCR 554 was the first decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to consider equality rights for gays. Madam Justice L’Heureux-Dubé remarked, “it is increasingly recognized that categories

The right to vote in a fair election is fundamental to Canadian democracy. While protected under law, there are tactics which have been used to prevent individuals from exercising this right. In the 2008 and 2011 federal elections, some voters received fraudulent “robo-calls,” instructing them to vote for candidates who were not running for election, or directing them to incorrect or non-existent polling stations. This was a calculated act of voter suppression presenting serious consequences for democracy in Canada. First and foremost, it was a deliberate attempt to deprive Canadians of their right to vote. As such, victims of these calls, as well as many other citizens, were left feeling disillusioned with our electoral system and mistrustful of politics in general. This has not been aided by the fact that only one person was ever charged in connection with the scandal. What that has proven, however, is that it is possible to utilize robo-calls to commit election fraud with relatively little consequence. The use of robo-calls poses a harmful impact to Canadian democracy by denying citizens their right to vote, fostering distrust in politics, and setting a dangerous precedent for future electoral fraud.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms embody the ideals of our nation and present a series of fundamental freedoms so that citizens are enabled to receive equality and can feel safe and included within their society. One of the main things that the Charter has promoted is that the enforcement of a law does not necessarily make it fair for everyone. Different people require different treatment in order for full equality to be attained. However, at one point the Charter failed to recognize the needs of a very prevalent group – homosexuals. The Charter was approved in 1982 and devised a list of protected cases such as gender, race, religion and etcetera, but it failed to acknowledge sexual orientation. However, in 1985 a report titled

In section 15 the Charter states: “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability” (Section 15, Charter of Rights and Freedoms). In January 1991, Delwin Vriend was fired from a Christian college in Edmonton, Alberta after they became aware that he was a gay man. Mr. Vriend attempted to file a human rights complaint, but the Commission told him that he could not file a complaint because sexual orientation was not included as a protected ground. Mr. Vriend appealed to the Supreme Court. In the end, the Supreme Court unanimously “found that it is discrimination violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”) for any institution to deny lesbians, gays and bisexuals the human rights protection that it accords to other disadvantaged groups. The Court ordered that “sexual orientation” be read into human rights legislation. As a result, governments could no longer deny protection to lesbians, gays and bisexuals through inaction – the Court explicitly stated that the Charter applies to legal actions and omissions alike” (Through the Looking Glass: the Vriend Decision and

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (2)“reflect the fondest dreams, the highest hopes and the finest aspirations of Canadian Society” and although “Sexual Orientation” is not recorded under the sections protected from discrimination, it was deemed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Egan v. Canada, 1995 case to be an equivalent ground to make claims of discrimination; Gay men and women are all

In Journal of Human Rights published in 2014, after the Equalities Act of 2010 enacted, the United Kingdom sees sexuality and gender identities as “protected characteristics,” with legal imperatives to address discrimination, and in Canada in the early 1990s, there were an opposition against gays and lesbian rights, but after sexual orientation recognized in 1995, gradually by 2013, gays and lesbians have equality rights. (Browne, 2014)

Professor Johnson’s lecture sparked conversation about whether or not the Supreme Court ruling accomplished enough for the LGBT community. At the time, I was unaware of how the ruling could be something that wasn’t an all-around win for the community, but after being introduced to queer politics

Discrimination concerns have also become a problem regarding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the past, homosexuals were discriminated and penalized for their sexual orientation. They were murdered in the early twentieth century and then later on imprisoned as time passed. Discrimination also arose if employers discovered of their employees homosexual orientation, which caused them to lose their employment. The equality rights have also been violated concerning marriage benefits and the definition as well – (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Before the definition of marriage was changed, homosexuals were not included under the law stating marriage as the union between a man and a woman. The government found it unconstitutional and changed it so it would correspond to the changes in the twenty-first century and reflect Canadian society in the present stating that marriage is a civil act

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals, also known as LGBT population have experienced a great deal of oppression worldwide. These particular individuals undergo discrimination from society, whether for reasons of ignorance, fear or intolerance, this population faces challenges in multiple areas of social justice sexual. Although the LGBT culture has made some strides in the areas of state and federal legislation, there is still a wide range of criminalization that takes place within our culture. Understanding the LGBT community and the history of their oppression may be the first step in becoming culturally competent. For many years this culture was denied their basic constitutional rights that were afforded to their equal heterosexual peers. Basic rights such as, adoption and marriage were uncommon to this culture until the 20th century.