The Pros And Cons Of Hate Speech

Did the obtaining of evidence breach ss.8, 9 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

In Canada, freedom of speech is generally protected under Section 2 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Criminal Code of Canada, however, limits these freedoms and provides for several forms of punishable hate speech. The form of punishable hate speech considered to encompass fighting words is identified in Section 319:

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.

One of the most misinterpreted aspects of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the freedom of expression. Group organizations have misused this much too often. In the past, many extremist groups have misused this right to protect themselves. A great example is the Westboro Baptist Church. This church is one of the many groups across North America that uses the Charter to protect themselves. The Charter protects them even though their actions and messages are harmful and not beneficial to society. If the Charter was to recognize these groups as dangerous, they wouldn’t have the chance to misuse these freedoms. Also, the fact that if a Canadian citizen were to use the excuse of the freedom of expression to defend their actions, they wouldn’t

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.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms upholds the individual rights of all Canadians. Agree or disagree with the following statement.

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.

The “Sons of Freedom” are a small radical group that diverged from a religious sect known as the Doukhobors.  This zealous and revivalist subsect evolved from the Doukhobors only to gain the government’s attention for their extremely radical acts.  They have initiated bombings, arson, nudist parades, and hunger strikes, all in protest to the land ownership and registration laws of Canada.  Such obscene and violent demonstrations have caused a great deal of conflict between the Sons of Freedom and the Canadian government’s legal system and have also generated much public resentment.  However, should the State of Canada have imposed laws upon this minority group that blatantly conflicted with their religious beliefs?

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

With the government’s public service force not being allowed to wear religious clothing, this right is being compromised. Workers who do wear religious clothing were being stripped of their freedom to practise their religion, and the PQ is thus in violation of another section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Additionally, section 2 clause (b) presents the freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression. This too is being dishonoured, as religious clothing is a form of expression of one’s beliefs, and the government was looking past this. While some may argue that Section 1 of the Charter declares that the Rights and Freedoms are set out with “reasonable limits” there is little reason in the argument presented by the PQ. These reasonable limits are why general public decency and dress codes are permitted, however, there is no reason to limit the wearing of religious

Hate speech is a term of art in legal and political theory that is used to refer to verbal conduct – and other symbolic, communicative action –which willfully attacks a person or group based on attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. Hate speech thus includes things like identity-prejudicial abuse and harassment, certain uses of slurs and epithets, some extremist political and religious speech. For example, statements to the effect that all Muslims are terrorists, or that gay people are second -class human beings, and certain displays of hate symbols like swastikas or burning crosses are part of it. Those such activities are classified as hate speech if, and insofar as, they convey the idea that belonging to a particular social group warrants someone’s being held in or treated with contempt. However, Freedom of speech is the most important and basic right that a human in every country deserves. Freedom of speech and hate speech are two opposite things. Therefore, the government needs to draw a line between hate speech and freedom of speech to protect a citizen. Hate speech should be banned and extreme speech regulated because it is one of the reasons for many negative consequences in human lives

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, implemented in 1982 outlines the rights and freedoms that Canadians have as citizens of this country. In this paper I will ask whether we need such a charter, whether we can trust the interpretation of the Charter by the Supreme Court and how the Charter balances power in a democratic way. I will then contemplate the foundational place morality holds in the lawmaking process. In all of this I argue that to make a good law one must hold to a moral standard and one must act in the understanding that belief, and not objectivity, plays the main role in rational thought.

Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, everyone is guaranteed certain rights. One that stands out and is essential to our society is the fundamental freedom of expression. Anyone can speak their opinion in public. However, the government can in some instances limit these freedoms. The question that causes a lot of debate is in what instances can the government genuinely limit people’s rights while being justified in doing so. I believe the restrictions on speech in Canada are appropriate. I believe that the government was correct in not intervening with the debate between Mark Steyn and the Muslim petitioners because his article did not warrant enough to risk the safety of Muslims, and by coercing Maclean’s to post an opposing viewpoint would be a violation of their fundamental freedom of expression.

As we know from section two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms everyone has certain fundamental freedoms, and among those rights is the freedom of conscience and religion. Secularism comes as a shock to Canadians because of how many people immigrate to Canada because of its positive attitudes towards multiculturalism. After presenting opposing arguments with concern to the promotion of a secular state through a device such as the Québec Charter, I will that the Charter because it violates basic human rights and forces secularism onto the Quebecois.

Firstly, it should be noted that the purpose of special rights is to promote equality and ensure all groups have equal footing. While I agree with this idea in theory, in practice I do not believe it is successful. I believe this because there are certain cultural traditions that may conflict with others and thus, not promote equality. For example, honour killings are the homicide of someone by the members of their family. This occurs when the perpetrator believes that the victim has brought dishonour to the family by refusing an arranged marriage or engaging in a homosexual relationship, etc. There are a plethora of reasons behind why someone would commit this type of murder, all of which, are unacceptable in any civilized society in my opinion. According to Canadian laws and the morals of most Canadian citizens, murder for any reason is acceptable and against the law.