Starting with an economic collapse that will prevent the Quebec government in financially supporting benefits such as free healthcare. In addition to that the impact a secession will have on international trade and relations will also put Quebec at risk in terms of vulnerability. Lastly, issues concerning Quebec citizens are still valid but, does not mean their concerns need to be dealt with through a secession from Canada. This is important because there are much more unheard and under helped communities that still need to be helped, like the indigenous people of Canada. Therefore, this essay outlines the implications of secession as negative and problems concerning Quebec citizens can be handled less
The Queen, the POGG provision was applied solely because Canadian survival was at risk. This proves that the rules were so vague and ever-changing over the application of POGG powers that even the Supreme Court of Canada and JCPC disagree on the usage and interpretation. When both branches of the judiciary cannot come to an agreement about a power that is expansive and impactful as POGG, it only makes the case stronger for abolition of the POGG clause. Instead the judicial branch continued to enforce laws through the perspective of 1867 onto the Canadian
The more Canada neglects to listen to Aboriginal voices, the more it contributes to the continuation of colonialism in Canada. Although the Aboriginal people of Canada had to go through, “One hundred and twenty years of neglect and malnutrition. One hundred and twenty years of physical, mental and sexual abuse. One hundred and twenty years of cultural genocide” (King, 2015), Canada still has not properly apologize. By taking responsibility Canada should not only provide recompenses, but at least treat Aboriginal
This was in order to allow sexual history evident to be admissible as evidence. The Supreme Court of Canada declared the rape shield law that was being operated there as unconstitutional. This was illustrated in the case of R v Seaboyer. The reason the Supreme Court declared it as such was on the grounds that they violated the fundamental principle, which was that the innocent should not be punished. As result of the decision in this case, parliament enacted new provisions which were less firmly drafted, according trial judges much greater autonomy in admitting sexual history
3) In my opinion, I think the Canadian government should not obligate to intervene in other countries when the rights and freedoms of Canadians are infringed because they cannot interfere in current legal proceedings in other countries unless it is requested to do so by local authorities. The legal procedures may be different from the procedures in the Canadian legal system. If the person is involved in these proceedings, the person may face long delays in the effort to resolve their case. If the person’s international human rights are known to have been violated, the Government of Canada can try to put pressure on the foreign authorities to stand for their international human rights obligations and provide the person some protection. In addition, while having dual citizenship is
What bothers me is the idea of governments tolerating the violence against the LGBT community. Most countries exhibit many contradictions Even though the routine themselves to be liberal democracies with the constitution to guarantee all human rights to every citizen, some citizens, government institutions, some human rights groups reject calls to respect the LGBT people. The liberal governments are supposed to be secular states inspired by the need to live free from discrimination based on religion, sex, tribe, country of origin, and others. In the secular liberal country, claiming that the LGBT community violates the moral precepts of the Bible and that these people deserve to be torn into pieces is a move that must be opposed by at least the reasoning citizens. If some members of the society think that LGBT people should be criminalize, then it would also be important to criminalize adultery—this is against the Ten Commandments in the same bible.
I believe that the Canadian government is guilty of genocide against the aboriginal people of Canada because of the residential schools, the creation of the Indian act and the enfranchisement of first nations people. The first reason I think the Canadian government is guilty of genocide is the residential schools. The schools were government sponsored religious schools established to assimilate aboriginal children into the dominant Canadian culture. Their policy was to remove children from the influence of their families, cultures and traditions. By doing this it eliminated all aspects of aboriginal culture.
In some people’s assessments, multiculturalism in Canada is unsuccessful. Racial segregation by tacit agreement, identity doubt of Canadian citizenship, and entrenched Eurocentrism have all combined to substantiate multiculturalism in Canada is futile. First of all, multiculturalism is abortive in Canada because immigrants from one culture habitually separate from others. According
“To deny people their human rights, is to challenge their very humanity.” -Nelson Mandela Canada is well known across the world for handling its national challenges well, yet has not been obeying the human rights. The human rights were made so everyone was equal and no one had higher power. According to Canada.ca, Canada is a founding member of the United Nation, (UN) and is a party to seven principal United Nations human rights conventions and covenants. Principal United Nations human rights conventions and covenants are treaties, and covenants are agreements, while parties are A group of voters organized for the purpose of influencing governmental policy. The human rights also required an agreement to the 30 rules which Canada agreed
Although Canada is one of the world’s most multicultural nations and is regarded as a leader in democracy, it has systematically targeted and excluded Muslim women from participating in their political freedom. Through the examination of the Niqab in Canadian society this essay will explore ways Muslim women have been “othered” in Canadian Society specifically concerned with the potential Niqab ban. A ban on the Niqab challenges and undermines the constitutional rights of Canadian Muslim women across Canada. A ban on the Niqab further segregates and excludes Canadian Muslim Woman, which in result incites a slur of negative outcomes. Not only does it infringe on her rights outlined in our Charter it also limits her political freedom.
The aspect most concerning in this question is, is it reasonable to limit certain religious articles. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under Equality Rights, in Section 15. (1), shows us that this is not a reasonable request as it is unacceptable to discriminate against someone because of their religion. Some may question that it is a safety reason, so they want to prohibit certain religious articles, for instance the burqa. Using the same logic, the society must also consider catholic nuns; they could also be considered a safety concern because they are covered in the same
The RFRA prohibits the government from substantially burdening religious free exercise unless it must do so to further a compelling government interest. Hobby Lobby vs. Burwell referenced RFRA, as the corporation believed that the health-insurance coverage they were mandated to provide to their employers violated “their sincerely held religious beliefs.” (Hobby Lobby, 1). Hobby Lobby is a family-owned corporation that believes that providing contraception is morally wrong. Similarly, Bridges, the sole owner of the Paradise Found corporation, subscribes to a religion of which a primary tenet is that polygynous marriage, specifically marriage of one man to multiple women, is a mechanism of expressing strongly held religious convictions. Therefore, Bridges is attempting to align his argument with that of the Hobby Lobby