We can conclude that the decision made in R v. Macdonald does fit Liberal Legalism but not that perfectly. The officer did infringed Macdonald’s rights, something that the judges acknowledged but it was reasonable and made to prevent harm. The sentencing itself was to make the police power of safe search a more clear form of relationship regulation. The judges’ sentencing and logic was based on precedent and was quite objective and neutral, with no agenda involved. So, the R v. Macdonald case more or less fits with Liberal Legalism because the decision fits on its idea of individual liberty and the harm principle, they made their decision with relationship regulation in mind and everything they did was based on legal reasoning and precedent and thus
Cameron argued in his case commentary on Mills that the Court’s decision to recognize the legislature’s interpretation of the Charter would have a “destabilizing effect on precedent and protection of rights (2001, 1068).” The idea that coordinate interpretation leads to destabilization is a common critique. For example, Hogg also argues that if the judiciary is not given final authority over Charter interpretation then there is a risk of “interpretive anarchy (Hogg and Bushell, et. al, 2007, 31). These claims of anarchy are misplaced; Baker notes that critics of coordinate interpretation act as if the only choice is between rigid judicial supremacy and anarchy, a position that ignores the fact that several other common law countries (Australia, New Zealand, and the UK) also maintain Constitutions without the rigid judicial supremacy that characterizes the Canadian system (Baker, 2010,
The reason I request for its repel is because it was a violation of the first amendment, turned political parties against each other, and because the only reason the Sedition Act was made was because of the president’s wife. First of all the sedition act was a direct violation of the first amendment. Many newspapers wrote about what they thought and would get arrested for that. In the Sedition Act it states, “false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the congress of the United States, or President of the United States,” (Adams 1798) this isn’t fair. The first amendment was made to protect you right of the
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 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
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
The Indian Act is a part of Canadian legislation that is intended to elucidate how the federal government handles its responsibilities to the Aboriginal population of Canada. The Indian Act was created to civilize, protect and assimilate the Aboriginal people; however, in the past the Canadian government perceived Aboriginal people as wards, and thought that the Native communities and governments were unqualified of running their affairs (Coates, 2008). In the past the Indian Act was also utilized as an instrument to limit rights of the Aboriginal population. It banned Aboriginal people from practicing their cultural practices, denied them the right to vote, controlled who was permitted to travel from reserve settings, and decided where
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
This theory views punishment as a measure to deter the offender and others from committing crime. In this case, the recommendation is aimed at discouraging others from using lulu powder against other Hartopians. Omnicron is not remorseful about the incident and the recommended plea bargain shows this. Because punishment is intended to deter the offender from re offending, it is material that the offender acknowledges the crime and regrets it commission. A remorseful offender is not likely to reoffend because of the fear of punishment (Greenawalt, 1983).
This process of ethical reasoning, paired with the ideology of utilitarianism, where one acts in the greater good of the higher amount of positive outcomes, would tend to nudge the informed colleague to act as a whistleblower, and not remain quiet. Further, conducting the act of a whistleblower isn’t an easy choice in terms of potential social consequences, however, there are laws in place to protect whistleblowers and other employees from discrimination. For instance, take the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, wherein there are four fundamental freedoms: 1. Conscience and religion, 2. Thought, belief, opinion, and expression, 3.
Through the case of Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott , the court was able to define hate speech and determined that the flyers William Whatcott created and distributed were not protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The information on the flyers were inaccurate, and caused both social and direct harm to the individuals it targeted. This case is similar in nature to the R v Butler  case as it focuses on freedom of expression and involves material that the public found offensive. Although similar, we are able to see through the outcome how society has progressed and changed throughout the years. The pamphlets in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott  do not display the level of tolerance of diversity and acceptance that our society should strive to
Punishing individuals for wrongdoing is an ethical issue that is still current in modern day society. It can be argued that we need punishment for various different reasons. Without punishment, crimes would not be illegal and it would be hard to differ between what is right and what is morally wrong. Punishment highlights the need to focus on the consequences of our actions and show us what could happen if we go against the law. Punishment has the ability to make criminals better individuals through deterrence and rehabilitation.