What Are The Pros And Cons Of Section 33 For Canadian

In the protection of human rights, one of the most significant advancements in Canada is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter was entrenched in the Canadian Constitution under the leadership of the Prime Minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau and it was a part of a larger reform that patriated our Constitution in 1982. A constitution is a set of fundamental rules creating, regulating, and limiting the basic powers of the government and Canada’s charter guarantees the rights and freedoms that are essential in a free and democratic society. Most importantly, the term entrenchment means that the Charter can only be revised through a series of steps that requires substantial agreement from both federal and provincial governments. In this paper,

This act was one of the most significant events that occurred in Canada and, resulted in leaving behind a huge impact on the rest of the world. This event allowed the migration of people from other countries, different backgrounds and religions to come to Canada. Under this act, Trudeau and his party ended up creating three classes of immigrants. Independent immigrants, which were selected, based off of the point system that Trudeau and his party also established. Family class, which meant that one, had a family member who was currently a Canadian citizen and, refuges that needed a place for protection. This act resulted in diversity being brought into Canada because; now people from outside of the “British Nations” were granted permission to have a better life. This is one of the acts the Trudeau is well known for. Trudeau’s act still exists today and because of him many second generation families were able to establish in Canada. These acts of determination proved to the world that Pierre Trudeau was indeed an outstanding

According to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal” (Legislative Services Branch, 2017, para. 11). In the significant Canadian case R. v. Kokopenace, an Aboriginal man was tried by an unfair jury as the community where the trial took place was 25 percent First Nations, however, the jury only included 4 percent of First Nations people (Pinder, 2015). This report will summarize the major facts of the case, court’s decisions, and dissenting opinions of the judges.

It is true that the history of law offers us an understanding how the law evolves and change with time and place. Both the source of narcotics legislation and the Kathryn Burn’s article (Notaries, Truth, and the Consequences) somehow help us flesh out our understanding of sources of legal philosophy. Moreover, both examples somehow go beyond the traditional sources (Statutes, case law, custom, books of authority) of law.As Canadians, we require recognizing that these traditional roots of law stem from various European system by explorers and settlers.

Firstly, it contains the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees rights and freedoms that Canadians believe are necessary in a free and democratic society. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects Canadian’s fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, freedom of movement, legal rights, and equality and language rights. The protection of these rights allows Canadians to live their lives free of persecution, it allows all Canadians to live equally, and ensures our democratic values are not infringed on, something that can not be guaranteed in many countries around the world. Accordingly, it ensures we are able to speak without the fear of being convicted of treason, we are able to seek education without the fear of acid being thrown on our face, we are able to practice our religion without the fear of having our houses burned, and we are able to protest without the fear of being jailed. The importance of the Canadian Constitution is the protection it provides Canadians through the Charter of Rights and

There were many severe terms of the War Measures Act, but Trudeau didn’t use any of the difficult ones and he handled the crisis very well which to he received many compliments for. He began to realize that his decision is appropriate because he knew that kidnappings were the start of a plan to overthrow the government (Cruxton, Wilson 369). When a reporter asked Trudeau “how far will the government go”, Trudeau replied by saying “just watch me”. Trudeau’s son Justin Trudeau also used this famous quote. The act gave a lot of power to the police and they arrested a total of four hundred and sixty-five people. The War Measures Act gave the Canadian government a lot of power to quickly and productively make useful decisions and to take all actions that are necessary to make everyone feel safe. The public was scared because they weren't used to seeing the army with such strong force and power. But everyone was relieved to know that the country was ready to take any action that would result in a safe and peaceful environment. The people were feeling very proud because their government had the capability and power to put down a violent separatist group. Trudeau made a capable move even though it was severe, and he was a strong man and he knew what was right for his country. Under the War Measures Act the FLQ

The Charter is the center to which all Canadian rights circle around. It is what allows Canadians to freely express themselves. The Charter protects the rights and freedoms of every single individual in Canada. However, the Charter is especially large and covers many topics and so it tends to conflict itself. Seen in the case of speaking rights where, freely speaking about a topic can to lead to hate speech which can be a criminal offence. Religious rights also are sometimes impeached as sometimes allowing one person to follow their religious rights might hamper another person’s rights. Another way that the Charter may cause the impeachment of one person’s rights to protect another’s rights is seen in the case of equality rights and a person’s

Canada’s rules and rights are a part of what defines the nation. Without the implementation of laws, Canada and any other nation for that matter would not be able to live so cohesively. When analyzing the laws and constitutions that Canada has put into place, the most important law is very debateable. However, after doing research it is very clear that the most significant issue that Canada has faced to this day is the enactment of The Constitution Act of 1982, and the effect it has had on Canada. The rights and fundamental rules in the act has changed Canada for the better. Aboriginal rights have been enforced, everyone has equal rights, no matter who they are, and most importantly it confirmed the independence

It prevented a different change because if these laws never happened, Quebec may have left the Dominion of Canada

From 1942-1949 the Canadian government was responsible for the cruel internment of Japanese citizens in Canada. Ever since the first sailor Manzo-Nagano arrived in New Westminster, BC Japanese have experienced prejudice. Early BC settlers were extremely conscious of there ethnic origin and were extremely concerned with the racial origins of immigrants, they became obsessed with eliminating “undesirables” and as a result passed laws preventing them from voting, working in mines and other government funded projects. On Dec 7th 1941, Following the bombing of Pearl Harbor killing 2403 Americans, 22,000 Japanese Canadians were disposed of there property and belongings and were evicted to various internment camps. The definition of a just society is that everyone has equal rights regardless of gender race. During WWII treatment of Japanese Canadians was unjust.

Aboriginal people spoke up and represented themselves, the result was Section 35 in Canada’s Constitution. Section 35 acknowledges FN, Metis and Inuit people as Aboriginals (Nelson,137). Proper collective rights were established in the Constitution for Aboriginals. The protest led to awareness and acknowledgment of the initial treaties and agreements.

Citizens of Canada could be detained before they have done anything to thwart national security. This was created to prevent ‘extremists’ from committing any dangerous, or damaging act, though this enforces a reverse onus, a violation of Section 11 (b) of the Charter. Citizens will also have their rights limited on the grounds they ‘might’ commit a certain offence, though there is no mention of what constitutes reasonable proof of this, and is hence arbitrary. Giving CSIS these new powers could easily end in the encroachment of the rights of innocent citizens, despite potentially protecting the state. This legislation will indefinitely result in a power imbalance between citizens and the government. With the example of the minor, in comparison, power imbalance between police and citizens, it is a valid point of concern that this inequality between individuals and the state could end very poorly. A group of respected, and notable Canadian Officials consisting of 22 significant political figures released a statement via the Globe and Mail and La Presse newspapers, expressing their concerns with the bill. Their main concern with the proposed ac was the fact it may lead to significant human rights violations: “… experience has shown that serious human rights abuses can occur in the name of maintaining national security.” Historical events, which have occurred in Canada, such as the War

Throughout our nations existence time and time again many brave Canadians have answered the call to fight for democracy and to rid the world of oppression. For the past two centuries, thousands of Canadians have earned enormous respect

Our current laws are not strict enough on our government if loopholes such as this exist. We elect our government to rule, regulate and act in the interest of Canadians, yet Harper was able to disregard the interest of Canadians and prorogue parliament for his government’s own partisan reasons. Six years later, nothing is done to ensure prorogation is not again used in such a partisan way. In analysis we also run into the issue that the Governor General plays an integral part in the prorogation process. The ability to end a parliamentary session is too much power for an individual that Canadians cannot keep responsible. That being said, we need a regulation that withholds the GG from making prorogation decisions, or something has to be implemented to considerably lessen their power.

5) Michael Dorland and Maurice René. Charland, Law, rhetoric and irony in the formation of Canadian civil culture (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002), 218.