The following essay will be an explanation of how Shrek and the fairytale creature’s freedom of rights were violated. Although most people might not realize there were many violations executed by lord Farquaad against most of the characters in the movie. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is very important because it provides justice and protection for every human individual. Shrek is an ogre who just wanted to be left alone but his swamp was invaded by the rest of the fairytale creatures. He goes on a quest to save Princess Fiona for Lord Farquaad. Along his journey he has to overcome many obstacles despite his rights being violated every step of the way. Lord Farquaad was an unjust ruler; he violates fundamental freedoms, Democratic …show more content…
This means no one has the right to question or jeopardize an individual’s life, freedom and security with the exception of a judge in a court of law with reasonable evidence. This violation is shown in the film when lord Farquaad fails to inform Shrek of the dangers and risks he will face on his journey to save Princess Fiona. Farquaad told Shrek the only way he can get his swamp back was if he got him the princess. This violates Shrek’s right to life and security because he wasn’t warned of the dangers that came with the excursion which also included the possibility of him being killed. Lord Farquaad knew it was dangerous so he tasked Shrek with the responsibility because he feared for his own …show more content…
This means, no one should be tortured or punished under any circumstance, unless otherwise stated by a judge in a court of law with hard evidence to back up the accusations charged for. This violation was introduced when Lord Farquaad tortured and provoked the gingerbread man to get information on the whereabouts of the fairytale creatures. When Farquaad didn’t get the information he was looking for he tossed the gingerbread man into the trash. The gingerbread mans rights were violated because the charter states that no one should be subjected to any cruel or unusual treatment. Lord Farquaad tortured him for personal reasons however when he wasn’t satisfied with the gingerbread mans response he throw him to the trash, clearly the gingerbread man was
There was a short time where all was calm right after the civil war. king charles the second and his father were both dead so Charles brother took over. this is king James the secondf and he was a Catholic sao he appointed many high positions in the government. Most of his sibjects were protestant and did not like the idea of Catholicism being the religion theyd have to abide by. like his father and brother king james the second ignored the peoples wishes and ruled without Parliament and relied on royal power. an English Protestant leader wanted to take the power away from james and give it to his daughter Mary and Her husband William from the Netherlands. William saled out to the south of england with his troops but sent them away soon after they landed
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the strong foundation for the diverse country of Canada. They uphold various beliefs and values Canadians may have. Under the constitution in 1982, the CRF (Charter of Rights and Freedoms) was entrenched by then Prime Minister Trudeau. The CRF has 4 rights; Equality, legal, democratic and mobility, there is also 4 freedoms; of Conscience and Religion, of thought, belief, expression and media, of peaceful assembly, and Association. If people feel that their right and/or freedom has been violated, they can go to court by using a “Charter Challenge. ” A charter challenge is when something inequitable or unfair has been done, the citizen can pursue the court case stating that something violated their rights and/or freedoms. All the rights and freedoms help
MacDonnell, Vanessa A. "The Protective Function And Section 7 Of The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms." Review Of Constitutional Studies 17.1 (2012): 53-85. Academic Search Complete. Web. 16 Nov. 2013.
This decision requires that unless a suspect in custody has been informed of his constitutional rights before questioning anything he says may not be introduced in a court of law.
In the 2001 animated film, Shrek, an ogre by the same name is on a mission to to regain his swamp back after Lord Farquaad begins to use it as a refugee camp for captured fairy tale creatures. Shrek is accompanied by a talking donkey, named Donkey. While on the quest to get his swamp back, he makes a deal with Lord Farquaad to go on another quest: rescuing Princess Fiona. The deal is that if Shrek rescues Princess Fiona for Lord Farquaad, Lord Farquaad will give Shrek the deed to his swamp and remove all of the squatters. Shrek agrees to this deal, and him and Donkey set off to rescue the princess. Shrek finds Princess Fiona and she is unimpressed by Shrek because he isn’t living up to her fantasies of being extremely romantic. The three escape and have a series of adventures together on the way back to Lord Farquaad's Kingdom. Shrek and Fiona fall in love during this time although neither one of them acts on their feelings. There’s a major miscommunication and Fiona almost ends up marrying Lord Farquaad but Shrek stops the wedding, defeats Lord Farquaad and marries Fiona (Adamson & Jenson, 2001).
Democracy is more than merely a system of government. It is a culture – one that promises equal rights and opportunity to all members of society. Democracy can also be viewed as balancing the self-interests of one with the common good of the entire nation. In order to ensure our democratic rights are maintained and this lofty balance remains in tact, measures have been taken to protect the system we pride ourselves upon. There are two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were implemented to do just this. Firstly, Section 1, also known as the “reasonable limits clause,” ensures that a citizen cannot legally infringe on another’s democratic rights as given by the Charter. Additionally, Section 33, commonly referred to as the “notwithstanding clause,” gives the government the power to protect our democracy in case a law were to pass that does not violate our Charter rights, but would be undesirable. Professor Kent Roach has written extensively about these sections in his defence of judicial review, and concluded that these sections are conducive to dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature. Furthermore, he established that they encourage democracy. I believe that Professor Roach is correct on both accounts, and in this essay I will outline how sections 1 and 33 do in fact make the Canadian Charter more democratic. After giving a brief summary of judicial review according to Roach, I will delve into the reasonable limits clause and how it is necessary that we place limitations on Charter rights. Following this, I will explain the view Professor Roach and I share on the notwithstanding clause and how it is a vital component of the Charter. To conclude this essay, I will discuss the price at which democr...
In his essay “The Case for Torture,” printed in The Norton Reader 13th Edition, Michael Levin argues that torture is justified and necessary under extreme circumstance. He believes that if a person accepts torture to be justified under extreme cases, then the person automatically accepts torture. Levin presents weak argument and he mostly relies on hypothetical scenarios. There is not concrete evidence that torture solves problems and stop crime but rather the contrary. Under international law, torture is illegal and all the United Nation members have to abide by those rules. The use of torture does not keep people safe, but rather the opposite. Torture has a profound effect on democracy. As the use of torture becomes normal in society, the right of the citizen will suffer greatly.
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 Freedoms protect your individual rights? . To exactly know how effectively it protects your rights you can look at situations where it has protected and has not protected the rights of Canadians. The Charter of Rights and Freedom protects legal rights of Canadian whether they are a teenager or an adult, protects equality rights of Canadian and provides government services to all Canadians no matter what, ensures all laws are passed according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and provides equality rights and fundamental freedoms to Canadians for practicing their religion and other rights without interference.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted under the Pierre Trudeau government on April 17, 1982. According to Phillip Bryden, “With the entrenchment of the Charter into the Canadian Constitution, Canadians were not only given an explicit definition of their rights, but the courts were empowered to rule on the constitutionality of government legislation” (101). Prior to 1982, Canada’s central constitutional document was the British North America Act of 1867. According to Kallen, “The BNA Act (the Constitution Act, 1867) makes no explicit reference to human rights” (240). The adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms significantly transformed the operation of Canada’s political system. Presently, Canadians define their needs and complaints in human rights terms. Bryden states, “More and more, interest groups and minorities are turning to the courts, rather than the usual political processes, to make their grievances heard” (101). Since it’s inception in 1982 the Charter has become a very debatable issue. A strong support for the Charter remains, but there also has been much criticism toward the Charter. Academic critics of the Charter such as Robert Martin believe that the Charter is doing more harm than good, and is essentially antidemocratic and UN-Canadian. I believe that Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic, although, the Charter itself represents a democratic document. Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic because the power of the executive is enhanced at the expense of Parliament, and the power of the judiciary is enhanced at the expense of elected officials, although, the notwithstanding clause continues to provide Parliament with a check on...
Since the beginning of American history, citizens who resided the country lacked the basic civil rights and liberties that humans deserved. Different races and ethnicities were treated unfairly. Voting rights were denied to anyone who was not a rich, white male. Women were harassed by their bosses and expected to take care of everything household related. Life was not all that pretty throughout America’s past, but thankfully overtime American citizens’ civil liberties and rights expanded – granting Americans true freedom.
"I shall show you what happens to people who defy the laws of the land! In the tribunal everybody is equal, here there is no regard for rank or position. The great torture shall be applied to you!" (194)
The Great Charter established and codified many of the universal principles that helped shaping the entire modern western constitutional thought. It laid the groundwork for certain constitutional concepts such as “the rule of law”, “freedom”, “legitimacy” and “accountability”. Moreover, it also become a milestone in the development of inalienable human rights and civil liberties that we enjoy today. Many of these ideals later on served a basis for the English Parliamentary, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the American Bill of Rights. Undoubtedly, its revolutionary impact still has across the world today. 800 years on, individual liberties, universal human rights and the rule of law still felt around the
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a document that outlines the basic rights for all humans on Earth. However, a few fundamental rights are still being denied in certain countries even though the document has been released since 1948. For instance, Article five claims that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Yet, the American military has flirted on the line of committing “inhuman or degrading treatment” of prisoners on Guantanamo Bay detention center. The US Supreme Court claimed that the prisoners had certain rights but refused to directly state the limit of torture of the prisoners up until four of them committed suicide. Another surprising right is Article 16: “Men
Now this can be overruled depending upon the situation. For example you may lose your free speech if you walk into a public establishment and start shouting “BOMB”! It is times like these when individuals temporarily lose their freedom
Torture is the process of inflicting pain upon other people in order to force them to say something against their own will. The word “torture” comes from the Latin word “torquere,” which means to twist. Torture can not only be psychologically but mentally painful. Before the Enlightenment, it was perfectly legal to torture individuals but nowadays, it is illegal to torture anyone under any circumstances. In this essay, I will demonstrate why torture should never acceptable, not matter the condition.