Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Gender equality canada past to present
Essay on gender inequality in canada
Gender inequality in canada
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Gender equality canada past to present
1.0 Introduction
The Supreme Court of Canada although is considered to be one of the most virtuous places for justice, but in some cases the law seems to take the wrong decisions, which very often affects the citizens of Canada and its states. In this following assignment the researcher is going to discuss on such a decision that had been taken by Supreme Court of Canada, popularly known as the Bliss v. Attorney General of Canada which seemed to be a direct attack on the pregnant women, working in the different sectors. Thereby the court seems in indulging the inequality, and hammering in the federal rights of the people. The researcher here will discuss all the prominent factors of the justice and all the pros and cons of the verdict which may seem to be necessary.
2.0 Bliss Decision, the incident and the verdict:
Stella Bliss in the year of 1979 had been forced to leave her job because of her pregnancy only the four days before giving the birth of her child. Stella claimed for maternity benefits. By stating her situation as special the Supreme Court of Canada had not treated her case under section 30 of the Canadian Legislation. Rather her case has been conveyed under section 46 which finally rejected to give her the benefits of six weeks after the birth of the child. What is more surprising the court has sounded the most famously that the inequality is never created by the legislation rather by nature (Joseph, 1992).
Stella challenged against the verdict of the court under section 46 of Canadian Legislation for the violation of the section 1(b) of Bill of Rights. In her grievance she protested against the very discrimination between the sexes in the legislation. Bliss claimed that the law has violated its right of maintaining...
... middle of paper ...
...changes which finally had been felt and regenerated in the Brooks case which had happened in the year of 1989 on the same motivational factor where the distinction was completely ordered to be removed by the Supreme Court of Canada.
5.0 Conclusion:
The distinction of gender is the most common factor in the world of inequality. The women are needed to be treated in the same way as the men. The female being can be said as the most inseparable part of our society. The world is needed to be changed. And the same dignity and the same prominence are needed to be supplied towards the women. In against of the Bliss case and in against of the verdict of the Supreme Court of Canada, an optimistic view is to be generated. The substantive equality is to be retained. The social change, in some way, may become one of the relevant factors of this world of this world of inequality.
In 1759, the Canadian Court Justice system was brought to Canada by the French. After the battle of Quebec, all of Canada then followed the English common law system except for Quebec 1. Based on my understanding and knowledge of N. Christie’s arguments and the Canadian court system, I believe that Christie’s criticism of modern legal system is fair and it effects our current court system today.
This case is important to Canadians everywhere because it shows the importance our government gives to fairness and equality as well as one’s life and justice. The case gives us something to be proud of, it shows that no matter how many trials it takes, or how long it takes, our jurisprudence aims to always serve justice. The final verdict of the case proved that
In the case of Canada v. Bedford, three sex workers in Ontario Canada, Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott, challenged the Charter as they stated that the following sections in the Criminal Code violate the rights promised and protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; CC s 210, CC s. 212(1) (j), and CC s. 213(1) (c). These sections “make it an offence to keep or be in a bawdy-house, prohibit living on the avails of prostition, and prohibits communicating in public for the purposes of prostitution,” (Canada v. Bedford, 2013, 6-3). The women claimed that these restrictions did not, in fact, prevent but implement more danger for anyone in the field of work. The women claimed that these restrictions went against their rights protected under s. 2(b) of the Charter as it disabled them from their right to freedom of expression (Canada v. Bedford, 2013, 6). As the provisions were set to prevent “public nuuisance” and “exploitation of prositutes,” they in fact go against the rights in s. 7 of the Charter. Thus, being under declaration of invalidity. This in fact brings upon question on whether it is the right decision to allow prostitution without any regulation in order to impose that the the Charter is not being violated, or whether to suspend the declaration until a proper method has been developed (while infringing the rights of those in the field of work). Ultimately, all of the laws were struck down by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was implemented 1982 has been essential in providing justice for all Canadian citizens. Countless amounts of cases have been decided to create the Charter that is well known in today’s society. Sharon Turpin and Latif Siddiqui were accused of first degree murder and according to the law, the trial was supposed to be tried by a judge and jury. The accused demanded a trial by judge alone because they believed that they were entitled to such a right. The R. v. Turpin case was a significant case that was tough to decide upon because there were many violations of different statutes such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Criminal
The Canadian justice system, although much evolved, is having difficulty eliminating bias from the legal system. Abdurahman Ibrahim Hassan, a 39 year old man, died on June 11 in a Peterborough hospital, while under immigration detention. He came to Canada in 1993 as a refugee and was suffering from mental, and physical health issues such as diabetes and bipolar disorder. There was an overwhelming amount of secrecy surrounding the death of this troubled Toronto man, and to this day no light has been shed on this tragedy. (Keung, 2015) An analysis of the official version of the law will reveal how race class and gender coincide with the bias within the legal system.
Cameron, Jamie. "Justice in Her Own Right: Bertha Wilson and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." The Law Society of Upper Canada. N.p., 2008. Web. 29 Dec. 2013. .
Before World War I, equality for woman and men were very unfair. Woman weren’t even legally “persons”; they weren’t allowed to join parliament or the senate because they weren’t legally “persons”, therefore these jobs were occupied by men only. During World War I and World War II, many men had left for war, thus meaning there were many job openings that needed to be occupied as soon as possible, women then began to take on stereotypical male jobs which men thought women couldn’t do or couldn’t do as well. Women showed their capabilities and realized they shouldn’t be considered less than men. In retaliation of not being considered “persons”, women decided to take action. The famous five brought the persons case upon the supreme court of Canada in 1927, which was finally determined by Judicial Council of Britain's Privy Council in 1929. The “persons” case involved women not legally being “persons”. After the famous five won the case, women were legally considered “persons” then women began to join important jobs such as members of parliament and the senate. Along with becoming “persons”, women were beginning to get their right to vote in provinces slowly. In 1916, four provinces gave women the right to vote provincially and, finally, in 1940, the last province (Quebec) gave women the right to vote provincially. Later, in World War II, there was another change in
The Persons Case gave women more rights and equality. It allowed women to contribute more to society and be involved politically. The fact that one third of Canada’s Senate is women shows the Persons Case’s influence on our society. Although women weren’t always treated equally after the Persons Case, it gave them many opportunities they didn’t have before.
Canadian workplaces today seem to be a fairly diverse place, with a blend of many religions, ethnicities, and genders present. However, although people preach affirmative action and melting pots in current times, many inequality and power issues still abound. One strikingly noticeable example is gender discrimination. Women in the workforce face many challenges like smaller wages, harassment, male privilege in hiring or promotions, and lack of support when pregnant or raising children. One half of the planet is women, and it can be assumed the same for Canada, but they still face judgment at work because they lack the authority to dispute against big corporations or even their male supervisor. It cannot be argued that Canadian women’s status has worsened over the past hundred years, of course, thanks to feminism and activism. However, their status is not as high as it could be. Women as a group first started fighting for workplace equality during the second wave of feminism, from the 1960s to the 1990s. Legislation was approved during the second wave to try to bring gender equality to the workplace. Feminists both collided and collaborated with unions and employers to ensure women received fair treatment in an occupation. Quebec had the same issues, only the province approached the conflict differently than English Canada with its own unique viewpoint. It became clear that women were entering the workplace and did not plan on leaving. Second-wave feminism in Canada shifted power from the government and businesses to women in order to try to bring equality, although the discrimination never completely disappeared.
“Honey, you’re not a person, now get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich!” If a husband were to say these words to his wife today, he would likely receive a well-deserved smack to the face. It is not until recently that Canadian women have received their status as people and obtained equal rights as men. Women were excluded from an academic education and received a lesser pay than their male counter parts. With the many hardships women had to face, women were considered the “slave of slaves” (Women’s Rights). In the past century, women have fought for their rights, transitioning women from the point of being a piece of property to “holding twenty-five percent of senior positions in Canada” (More women in top senior positions: Report). The Married Women’s Property Act, World War I, The Person’s Case, and Canadian Human Rights Act have gained Canadian women their rights.
For many years in Canada and many other countries abortion has been a topic of debate. In Canada, there has been no legislation regarding abortions since 1988 as the previous laws were said to violate women’s Charter rights under Section 7 which states that Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Due to this, the Supreme Court of Canada considered abortion legislation to be a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since then, no legislations regarding abortion has been changed. Joyce Arthur, executive director of the Abortion Rights Coalition
Stella Bliss had to leave her work due to pregnancy. Due to her situation she was not granted to full benefits under section 30 of the act which, guaranteed certain rights and freedoms to not be construed nor abrogate to any rights or freedoms that pertain to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. However, she was subject to section 46 which denied her benefits for a period of six weeks after childbirth. Bliss challenged section 46 as a violation of section 1(b) of the bill of rights which ensures “The right of the individual to equality before the law and protection of the law”. Board of Referees rejected her argument, and found that the act
In Canada, our society is governed by the philosophy and principles of liberalism, which is the foundation of the legal and political institutions in the Western world. Liberal society highlights individual rights, freedoms and autonomy while limiting state power and the scope of the legal system (Stoljar, Lecture). There are three liberal principles that are protected through legal doctrines, (Stoljar, Lecture). The first is the ‘rule of law,’ which is impartial, stable, and measured, and must be distinguished from the ‘rule of man,’ which is irrational, temperamental and unpredictable, (Stoljar, Lecture). The second is that law should be neutral and impartial, which means that it’s removed from politics and biased assumptions, (Stoljar, Lecture).
This paper examines critically the application of the Doctrine of Equality in the charter of Canadian Constitution that how this concept has been accommodated and applied in relation to rule of law, good governance and human rights. In doing so the land mark cases of Canada will be given as reference. The constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government. Fundamental human rights reflecting civil and political rights constitute the conscience of the constitution. Equality right is one of the most significant rights of the human rights and this
The modern world has resulted in earnings, wages and salaries for the women similar to that of men, but the women are continuously facing inequalities in the work force (Andal 2002). This2 can be attributed to the pre-established notion that women shall not be given access to finance or communication with the world outside of the home which is highly unethical and unfair (Eisenhower, 2002). In the past, they were considered as the underprivileged ones which were not thought of having equal rights but this fact has changed now. The status of women can be explicitly defined as the equality and the freedom of the women.