More handpicked essays just for you.
Historical essays about the canadian charter of rights and freedoms
Canadian Charter of Rights
Historical essays about the canadian charter of rights and freedoms
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Entrenched clauses are in some cases justified as protection of the rights of a minority, other times they aim to prevent the creation of a dictatorship. But entrenched clauses are often challenged by some as being undemocratic. I believe that yes, the presence of sections 1& 33 in the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms are sufficient to overcome the following objections against an Entrenched Charter. People would argue that having an Entrenched Charter promotes the “dead hand of the past”. In other words people believe that having an Entrenched Charter that was written such a long time ago doesn’t properly represent today’s society and its morals. Those individuals believe that we are letting old rules that do not necessarily lead …show more content…
To entrench a charter, the amendment must be approved by the house of commons, the senate and legislatures from at least 7 provinces, representing at least 50% of Canada’s population. Facing such hurdles, advocates of legal change may seek substitute methods. Also those against having an entrenched charter believe that there has always been alternative methods for constitutional change for example, putting an expiring constitution to a majority popular vote or constitutional conventions whenever two or three branches of government by two-thirds votes support textual alterations. Democracy is defined, as the “government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and excised directly by them or their elected agents under a free electoral system.” Having a set list of rules, rights and freedoms written in 1982 that are extremely difficult to change doesn’t sound very democratic. To elaborate, minorities have a problem with the a clause in the charter or have something they wish to add it will be very hard for them to make a change. For example, Aboriginal people who’s views, ways of punishment, decision making and the way they deal with criminals is unaccounted for by our charter and because they are a minority it is harder for them to alter the constitution. Therefore the rules, rights and freedoms written in a past society will continue to stand as the guide line for a society with ever-changing views and ways of
The Meech Lake accord was a set of constitutional amendments that were designed to persuade Quebec Province to accept the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982 (Brooks 152). This accord derives its name from the Meech Lake, where these negotiations were held by Mulroney Brian, the Canadian Prime Minister, and the ten premiers of the ten Canadian Provinces (Brooks 211). By the time the Canadian constitution was being implemented, Quebec was the only province that had not consented to it. Somehow, the partition of the constitution in 1982 was carried out without Quebec’s agreement, but it was still bound by the same law. Attempts were made to persuade this province to sign the constitution, which it agreed to do but only after its five demands are fulfilled by the Canadian government. Unfortunately, these demands were not met and this accord failed in 1990, when two provincial premiers failed to approve it. This paper answers the question whether Quebec asked for too much during the Meech Lake Accord negotiations.
The inclusion of the Notwithstanding Clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was an invaluable contribution in the evolution of the liberal democratic state. Not an endpoint, to be sure, but a significant progression in the rights protection dynamic. Subsequent to its passage in 1982 it became the primary rights protecting mechanism, however, its raison d`etre was as a neccessary concession, the pivotal factor allowing the patriation of the constitution. Many legislators present at the constitutional conference in 1981 opposed in varying degrees the entrenchment of a "bill of rights" in the constitution. The premier of Saskatchewan, Allan Blakeney, A preeminent liberal legislator at the time, recognized this potential document as an invitation to judicial review. He feared a conservative judiciary might hinder enlightened policies and sought authority beyond the ambit of an entrenched rights protection act. At the other end of the political spectrum opposition was in the form of an allegiance to parliamentary supremacy as expressed most notably by Sterling Lyon, the conservative premier of Manitoba. Imbedding section 33, commonly referred to as the Notwithstanding Clause, into the constitutional document alleviated these concerns to a degree that permitted their compliance. It is well established that the impetus for the Notwithstanding Clause was of a political nature. To insert this so inspired clause into an intended sanctuary from capricious legislative acts appears tantamount to allowing the fox to guard the chicken coop. Conceivably the same legislative majority that would create the laws abridging rights could exem...
Moreover, although no powers or rights have been explicitly ‘reserved’ to the people, supporters of the charter nevertheless appear to give Canadians hope that the possibility may exist. COMPARISON OF BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE CANADIAN CHARTER... ... middle of paper ... ...
The absence of a codified constitution raises numerous questions. The main one being,
Many would state that the constitution is not a living document and therefore, it does not change to meet the needs of the nation. One purpose behind this contention would be the constitution comprising no Bill of Rights. A Bill of rights is the arrangement of the most essential rights to the natives of a nation. Australia is the main Western popularity based nation with not a protected or elected administrative bill of rights to ensure its natives (Mchugh 2007). According to Lowitja O'donoghue, previous ATSIC Chair It says very little about what it is to be Australian. It says practically nothing about how we find ourselves here - save being an amalgamation of former colonies. It says nothing of how we should behave towards each other as human beings and as Australians. This in itself obviously depicts the incapacity of the constitution as a political rule of the country. A sample would be the situation law of Gradidge v Grace Bros Pty Limited (1988). There, a hard of hearing quiet in the Compensation Court of New South Wales obliged manual/visual dialect translation. The translator kept on translaing trades between the judge and the advodates throughout lawful submissions. She persevered in doing so notwithstanding the direction of the judge that the trades did not have to be deciphered. Her emphasis after deciphering everything that happened in the general population ...
A Constitution is a set of rules put in place to govern a country, by which the parliament, executive and judiciary must abide by in law making and administering justice. In many countries, these laws are easily changed, while in Australia, a referendum process must take place to alter the wording of the Constitution (Commonwealth of Australia, date unknown, South Australian Schools Constitutional Convention Committee 2001). Since the introduction of the Australian Constitution in January 1901, there have been sufficient proposals to alter and insert sections within the body to reflect the societal values of the day, ensuring the Constitution remains relevant to the Australian people. Although Constitutional reform can be made on a arrangement of matters, the latest protests on Indigenous recognition and racial references within the body of the Constitution has called into question the validity of racial inclusion, and whether amendments should be made to allow for recognition. This essay will focus on the necessity of these amendments and evaluate the likelihood of change through the process of referenda.
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.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II April 17, 1982. Often referred to as the Charter, it affirms the rights and freedoms of Canadians in the Constitution of Canada. The Charter encompasses fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights, language rights and equality rights. The primary function of the Charter is to act as a regulatory check between Federal, Provincial and Territorial governments and the Canadian people. Being a successor of the Canadian Bill of Rights that was a federal statute, amendable by Parliament, the Charter is a more detailed and explicit constitutional document that has empowered the judiciary to render regulations and statutes at both the federal and provincial levels of government unconstitutional. Although the rights and freedoms of Canadians are guaranteed, Sections one and seven of the Charter permit the federal and provincial governments to limit the rights and freedoms enjoyed by Canadians. Section one of the Charter designated ‘Rights and freedoms in Canada’ states “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” This section is frequently referred to and better known as the reasonable limits clause. The second rights and freedoms limiting section of the Charter, known as the ‘notwithstanding clause’ is Section thirty-three entitled ‘Exception where express declaration’ declares
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...
The Constitution of the United States of America (US) is the bedrock of the political and judicial system of a country which at the time founded represented a new direction of governance not practiced for nearly two millenniums. The US became the first democratic republic in modern history with a Constitution that came into force in 1789, deriving more ideals from the Romans or the Greek Mini-States that from any political system in place around the world at the time. It is undeniable, even by the strictest constructionist or originalists that the U.S. Constitution borrowed concepts not only from famous ancient philosophers like Aristotle or Cicero but also from modern political thinkers like Locke, Montesquieu
This essay did mention the role of a codified constitution earlier in the definition section, and what was mentioned was, that a codified constitution does not only create constraints and limitations for the government of the day, but it also is a framework and guideline for how politics should be conducted. This guideline serves as a mechanism of stability and clarity for the work of a government. As Keith Whittington puts it “Constitutionalism is the constraining of government in order to better effectuate the fundamental principles of the political regime.” (Whittington, Keith p. 282) Thus it allows the political bodies to focus on important issues. An example where the
The United States have always insisted that their codified constitution’s only purpose is to serve every US citizen and only them, with no ulterior motives. Can this always be considered the case when said constitution is so difficult to amend and struggles to keep up with the vigorous changes the world endures over the years? Critics often argue that the United Kingdom should adopt the same type of constitution, but if their aim to put their citizens first is reached and done so without the need of a defined document, does it really need to be adopted? Essentially, a constitution is a set of rules which aims to define a country’s system of government, and their purpose is to set out broad principles concerning who makes the law and to allocate
While an uncodified constitution has the advantages of dynamic, adaptability and flexibility to meet the ever-changing needs of the society , it poses much difficulty in pinpointing the ultimate constitutional principle that should provide legitimacy in the British constitution. This results in a battle between two broad schools of thought––political constitutionalism and legal constitutionalism.
There is a long standing problem in political theory that can be best summed by the Latin phrase “Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?” which roughly translates to “Who will guard the guards themselves?” (Juvenal 347-8). This refers to the idea of any government-like body needing a certain set of rules that dictate how the body can function, thus keeping its members’ supremacy in control. Hence, the problem of elite regulation, in its bare form, is that while a subset of authoritative figures is essential for society to function, it is their very authority that can harm the society that they govern, and thus they need to be delimited in ways that have positive, rather than negative, effects on said society.
It is impossible to interpret a text with no notion of these social contentions, in compliance with current demands. David A Strauss, Professor at Chicago University and author of “The Living Constitution” asked the proper question, “why should we allow people who lived long ago, in a different world, to decide fundamental questions about our government and society today?” There will always be a need for the government to adapt to the evolving society. The framers of the Constitution intentionally created the text to be profoundly vague and ambiguous to allow for flexibility and loose interpretation (Hammer). Without the ability to reanalyze and break down the Constitution with the adjustment of time, the rights and demands of the citizens could not be successfully