Freedom of speech is an issue that transcends time. In a recent and controversial case, Maclean’s magazine was accused of publishing hateful, Islamophobic content. From the complainant’s perspective, the material published allowed for no opportunity for a counterclaim to be put forth (Paikin, 2008). There are parallels between John Stuart Mill’s work, On Liberty, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as to what boundaries can be placed on freedom of speech. In a general sense, both Mill’s essay and the Charter conclude that a person’s freedoms must not be infringed upon unless they harm others in society (Mill, 2008:13), (Canadian Charter, 1982, s 1). In this way, as Maclean’s magazine has published material that propagates hatred …show more content…
In a similar fashion, in other areas of Canadian law that protect the right for one to speak freely, there are limitations on such a freedom for the betterment and benefit of society. Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, grants freedom of thought, opinion, belief, and expression; and freedoms of the press and media communication (Canadian Charter, 1982, s2(b)). However, this document is subject to reasonable limits as outlined in section 1. This section outlines that, the rights and freedoms prescribed in the document are those that are, “justifiable in a free and democratic society” (Canadian Charter, 1982, s 1). As seen above, Canadian legislature allows its body to speak freely. Due to freedom of the press and media communication, this would allow Maclean’s to speak freely, except in instances where such speech would not be justifiable in a free and democratic society. To gain more insights into the limitations placed on free speech in Canada one can refer to the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC). Section 319 of the CCC states that using one’s freedom of speech to purposely incite hatred upon a particular group of people aside from private conversation is an offence that can be tried either by way of summary or indictable conviction (Criminal Code, 1985). Nonetheless, there are defenses available to the above offence that highlights instances in which freedom of speech, although potentially contentious, is still permitted. Within the Criminal Code, defenses to the offence include, if the statements made were truthful or, also relevant to the above Maclean’s controversy, if such statements were made in good faith to establish an opinion on a religious subject. Additionally, another
The Canadian government only protects 18 out of 30 rights in the Universal Declaration and other important rights are ignored. For example, in article 26 of the Universal Declaration, it states that everyone has the right to education. This law is not included in the Charter but I think it is very im...
A more sudden, but perhaps equally profound event is the adoption in 1982 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Whereas before the adoption of the Charter Canadian legislatures were supreme, having power without limit within their jurisdictions, they now have debatable supremacy within altered jurisdictions. 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.
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.
Canada is perceived by other nations as a peace-loving and good-natured nation that values the rights of the individual above all else. This commonly held belief is a perception that has only come around as of late, and upon digging through Canadian history it quickly becomes obvious that this is not the truth. Canadian history is polluted with numerous events upon which the idea that Canada is a role model for Human Rights shows to be false. An extreme example of this disregard for Human Rights takes place at the beginning of the twentieth-century, which is the excessive prejudice and preconceived notions that were held as truths against immigrants attempting to enter Canada. Another prime example of these prejudices and improper Human Rights is the Internment of those of Japanese descent or origin during the Second World War. Also the White Paper that was published by the government continues the theme of Human Rights being violated to the utmost extreme. All these events, as well as many others in history, give foundation to the idea that “Canada as a champion for Human Rights is a myth”.
Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom states that no individual within the country of Canada will be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. This law encompasses things such as prison sentences, executions and torture. One of the arguments used in the defense of Daniel Peltier’s case is that his verdict could possibly be considered cruel and unusual punishment. However, Mr. Peltier has admitted to supply underage youth with alcohol and medically prescribed drugs - which was originally meant for his mother - for money. As a result of this infringement, one of the youths that had consumed the drug had an inauspicious medical crisis and had to immediately be hospitalized. Fortunately, the youth recuperated. This all could’ve all been avoided had Daniel Peltier had not sold drugs to underage kids. He is capable of making sane and mature decisions as he is mentally stable and
Entrenched within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms lies the fundamental rights that Canadian citizens share. The primary freedoms recognized within Section 2 of the Charter, such as the freedom of speech and expression, are necessary for a free and democratic society. Yet, a crucial conflict of rights exists within the system when the freedom of expression is used to perpetuate willful hatred against a certain individual or group. Controversy arises from this conflict first and foremost because the freedom of expression is meant to secure each person the right to express ideas and opinions without governmental interference, irrespective of what that opinion may be. In this paper, I will discuss the conflicting views of restricting the freedom of expression when it is used to promote hatred. I refer to the insights offered by Joel Feinberg and Joseph Raz to advance the view that the “right” to freedom of expression is not final and absolute, as expressions of hated do in fact cause real harm to people, and there rights too must be taken into consideration. Fundamental rights should be viewed as a privilege, which includes a responsibility to respect and value the rights of others to provide for a truly liberal democracy. I will refer to the landmark judicial decision in the Canadian Supreme Court case of R. v. Keegstra to argue that the rights of individuals and groups to be afforded the right to respect and dignity outweigh any claim to freedom of expression.
Freedom of speech has been a controversial issue throughout the world. Our ability to say whatever we want is very important to us as individuals and communities. Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution which states that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press”. Although this amendment gave people the right express thier opinions, it still rests in one’s own hands as how far they will go to exercise that right of freedom of speech.
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.
Different states have various ways of ruling and governing their political community. The way states rule reflects upon the political community and the extent of positive and negative liberty available to their citizens. Canada has come a long way to establishing successful rights and freedoms and is able to do so due to the consideration of the people. These rights and freedoms are illustrated through negative and positive liberties; negative liberty is “freedom from” and positive liberty is “freedom to”. A democracy, which is the style of governing utilized by Canada is one that is governed more so by the citizens and a state is a political community that is self-governing which establishes rules that are binding. The ‘Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ allow Canada’s population to live a free and secure life. This is demonstrated through the fundamental freedoms, which permit the people to freely express themselves and believe in what they choose. Canadians also have democratic rights authorizing society to have the right to democracy and vote for the members of the House of Commons, considering the fact that the House of Commons establishes the laws which ultimately influence their lifestyle. The tools that are used to function a democratic society such as this are, mobility, legal and equality rights, which are what give Canadians the luxury of living life secured with freedom and unity. Furthermore it is safe to argue that ‘The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’, proves the exceeding level of efficiency that is provided for Canadians in comparison to other countries where major freedoms are stripped from their political community.
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 article ¨Should There Be Limits on Freedom of Speech?” delineates when Salman Rushdie published his novel that consisted of many unfair statements about Muslims, there were many violent protests around the world as an outcome (1). Rushdie, the author of the very controversial novel, pleaded that the First Amendment protected his writings, but this is invalid. His writings caused riots that turned to be extremely violent where many people got hurt; furthermore, since his words caused this chaos, he is no longer protected. The Constitution does not provide any statements that prove that these people who start riots are to be protected under their rights. The American people must wake up and realize that their ignorant actions are not protected; moreover, their actions are their responsibility. They chose to speak their mind, so they must have to own up to the repercussions that follow. If a person is responsible for causing a riot that ends in many injuries, or even death, they should not be able to claim that the First Amendment protects their violations. The article continues with if a person were to stand up in front of a large or small crowd and purposely speak of topics that would begin a riot, they would not be protected under the First Amendment (1). Many individuals are unaware that as soon as they begin speaking of controversial topics, and purposely
Many people and nations around the world are deprived of human rights. The government in the countries or nations usually can not help the people being deprived. Either because the government is too poor to, it is not one of the things the government is looking into, or the government does not know or care. Because of this certain people, or even whole populations are denied human rights and their living conditions and way of life are usually not on the positive side of things. There are many wealthier countries trying to help but sometimes that is not enough. To what extent should Canada have a role in working to increase human rights protection in other nations?
Freedom of speech cannot be considered an absolute freedom, and even society and the legal system recognize the boundaries or general situations where the speech should not be protected. Along with rights comes civil responsib...