Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Minorities In Congress
Canadian history of minority groups
Minority representation in congress quizlet
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the year 1957, Canada elected its first Prime minister without English or French root, John Diefenbaker. While growing up in the city of Toronto, because of his German name, he was often teased. [1] He grew up as an outcast, and so he was able to relate to the discrimination and inequality many of the minorities in Canada felt. This essay will attempt to answer the question: To what extent did Prime Minister John Diefenbaker help promote equality to the minority communities. . The minorities in this time period were the women, aboriginals, and immigrants. During his time as the Prime Minister, he was able to help protect the rights of this group because many of their rights were being abused by the society. Diefenbaker also helped the minorities to stand up for themselves and other groups. Diefenbaker was able to bring positive change to the minority communities by making an official Bill of Rights and appointing people of discriminated groups to the parliament while other members did not. John Diefenbaker was able to accomplish his main goal while he was in the Prime Minister’s chair. He was able to enact the Bill of rights “under which freedom of religion, of speech, of association…freedom from capricious arrest and freedom under the rule of law”. [2] He made it into an official document that would prevent the continuous abuse of the rights of many of the minority groups. He had seen the discrimination with his own eyes during his earlier years with the aboriginals, “[he] was distressed by their conditions, the unbelievable poverty and the injustice done them.”[3] The Bill would prevent many injustice incidents such as the case with the Japanese citizens in 1942. During WWII, the government gov’t declared that all people of ... ... middle of paper ... ...l in this country.”[13] Works Cited http://www.archivescanada.ca/english/search/ItemDisplay.asp?sessionKey=1149011692062_206_191_57_196&l=0&lvl=1&v=0&coll=1&itm=251492&rt=1&bill=1 http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=502cfd3e-8f6d-413d-a07f-9de82704f340&Language=E&Section=FederalExperience http://www.ourfutureourpast.ca/loc_hist/page.aspx?id=803591 http://www.cowboycountrytv.com/trailblazers/jamesgladstone.html "Bill of Rights (Canada), August 4, 1960." DISCovering World History. Detroit: Gale, 2003. Canada in Context. Web. 4 Dec. 2013. "Ellen Fairclough, 99, Member Of Canada Cabinet in 1950's." New York Times 16 Nov. 2004: A25. Canada in Context. Web. 3 Dec. 2013. Burke, Marie. "Seven aboriginal senators: 40 years (looking back on the Senate's Aboriginal representatives)." Windspeaker Dec. 1998: 9. Canada in Context. Web. 3 Dec. 2013.
"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Canada, n.d. Web. 03 May 2014.
Harold Cardinal made a bold statement in his book, The Unjust Society, in 1969 about the history of Canada’s relationship with Aboriginal peoples. His entire book is, in fact, a jab at Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s idea of ‘the just society’. Pierre Elliott Trudeau made great assumptions about First Nations people by declaring that Aboriginal people should be happy about no longer being described as Indian. His goal was to rid Canada of Indians by assimilating them into the Canadian framework. Considered by many as a progressive policy, Trudeau’s white paper demonstrates just how accurate the following statement made by Harold Cardinal at the beginning of his book is : “The history of Canada’s Indians is a shameful chronicle of the white man’s disinterest,
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 2, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.
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.
Canada was determined to create a strong nation state during the first few decades of the twentieth century. Immigrants from various countries moved to Canada in hopes of prospering in a country that promised them so much. But not every immigrant was treated fairly. This is why intersectionality is necessary to consider because of existing complexities that exist within different groups of people. It is essential to examine the intersections of class, race/ethnicity, and gender, in order to understand why particular migrant groups experienced certain social and economic inequalities in the first three decades of the twentieth century.
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...
This extract from Western Australian Senator Alexander Matheson enforces the obvious contempt shown by the Australian general public perspective and the intent to suffocate the Indigenous population. The Aboriginal Rights Movement emerged in the 1930’s and celebrated a victory in 1967, as Aboriginals were entitled to vote in federal elections and gained equal citizenship. The Mabo case confronted the current Australian Legal system from two
Created in 1876, the Indian Act reveals the complete opposite of a valued cultural mosaic, and exposes the initial desire of the Canadian government to overtly oppress the Aboriginals through cultural imperialism (Brown & Hannis, 2012). With the attempted “domination of one culture over another by a deliberate policy” the Aboriginal people suffered through many years of legalized racism, within many secondary structures of society; to this day many individuals still brand the Aboriginal community as “the Indian problem”, a defamatory statement originated from Duncan Campbell Scott (n.a., n.d.). As a deputy superintendent of the Department of Indian Affairs, Scott, publicly denouncing an entire race, consequently and drastically impacted the lives of generations of Aboriginal people. The implementation of residential schools “ripped [children] from their families and sent [them off] to boarding schools, where many were abused as part of official government policy to "kill...
On 15 February 1930, Cairine Wilson was sworn in as Canada’s first female senator. The implications of the Persons Case, and Wilson’s appointment, were far-reaching. First, the Privy Council decision meant that women had been legally recognized as “persons.” This meant that women could no longer be denied rights based on narrow interpretations of the law. Second, women could now continue to work for greater rights and opportunities through the Senate as well as the House of Commons. The Persons Case was a significant moment in the history of women’s rights, even though the struggle for equality continues almost 100 years
A component of Canada’s Constitution is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This supreme law of Canada holds our common values as a nation. Queen Elizabeth and Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, signed the Constitution Act in 1982, this act includes the British North America Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.Governments stating new laws are guided by this charter. When applying these laws, courts are then guided by the same charter. It is important that we recognize the peace and clarity that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms brought upon our country. Before the Charter existed, there was limited solutions to unfair laws passed by an elected government, this led to a lack of protection for minority rights or fundamental freedoms.
The aboriginals depend on the provincial and Federal government for survival. The government can give aboriginals the skills to survive alone and get on their feet, or they can just keep feeding them forever. And the government has chosen to keep feeding the aboriginals forever.
The discussion of all Canadians having divulged rights and freedoms began in 1958. These rights and freedoms provide Canadians with support from the government, and the knowledge of their prominence within the country by showing them that they are in fact appreciated and deserve to have humans rights and receive respect as such. Prime Minister John Diefenbaker first initiated Canadian rights and freedoms and he institutionalized the Canadian Bill of Rights. But the bill was not constituted by any constitution. This meaning that the bill was only applied to federal laws and could not override any pre-existing laws. Additionally, Britain had the control to make changes and edit the bill, as Canada did not have its own constitution, These faults
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples have created many recommendations that the Commissioners believe would help address the hardships of the Aboriginal community in Canada (Smith, 2015). In the past two decades, there have been issues around giving justice to Aboriginal Peoples in Canada, many individuals of the Aboriginal community feel frustrated and betrayed. In this paper, we will discuss the recommendations that the recent Royal Commission has offered and select the ones that will serve justice if implemented. In doing so, we will look at historical and current events as evidence to strengthen our arguments.
“Multiculturalism has helped immigrants in Canada feel as if they can make Canada their home, but it has made Anglo and French societies feel as if visible minorities are different, not equal.” Ironically, the country’s indigenous peoples have been significantly undermined in Canadian society, even as the nation’s earliest inhabitants. Perhaps, Aminata serves as a theatrical voice for minorities as she represents a minority in her own world. Helen Ralston’s analysis of interviews with female Canadian minorities emphasized their desire for a “gender-just and equitable democratic society, where the voices of visible immigrant minority women are heard and heeded and where their experience and productive labour are valued.” Although these interviews primarily reflected views of female Asian immigrants, we can assume a probable parallel with blacks in Canada, who comprised part of Canada’s 19.1% population of minorities, third to South Asian and Chinese people in 2011. The presence of minorities in Canada begs this question: What does the majority think about the minority? Canadians are usually approving of diversity in their population,
The government had imposed through the act an electoral system that in their perspective was ideal and would help aboriginal people. During that time, most governors criticized the traditional governmental structure of the First Nations without taking into account the great cultural value self-governance it represented. It was a system that had existed throughout many generations and reflected their values and beliefs. The electoral system entrenched by the act to their political structure only dismissed Aboriginals needs and rights. Its purpose of assimilation also ignored completely the fact that all of the First Nations tribes were unique in many different ways specially when it came to governing. So, this change that happened in Aboriginal