Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Supreme court cases
Supreme court cases
The Supreme Court (criminal law)
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Supreme court cases
The Supreme court of Canada today invoked in a 4-3 decision have rejected the constitutional challenge that is brought on by the Hutterites, to Alberta’s requirement of having all drivers to obtain a license that contains a photo of the license holder. Therefore, many individuals believe that this universal photo requirement is justified within the Charter under section q, which permits reasonable limits on protected rights.
The Alberta government today issued a challenge and won a supreme court of Canada decision in upholding its right to insist that in order, to obtain a valid drivers license, drivers must have their photograph of themselves attached to it. Therefore, individuals need to be identified because driving itself is not a right that is entitled to
…show more content…
In addition, the actual issue is the requirement of having a photo is a offensive to the Hutterian Tenet of faith, which for some of them, this practice is forbidden and they can not have their photo taken willingly. Furthermore, this act is translated as the creation of a “Graven Image”. This means that it violates the second commandment of the bible that forbids idolatry. Moreover, the photograph of the Hutterites is allowed only if it was a candid photo, otherwise it is forbidden because the act of posing for a photos is considered to be a sinful act. Conclusively, in the past the Hutterites were allowed to hold a valid license without having a picture of themselves. However, now they are presented with the choice to either quit driving or they have to sell their land that they have stewarded for more than a 100 years and are forced to move to a place where there faith is able to coincide with society. Thus, this was the same challenge that the forefathers were faced with, which forced them to flee to Russia for North America in the 14 century. Conclusively, Alberta had proclaimed and told the Supreme court about their reasons for this regulation, which
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important document that allows us to live our lives without arbitrary governmental control, although there may be certain times when rights should be limited. The R. v Oakes case is a perfect example of this situation coming into play. David Edwin Oakes was caught with an unlawful possession of hash oil and was automatically convicted of trafficking, under section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act. By looking at the Charter, it was clear that section 8 of the NCA violated his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, guaranteed in section 11.d. With that in mind, the respondent brought in a motion that challenged section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act. Since the Supreme Court and the Crown were confident that the suspect was trafficking narcotics, they created a four criteria ruling, in order to reasonably limit the rights of the respondent. This is permissible under section 1 of the Charter, which states that “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms…only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law.”2 The respondent’s case passed the first criterion which stated that “the reasoning for limiting the Charter must be proven important enough to override a constitutionally protected right.” The case did not pass the second criterion which stated that “there must be an appropriate connection between the limitation of rights and the objective of the legislation.”2 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and the respondent was released. After reviewing the case it was clear that even though the suspect did not have his rights limited against him, limiting rights should be used more often in severe cases.
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...
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”.
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...
The new law has seen multiple, willing and able, voters turned away at the polling station for unacceptable or expired photo IDs. It also turns away people low on income, mainly because of the cost of photo IDs or the cost to replace vital documents, like birth certificates. With the implication of the new voter ID law, it is certain that it will have an implication on voter turnouts at the polls, mainly seen by minority and elderly voters. Those, like justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, prove that the new voter ID law has very lasting and unfair effects on voters who are deemed “unfavorable.” Even a U.S. district judge in Corpus Christi ruled that the law “constitutes an unconstitutional poll tax” and “has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose.” African-Americans and Latinos are more likely to lack appropriate photo IDs, disenfranchising approximately 600,000 voters. Even if the state offers a free photo ID, these types voters, some of who are in the low-income tax bracket, may not be able to get their hands on necessary documents, such as a birth certificate which cost around $23, to obtain one. The new ID laws can prove to be a large hurdle for multiple types of people, causing a lot of stress to people who just want to perform their civic
The “Election and voting: Voter Identification” is a debate between three sides with different opinions about the voter identification law. Each side is represented by Chandler Davidson, Hans von Spakovsky, and Edward Foley. This debate is about whether the voter identification laws should be in place or not. Davidson is against the voting id laws stating its historical context and how it will affect the minorities, older and student during the election time. Spakovsky supports the law saying “the law would prevent voter fraud” and make elections strong and fair. Third, position held by Foley is that voter fraud is a problem and voter id law would help prevent it, but we need to make sure that everyone will have an easy access to the designated places.
The federal and provincial government’s bona fide ability to implement bounds on the rights and freedoms enjoyed by the Citizens of this great nation is an absolute necessity. The confines permitted by the ‘reasonable limits clause,’ ‘notwithstanding clause’ and the need for increased powers in extreme circumstances demonstrate society’s inherent need for confines to prevent disorder and mayhem. If the governments were unable to invoke restraints, chaos and anarchy would prevail. However, the need to ensure that the limitations do not unreasonably infringe of rights and freedoms of Canadians is equally important. If governments began to continuously and unreasonably infringe the rights and freedoms, individual Canadians would become a communist state such as North Korea.
Systemic discrimination has been a part of Canada’s past. Women, racial and ethnic minorities as well as First Nations people have all faced discrimination in Canada. Policies such as, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, provincial and federal Human Rights Codes, as well has various employment equity programs have been placed in Canada’s constitution to fight and address discrimination issues. Despite these key documents placed for universal rights and freedoms Aboriginal and other minority populations in Canada continue to be discriminated against. Many believe there is no discrimination in Canada, and suggest any lack of success of these groups is a result of personal decisions and not systemic discrimination. While others feel that the legislation and equality policies have yet resulted in an equal society for all minorities. Racism is immersed in Canadian society; this is clearly shown by stories of racial profiling in law enforcement.
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...
Canada is known for their diversity and multiculturalism where they ensure that all citizens are able to keep their identities and take pride in their ancestral roots regardless of where they are from and which religion they affiliate with. They encourage racial and ethnic harmony and cross-cultural understanding . Since multiculturalism is such an important part of the Canadian identity, people cannot be stripped of their rights to freely practice their religion, especially if they claim to value the individual identity. However, even though the above is what Canada strives to stand for, it isn’t achieved in reality. For example, if everyone were free to practice their religion however they wanted to in public, conflict would arise in society since everyone may believe that their religion is superior to others. So in order to ensure there is peace amongst us, the government must regulate how people practice their religion, at least in the public
Secondly I noticed when I was in my car on my way to work was the license and the insurance that the government requires in order to operate a motor vehicle. The government requires that all drivers pass a drivers test to demonstrate that they are capable of operating a motor vehicle without harming themselves or others. When they pass this test they are giving a drivers license. If the person violates the laws of the road too many times or seriously this license can be suspended or revoked. The government also requires that the driver have insurance. Insurance is required so that in the event of an accident the parties involved in the accident can afford medical care.
In “The Historical Context of Voter Photo-ID Laws”, Chandler Davidson argues that the Indiana legislature requiring most voters to show photo identification in order to cast a ballot serves as a way for Republican officials to attempt to gain votes. Due to the Twenty-Fourth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, poll taxes, literacy and property tests, white primaries, and other restrictions placed on minorities were abolished. However, race, class, and partisanship continue to push lawmakers to place restrictions on voters. With the Indiana legislation, many argued that it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by placing an unfair burden on those who do not have the proper government-issued documents that constitute identification.
The Government of Canada passed a law making it illegal to discriminate against an individual's sexual preference. With this in mind, the government would then require all of society, including religious communities, to welcome the marriages, adoptions, and families of homosexuals as though they were in no way different from heterosexual ones. It is amazing that such an authority be involved in legislating the acceptance of the normality of this group of individuals. To conclude that the government is taking a corageous act by legislating this law , it must be shown that homosexuality is something we have to accept in society.
Photojournalism plays a critical role in the way we capture and understand the reality of a particular moment in time. As a way of documenting history, the ability to create meaning through images contributes to a transparent media through exacting the truth of a moment. By capturing the surreal world and presenting it in a narrative that is relatable to its audience, allows the image to create a fair and accurate representation of reality.