Canadian Human Rights Law

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The state can't compel supported religious action on its nationals by constraining them to pick amongst participation and their own particular intrinsically secured rights.

F.L. Morton examines the political impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by comparing pre-Charter practices to post-Charter developments in five different areas: judicial behaviour, public policy, interest group behaviour, federalism, and executive behaviour. Morton presents the Charter through its continuity and change, beginning with the move away from Britain’s “unwritten constitution” and distinguishing the doctrine as constitutional supremacy that still depends on public opinion. He argues that due to the Charter’s constitutionality, Canadian courts are able to have a more active and influential role in interpreting and enforcing the listed rights which is a negative development in Canadian democracy.

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

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms upholds the individual rights of all Canadians. Agree or disagree with the following statement.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms embody the ideals of our nation and present a series of fundamental freedoms so that citizens are enabled to receive equality and can feel safe and included within their society. One of the main things that the Charter has promoted is that the enforcement of a law does not necessarily make it fair for everyone. Different people require different treatment in order for full equality to be attained. However, at one point the Charter failed to recognize the needs of a very prevalent group – homosexuals. The Charter was approved in 1982 and devised a list of protected cases such as gender, race, religion and etcetera, but it failed to acknowledge sexual orientation. However, in 1985 a report titled

During my social studies class of 2016 The Human Rights and the Manitoba Human Rights code got me interested.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the free exercise clause in many different ways. Today, people in the United States have the absolute freedom to believe what they choose but they may have to yield to the government in their religious conduct. In most instances, the government will not interfere with an adult’s practices as long as a minor is not in danger. The Supreme Court has deemed though, that if these practices endanger a minor, the minor cannot participate. Such cases include the right an adult as to refuse life-saving treatment cannot be applied to a minor. The government’s interest in saving a child’s life outweighs the freedom of religious practice. Another case in which the government may interfere with religious conduct is if the purpose of the law was not made to prevent the practice but merely occurred incidentally. This has occurred in Oregon, when the government banned peyote, a hallucinogenic drug used by Native Americans. The Supreme Court deemed that the law was meant to protect people from the powerful drug and it was not intended to infringe on the Native American practice. The last situation in which a government can interfere with religious conduct is if the act is a danger to public safety.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, implemented in 1982 outlines the rights and freedoms that Canadians have as citizens of this country. In this paper I will ask whether we need such a charter, whether we can trust the interpretation of the Charter by the Supreme Court and how the Charter balances power in a democratic way. I will then contemplate the foundational place morality holds in the lawmaking process. In all of this I argue that to make a good law one must hold to a moral standard and one must act in the understanding that belief, and not objectivity, plays the main role in rational thought.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important milestone in Canadian history. An effort through rigorous debate and compromise gave birth to this document that defines our collective values and principles by guaranteeing and protecting the fundamental rights of its citizens. Prior to the Charter, there was no gurantee in Canada that rights and freedoms would not be taken away by legislation. The Charter also allows courts to render the constitutional duty so that any decisions made are consistent with those rights and freedoms. The Charter was established firmly in “The Constitution Act, 1982”, with the declaration of this act Canada escaped from the severe practice of concept of parliamentary supremacy. The Charter has an enormous effect on court’s decision power to award justice to important and debatable issues about policies that affect public. In awarding the verdict courts are not even reluctant to rewrite laws that violate the testament of the Charter. The judges have a duty to regulate the rulings of both provincial and federal governments which, disagree with the root value of Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada uses the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to limit the scope of legislation and administrative power by implementing section one of the charter; which results in an open dialogue between the government and the courts on various legislation deemed unconstitutional. In this essay I will discuss the extent in which section one of the Canadian Charter allows the Supreme Court of Canada to dictate legislation, how they go about narrowing legislation and administrative power through the Oaks test, and the history of the Supreme Court from 1982 – present day will be analyzed resulting in an understanding of the legitimacy the courts play with such a role.

After the storm clouds of apartheid lifted to reveal the Rainbow Nation of South Africa in 1994, the first democratically elected government was tasked with drawing up a new constitution that would properly enshrine the human rights that had so long been denied the majority of citizens. One source drawn upon in developing the new constitution was the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, itself then little more than a decade old. It is not necessary to be a constitutional scholar to detect many similarities between the two; indeed, Canada’s pride in this connection is such that it is highlighted on the Government of Canada 's webpage on bilateral relations with South Africa, which boasts “South Africa 's 1996 Constitution and Bill of Rights draw heavily on Canada 's Charter of Rights and Freedoms”.

Firstly, through my observations of the different courts it was evident the administration of justice is done in due time, and the process is not expedited without an outstanding reason as it can lead to misguided verdict. Furthermore, the criminal trial process in our society focuses on equality and promotes this principle by entitling an accused of even the most heinous crimes to civil liberties and processes as not to compromise the criminal trial process. A fair trial is an intrinsic right of all members of society making it fundamental to our being, and is ergo ensured to us all under s.11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms.

Discrimination is a big topic it can be blatantly out of discussion but it is important to stress that people of all race, gender and sex, religion or even sexual orientation. In Canada specifically has done some reasonable set of legal protections to prevent Canadians from being discriminated against but sometimes it is not that easy and things turn out of people’s control and will. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a section of the Canadian Constitution that makes it illegal for the government of Canada, and the provincial government to pass laws that either plainly discriminate against certain Canadians on the basis of their identity. Place an unfair burden on one group over another. The Supreme Court of Canada routinely overturns laws they perceive to be discriminatory on the grounds of Charter protections. Canada’s legislation called the Canadian Human Rights Act that prevents private entities, such as employers, landlords, schools, and stores from discriminating against clients or customers on the basis of identity. Discrimination cases of these sorts are decided by a government known as the Human Rights Tribunal that has the power to issue fines and or other corrective actions. The various provincial governments have their own human rights laws.

The First Amendment to the Constitution prevents the government from impeding the free exercise of religion, disavowing intervention when a religion disagrees with the policies of government. This fundamental liberty has recently come under attack in response to the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage in June, 2015. In response, individual states and the federal government have passed religious freedom laws protecting religious liberty for business owners. The free exercise of religion is a fundamental liberty that should not be abridged by government, and the implementation of religious freedom statutes is necessary to protect the values of the First Amendment.

One the things that Malaysia and Canada have in common are the human rights issues that are faced in both countries. In Malaysia, refugees are held in immigration detention centres and in Canada, there are children who are held in immigration detention centres. Despite that in both cases they face different difficult living situations, those held in the immigration detention centres in the two countries are living in horrible states and are suffering. Another thing that the two countries have in common is the fact that they don’t have evidence of child labour and they have laws that are against child labour. In Malaysia, they have the Children and Young Persons (Employment) Act 1966 that protect children from getting into child labour. This