• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Changes to the Canadian Charter

Extracts from this document...


Introduction The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into action on April 17, 1982 and is a written bill of rights that guarentees the rights and freedoms of Canadians. It is part of the Constitution Act of 1982 and was designed to unify Canadians and their rights in all levels of governments. A right is a claim, whether moral, social or legal, that entitled people to have mainly from their government. A freedom is a right that allows you to do something freely (ex. Speak). Some freedoms have limitations in order to protect others and produce a peaceful society. Before the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was the Canadian Bill of Rights. This was made under Prime Minister John Diefenbaker on August 10, 1960 and dealt with human rights at the federal level. It was a federal statute rather than constitutional document, could be easily corrected by Parliament and did not apply to provincial laws. Hence, due to its ineffectiveness, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted by the British Parliament in 1982, due to the efforts of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. ...read more.


However, under Section 2a, it states that everyone has a "freedom of conscience". Hence, abortion is a moral decision and a conscience decision. Therefore, according to the charter, a person has the right to decide for themselves whether they want to abort their baby. In British Columbia alone, roughly 14,738 fetuses were aborted in 2004. However, this right contradicts a legal right - that "everyone has the right to life, liberty..." The baby should have a right to life, and if aborted, is deprived of life without any principles of justice. These two clauses hence contradict each other. As well, the "freedom of conscience" can be interpreted as the freedom to make conscience decisions. Hence, does it also imply that a person can legally kill another? To kill another person is a conscience decision and the charter guarantees that everyone has the freedom to make conscience decisions. Although the "freedom of conscience" is a fundamental freedom, I believe that it should be removed from the charter. Section 2b in "Fundamental Freedoms" talks about the right of expression. I believe that this right only applies if the expression is not intentionally made to harm others. ...read more.


According to an online dictionary, "disrepute" means "disfavour". Hence, this can be interpreted that it is legal to withhold evidence if it makes the justice system look bad. I think this is wrong, because it gives the justice system a chance to be corrupt without the public knowing. I do not understand the purpose of this law, hence I think it should be rephrased into "the evidence shall be excluded if it is established to be unrelated to the case ... admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute." Lastly, under "Citation", section 34 states that "This part may be cited as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms". I believe it means that the whole document, from section 1-34, is known as the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom". However, does it also mean that if any more laws were added, they are hence not part of the Canadian Charter? These are the many notes and questions I had when reading through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I hope that you'll take my ideas into consideration. Thank you for your time. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Sources of Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Sources of Law essays

  1. Parliamentary supremacy

    On the other hand, parliament still has supremacy as parliament can only change and make the legislation, not the courts.

  2. Law a2 notes

    - the intention is what is important, but for section (b) one of the 2 offences must be committed or there must be attempt. The Mens Rea > The burglar must know that he is a trespasser or be reckless as regards this fact and > Then must have the

  1. Law and Justice

    many over the needs of the few, disregarding social inequalities created in the process. The theorist Nozick believed that a truly just society should have the minimum possible right to intervene in the affairs of individuals; its function should be limited to ensuring the basic needs of society, such as prevention of crime, and the enforcement of contracts.

  2. Assess theeffectiveness of the Law in Achieving Justice for Indigenous People.

    right agreement, further drawing attention to the need for Australia to reconsider it's policy in relation to indigenous Australians. In 1965, the government modified the Assimilation policy, stating that their hope was that Aboriginals would choose to live like white Australians, finally recognising, to a degree, indigenous Australian culture.

  1. A number of views have been expressed that 'marriage' between two heterosexual couples is ...

    The case concerned succession to private tenancy, available under the relevant Austrian legislation to heterosexual couples, but not to gay and lesbian partners. The ECHR has ruled that the case can proceed on alleged grounds of 'sexual orientation discrimination'. But the result of this case is yet to be determined.

  2. Juvenile Justice

    Juvenile courts usually have control over matters about children, including criminal behaviour, neglect, and adoption. In all states some young juveniles also go in adults criminal court but however under some circumstances. In many states, the government statutorily excludes some serious offenses from the authority of the juvenile court despite of the age of the accused.

  1. An Evaluation of the Employment Equity Act in Canada

    the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, reported that the federal government is the largest employer in Canada, with almost 49% of its employees (excluding the Army) employed by the federal Crown Corporations. 5 At that time, employees of Crown Corporations were not subject to the Public Service Employee

  2. Should people have a right to privacy?

    that exploitation but in the United Kingdom these rights fail to exist. Although such courts in the United Kingdom have lengthened current laws to make quasi-image rights, the UK is still some way from making a self-standing right. In the United Kingdom, people have depended on a framework of intellectual

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work