• 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

    given in the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950). It can therefore be argued, that the Human Rights Act infringes the third of the tests for Parliamentary supremacy, as the Court of Law can question an Act of Parliament.

  2. Law a2 notes

    force Burglary Section 9(1)(a) "A person is guilty of burglary if he enters a building or part of a building as a trespasser, with the intent to steal, to inflict grievous bodily harm or to do unlawful damage to the building or anything inside it" Section 9(1)(b)

  1. Law and Justice

    However, it should be noted that the application of communist leadership can also fail to apply these tenets, due to the inability of the system to compensate for human greed. It is interesting to note the similarities between utilitarianism and economic justice, both of which put the needs of the

  2. Evaluating the Success and Failure of the Four Constitutions Canada Had Prior to Confederation

    for the Catholic Church to collect the tithe,7 because he felt that if he worked through the natural leaders of Canadien society (the seigneurs and the priests), he would be able to get the loyalty of the Canadiens.8 Their loyalty was much needed, because the colonists south of the border were stirring.

  1. Women and Discrimination under the Law

    Liberal theory makes the assumption that individuals in society are all gender, race, class and age neutral. All individuals are deemed equal yet, in reality this is not the case. Society is certainly not neutral in the manner that liberalism perceives it.

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

    The scramble to inaugurate the area was almost always violent. In response to the on going conflict and violence, the government implemented a policy of 'dispersal and dispossession'. The policy, which is said to have been one of systematic slaughter, saw to it that the land was taken forcibly from

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

    regarded as equivalent to marriages and stable relationship outside marriage between persons of opposite sex'6. The judgement shown by the Commission are surprisingly harsh. However, the ECHR appears not to adopt as harsh an approach as the Commission when considering other forms of 'sexual orientation discrimination7.

  2. Should people have a right to privacy?

    of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation? 11(law.com accessed 28/10/11). Prior to this case, the agreement was that the English courts were disinclined to protect well-known people. For example, the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Elvis Presley case where Elvis Presley Enterprises was turn

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