• 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

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.

Middle

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.

Conclusion

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

    The Human Rights Act has given effect to convention through use of statutory interpretation under section 3. If such interpretation is not feasible then under section 4 of the Human Rights Act, the court has the power to make a declaration of incompatibility, if primary legislation conflicts with the rights

  2. Judicial Reform and Bill of Rights.

    Claimants will not be burdened with the cost and delay of taking a case to the European Human Rights Commission and Court in Strasbourg. Human Rights are often thought of as a narrow concept of individual rights, such as the right not to be discriminated against on grounds such as

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

    However, the colony was still not given an elected assembly, which further angered the English -- they had assumed that with the recall of Murray, they would get an assembly.9 Again, the legal system was changed around.

  2. Women and Discrimination under the Law

    The ECJ did not seek a male comparator in this case and held that because only women could be refused employment on the grounds of

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

    Australia was one of the founding members. In 1948 on 10th December the UN General Assembly agreed upon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Even though Australia was part of this decision, the only reflection of this Declaration in Australian policy was when the Commonwealth Electoral Act was amended in 1949 to include Aboriginal members of the Defence Forces.

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

    The search revealed video tapes containing footage of A.D.T and up to four other men engaging in consensual oral sex and mutual masturbation in his home. A.D.T was charged and convicted of gross indecency between men. Although the Sexual Offences Act 1967 had abolished the criminal bans on private sexual

  1. Privacy: Inherent to Freedom.

    An infringement upon President Bill Clinton's private life actually led to his impeachment. When allegations that he had an affair with an intern, Monica Lewinsky, reached the public, he was forced to lie under oath to save his human dignity.

  2. Investigate The Employment Of People With Disabilities

    as they feel that may not be able to work as well as someone who is not. This is a form of discrimination. This means that disabled people are refused jobs which require skill and knowledge as employee feel that they wont be able to "cope" with the work.

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