• 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

    It was held that the later act should be used and the argument was rejected that the 1919 parliament had attempted to bind its successors. Maujham LJ in the similar case of Ellen Street Estates Ltd v Minister of Health6 stated that 'The legislature cannot, according to our constitution, bind itself as to the form of subsequent legislation'.

  2. Law a2 notes

    intends to deprive V of the property and in addition > That the defendant intentionally or recklessly used or threatened to use force - D must intend (or be reckless) to use (or threaten to use) force Burglary Section 9(1)(a)

  1. Law and Justice

    should recognise the greater benefit of the majority, and performing ten operations may seem the best way to spend public funds. Marx applied this to his communist theories, and proposed the theory that is was impossible for a capitalistic society to be just, because it would fail to distribute wealth between each party according to his capacity and his needs.

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

    Numbers are believed to have fallen from 85 000 to just a few thousand. An example of the actions taken by the government during the period of dispersal can be seen in the case of the Waterloo Creek Massacre, in which between 100-300 Aboriginal men, women and children were murdered.

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

    Murray thought that to successfully govern the colony meant to make as few disruptions as possible. In fact, despite the anti-Catholic sentiments so common to the Anglicans, Murray sought to forge an alliance with the Catholic Church, because he realised that the Church held a great deal of power when

  2. 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.

  1. 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

  2. Should people have a right to privacy?

    Contrasting to the US, Europe?s rights stem from rights of individual privacy, which are essentially bound within the cultures of many European countries. Over time ?these negative rights of privacy--the right to prevent intrusion into a person's private and personal life--have been adapted to become positive commercial rights--the right to

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