• 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. Law a2 notes

    only applies to Theft and GBH The Actus Reus The defendant must: > Enter > A building (or part of one) > As a trespasser There is no need to have actually carried out any of the 3 offences for the offence in section (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.

    During this period Aboriginals were not protected by the law - even though they were tried, convicted and hanged according to it. It was believed that they could not fathom court proceedings, and their oath to tell the truth would be invalid - as they did not believe in a European god.

  1. 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.

  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. Judicial Reform and Bill of Rights.

    Despite this suggestion enhancing democracy in the country and possibly even enhancing sovereignty, there is the possible threat of the media influence corrupting voting behaviour and with the recent European elections, the imminent General election and the possibility of referendums on the Euro and other issues, British citizens may be less willing to contribute to the appointing of the judges.

  2. Should people have a right to privacy?

    receive income for use of one's own name and image to the exclusion of others? 16(Rudnick Gray Cary, 2005). It is clear to see that the United Kingdom is behind the US and Europe in protecting image rights. There is very little judicial development, in spite of lawyer?s efforts to

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