• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 8
    8
  • Level: GCSE
  • Subject: Law
  • Word count: 2764

The Supreme Court of Canada and the Charter: Democratic or Anti-Democratic?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Canada and the Charter: Democratic or Anti-Democratic? A democracy is a way of governing a country in which the people elect representatives to form a government on behalf of the country; with such a government, the idea is that everyone in that country has social equality. Social equality is state of uniformity in quantity, measure, value, privileges, status, or rights within a given society. Canada is thought to be a democratic country because, similar to the definition, the Canadian citizens select representatives by ballot to form a government on behalf of the country. The Canadian judicial system has two key elements by which to represent the country: The Supreme Court of Canada (group of 9 appointed judges) and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court of Canada stands at the apex of the Canadian judicial system. It is the final general court of appeal, the last judicial resort for all litigants, whether individuals or governments. Its jurisdiction embraces both the civil law of the province of Quebec and the common law of the other provinces and territories. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a set of laws revised by the Supreme Court in order to ensure safety, morality and equality to all citizens. ...read more.

Middle

It is apparent that the Charter is hindering their rule of equality and being discriminatory against minority groups; this, along with Judge Abella's statement (2004) "the judiciary has a different relationship with the public...It is accountable less to the public's opinions and more to the public interest4." Hence, it is more than apparent that the Canadian judicial system lacks the characteristics of a democracy. Secondly, the fact that the members of the Supreme Court of Canada are appointed rather than elected by Canadian citizens shows that their judgement may not, in fact, be agreed upon by the country; thus, it does not demonstrate decisions being the true representation of people's views. Although some people believe the courts appoint MPs based on knowledge and previous achievement, thus giving a good face to the system, this is not representing the country efficiently. Paul Martin, Canada's Prime Minister, tried to revise the Supreme Court appointment system to make it more democratic than it previously was. Instead of appearing in front of a nominating committee, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler would take questions from a committee said to include three Liberal MPs, three opposition MPs and representatives from two bodies representing the legal profession. The panel would not vote or pass judgment on the qualifications of the nominees but would produce a report reflecting the opinions of committee members following their questioning of Cotler about the judges5. ...read more.

Conclusion

If minority groups were shown and expressed within the Supreme Court, the outcome of cases in which marginal opinions are faced would be much better represented and be more impartial to their individual values and beliefs. Considering the three main aspects mentioned, it is more than obvious that Canada is in no way democratic. If the Supreme Court of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedom were democratic, they would be based upon the principles of social equality, however they are not. The Supreme Court will continue to use the Charter to cut a swatch through broad societal expectations and practises and in doing so will make the general progress towards its decisions but not necessarily for each and every individual decision. The fact that the Canadian judicial system: allows the rights of a group to always supersede the rights of an individual, appoints the members of the Supreme Court and does not put emphasis on visible minorities in its' courts, forcefully proves its anti-democratic characteristics. Some mention that the Supreme Court is democratic because they follow the laws of the Charter, however, the cases mentioned above, along with many other cases which have been examined, prove that each citizen does not, in fact, have equal rights; this therefore substantiates that Canada does not possess the characteristics of having a democratic judicial system and, thus, is strongly anti-democratic. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE 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 GCSE Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Law of Evidence - R v Kearley

    5 star(s)

    lie that sought to deceive observers by a statement and/or conduct that was not intended to assert facts'. In Kearley it would have to have been elaborate given the number of callers that the police intercepted. Allen27 on a similar point, argues that implied assertions are generally are more reliable than express assertions.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    abortion research

    4 star(s)

    This position is incompatible with what most people believe, even most anti-choice activists. If the fetus is a person and abortion is murder, then those involved should be treated like murderers. Almost no one says that either abortion providers or the women should go to jail for murder.

  1. Worlds Apart: Orientalism, Antifeminism, and Heresy in Chaucer's Man of Law's Tale

    or exaggerated for all to recognize clearly. While actual heretics such as Joan of Arc were subjected to attempts to clarify (and nullify) their ambiguous position, the concept of heresy, personified in Satan, might also serve useful ends and thus remained integral to Christian thought.

  2. Criminal Law (Offences against the person) - revision notes

    * Medical examinations Limitations on the concept of consent The above situations of applied consent would not occur in special situations. These situations include: - 1. The age of the victim R v Burrell & Harmer (1967) - Approached by two 13 year old boys who signed consent forms for tattoos.

  1. Canadian Democracy

    The party with the second most number of votes becomes the Official Opposition with their leader being the Leader of Opposition.

  2. Our Day Out and social deprivation.

    Briggs when he interferes in her organisation of the trip. She is good at handling people - she gets Ronnie, the bus driver "on side" and she can diffuse arguments with Mr. Briggs with humour and reasoning. Mrs. Kay is not afraid of physical contact with the pupils: she holds

  1. Euthanasia In Canada

    Doctors must necessarily in all patients discontinue curative or therapeutic efforts at the time when death is imminent and inevitable. Patients may request all measures to be attempted if they desire but it cannot be demanded that life always be prolonged as much as possible, without fuelling the "right to die" movement.

  2. Types of Court in the English Legal System.

    The Crown Court carries out four principal types of activity: appeals from decisions of magistrates: sentencing of defendants committed from magistrates courts, jury trials, and the sentencing of those who are convicted in the Crown Court, either after trial or on pleading guilty.

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