• 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. Juvenile Justice

    More and new laws for the protection of the children and giving harsher punishments. It would be better if this issue is looked deeper and focused more on. It cans the lives of many innocent children. The government should help change this crucial behaviour and should give children freedom and return there happiness.

  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

    Finally, the theorist Kelsen argued that justice is simply an individual's preference and values, and therefore justice is not a quantifiable ideal. Therefore, he believed that the law and justice could be isolated from each other. He argued that the law is the law, and should obeyed even if the outcome is totally immoral.

  2. Parliamentary supremacy

    was chosen then parliamentary supremacy is still in existence, however if they were to choose EU law then parliament can not possibly be supreme. The courts chose to ignore this question for many years until the landmark case R v Secretary of State Transport ex parte Factortame2.

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

    Any evidence given by an Aboriginal was only admissible if it could be supported by someone who was not indigenous. Further adding to their disadvantage, people who harmed or murdered indigenous Australians were seldom convicted - the ratio of Aboriginal to non-Aboriginal prisoners was highly unbalanced.

  2. An Evaluation of the Employment Equity Act in Canada

    6 The underrepresentation of women in federal Crown Corporations are clearly evident. According to the 1981 census, women were at a disadvantage in a number of ways. In comparison to men, women have higher unemployment rates, lower participation rates and are concentrated in lower paying jobs, regardless of their education.

  1. The Not-So-Secret Affair Between State and Church.

    This way, as of yet, there has not been a single state to declare h********l marriage legal, as the interpretation of the word is still "up in the air", so to speak. The Marriage Protection Act infringes upon the rights of homosexuals to marry through changing legislation to make it

  2. Should people have a right to privacy?

    This led me to contemplate whether it is acceptable to provide one party with anonymity and the other party with none, if the party has not been proven entirely guilty. The case regarding Joanna Yeates murder and the landlord that was accused guilty provides support to the fact that anonymity should be given to both parties until proven guilty.

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