Term
| What are Human Rights? Civil Rights? What is the difference? |
|
Definition
| Human rights are universal rights. Civil rights can vary from country to country and are rights that depend on the law of the nation. |
|
|
Term
| What is the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms? Why was it passed? Did we have these rights before 1982? Who interprets the Charter? |
|
Definition
| The Canadian Charter of Rights is the Supreme Law of Canada and is very difficult to change and oppose. It was previously called the Canadian Bill of Rights before 1982 and is interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Bill of Rights was a statute, which means that, unlike the charter, it was easily changeable.Whether we had the rights before 1982 depends on what theory of law you subscribe to. Those who find they agree with natural law theory would say that yes, we have had those rights since the beginning of time. They would say that the only thing that changed in 1982 was that Canada began to recognize those rights. On the other hand, positive law theorists would say that those rights are simply the product of political authorities. They would say that before 1982, these rights were just obscure and abstract philosophical notions. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The reasonable limits clause is found in Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights in Freedoms. It states that the charter rights are not abosolute and can be infringed upon if the limit is prescibed by law and can be justified in a free and democratic society. It simply means that the government can restrict an individual's rights if it is necessary to society. For example, our Fundamental Freedom right to free expression can be limted if we use that right to be hateful towards another parties sex or race. This would been considered a hate crime, and our freedom of expression would be limited because it is not within the reasonable limits of the charter right. |
|
|
Term
| Pros and cons of the Charter |
|
Definition
Pros:
Promotes equality and protects our human rights. Not only does it guarantee us fundamental human rights (Section 2), it also assures us that “every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination” (Section 15, subsection 1).
It takes a more personal perspective on situations. Rather than just have laws, it looks at how laws effect people and how to make sure the effect is a fair one. For example, in the case Bliss v. Canada in 1979, the Supreme Court stated that it was fine for a pregnant woman to be denied unemployment insurance, since the law applied to both men and women. However, after the Charter came into effect, the same situation would be deemed sex discrimination, and the woman would be granted the insurance.
The Charter is a brief yet comprehensive guide to what freedoms and rights should take precedence.
Cons:
Some say that is just a redundant copy of the Canadian Human Rights Act of 1977, of the Bill of Rights from the 1960s.
Others say that it removes the authority of the governmental authorities who we have elected, and gives it to lawyers and judges. This does not seem democratic.
Another common complaint is that these rights are not truly guaranteed, since they are subjected to reasonable limits, and that therefore the document is something to satisfy our desire to be truly free. The people who believe this would say that it actually has no power, since it can be interpreted in any way and have limits apply to it. |
|
|
Term
| "Collectivist" vs "Civil Libertarian" approaches |
|
Definition
| Collectivists essentially believe that the individual person matters most as a member of a collective society, whereas Civil Libertarians believe that the individual's rights should take precedence. In terms of law, the Collectivists take a much more utilitarian position than the Civil Libertarians. For example, in the subject of personal searches, Collectivists would say that searches are justifiable in order to protect the great society, whereas Civil Libertarians would say that the individual's right to not be unreasonably searched, (Section 8 of the Charter). John Locke, whose ideas regarding the social contract greatly impacted the founding of principles and laws in Canada, was a mild libertarian. He believed that we need laws that protect the society as a whole, but that the government's involvement should be minimal, only interfering when necessary. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| “Inalienable” is defined as “unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.” Therefore, inalienable rights are rights which cannot be taken away. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we are guaranteed rights, but it is controversial whether or not they are truly inalienable. This is because some say that since reasonable limits can be applied to our rights, they are not fully guaranteed, and therefore not inalienable. However, many could offer a rebuttal to that, saying that the rights never cease to exist, they are simply suspended when necessary, and that therefore they are inalienable. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Before the instating of the Charter, the Canadian parliament was like that of Britain. This meant that it was supreme and ultimately controlled the laws and happenings of the country. When the Charter was being created, many were not happy with the idea of switching from a system of parliament supremacy to a system of constitution supremacy similar to the American system. To avoid this, they created all the limits that are included in the Charter that maintain supremacy of parliament. The greatest example of this is the notwithstanding clause. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Sometimes know as the “override clause,” Section 33 of the Charter states that “Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding” the fact that Section 32 sys that the Charter applies to all the government of Canada. This section of the Charter is often referenced as why the Charter is ineffective. Some say that allowing Parliament to overrule any Section of the Charter makes it so that the Charter has no power, and that we are still under a system of Parliamentary supremacy. However, this clause is temporary. If a declaration is built on the “notwithstanding clause” it must be re-enacted every five years or it will expire. This protects us in a way, as it means that the act must be voted and decided on every five years. This prevents the government from creating a law that permanently restricts our human rights. |
|
|
Term
| Why does the court apply Charter rights tests to our existing laws? Good or bad idea? |
|
Definition
| The court applies Charter rights tests to our existing laws because some laws were made before the Charter came into effect, so they may violate the rights outlined in the Charter. This is a good idea because it ensures that our laws do not contradict our constitution. |
|
|
Term
| Many Canadians "hate" the Charter. Why? |
|
Definition
| Most times, if a Canadian hates the Charter, it is because of one of the cons discussed in question 3. In general, Canadians agree that we need to have rights and freedoms guaranteed to us, so generally their issue is that they do not believe that the Charter actually guarantees these rights. While they desire a document that ensures we are democratic and treated fairly, they don't think that the Charter is effective for this purpose, due to the limitations that are included. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| People have free will and will choose to do whatever they want. However, because of the negative consequences of these actions, people will choose not to do them. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| People commit crimes because of their genetic traits. However, it does not take into account a person’s upbringing. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| People will commit crimes because they want to achieve a higher station on the social ladder. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| People commit crimes because they do not see the benefit of obeying the law. These people also believe that they can improve society through committing crimes. Severed ties between family, religious and social life can cause this. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| People are born with the tendency to to do bad things. However, socialization keeps this in check. However, if we experience a poor or bad relationship with our parent, this can cause us to commit crime. |
|
|
Term
| Sociological Theory (Strain Theory) |
|
Definition
| People commit crimes to avoid life problems. I.e. if they feel pressured or stressed, they may do something illegal to escape the situation. |
|
|
Term
| Symbolic Interaction Theory |
|
Definition
| Society is built upon what a person’s beliefs of what a society should be. A country’s views of crime and justice are just figments of the imagination. |
|
|
