Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

PHL Of Human Rights > Final Exam > Flashcards

Final Exam Flashcards

1
Q

Who wrote the “Five Fables About Human Rights”, what are the two categories and the societies in each one?

A
  • Steven Lukes
  • Ones that have no human rights and ones that take human rights seriously
  • No human rights- Utilitaria and Communitaria and Proletaria
  • Human Rights Seriously- Libertaria and Egalitaria
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is Utilitaria? What group is it in?

A
  • they don’t have any human rights
  • Goal is to achieve the greatest happiness overall (this is what the utility is)
  • All of the citizens believe in a collective purpose
  • everybody is taken into account equally to find a solution that will result in the greatest happiness overall- this means no one person is irreplaceable
  • if killing you will result in making everybody else’s life better then they will kill you and you are required to sacrifice yourself
  • The just of this society is that they care about the society’s well being but not individual wellbeing
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is Cummunitaria? What group is it in?

A
  • No Human Rights
  • they are collective first and individual second
  • So how they identify themselves is through a group
  • Identity is key and their identity is with what group they are in
  • Tradition and rights are the same- what has been done and what should be done are the same
  • One big group separates into smaller groups now there is a bunch of identities
  • one thing they have in common is nothing bonds them
  • Multiculturalism doesn’t mean cultural relativism

PROBLEMS
- Who is a real identity or culture? With all these cultures there’s a list but what makes a culture worthy of being on the list

  • If all cultures are equal what happens if they don’t believe in another culture or has oppressive or violent practices
  • What happens when some people don’t have a group? No identity?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is Proletaria? What group is it in?

A
  • No Human Rights
  • Rights used to be relevant but now they are not (no government or money just
  • Everyone gets equal things and everyone produces that can and get what they need (they will be stuff left over)
  • No inequality but everyone is exactly the same

PROBLEMS
- Problem is that there is no problems

  • Human condition we take more than we need, take advantage of the system etc.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What do the five fables about no human rights teach us about the nature of rights?

A
  • From the INSECURITY inherent to Utiliteria
  • rights keep us from doing what is best for society, human rights hold us back
  • From the IMPOSSIBILITY in Communitaria
  • Human Rights are detached from traditions of specific groups (all groups)
  • protecting their identity not humanity
  • From their “OBSOLESCENCE” in Proletaria
  • (that it won’t last)
  • human rights supposes we have characteristics of jealousy, greed etc.
  • we always need protection
  • Liberatia is not good for 2 reasons
    1. The basic civil rights are respected, but the people that have them are not, not all citizens are treated equally human
    2. They believe that they have an unlimited right to whatever reward there abilities bring and an unlimited right to make choices that benefit themselves, this means they have no regard for the greater needs of others
  • Egalitaria is not attainable for 2 reasons
    1. Liberatarian constraint is founded in the economic spear- it’s too expensive to maintain an equal level economy
    2. Communitarian constraint is found in the cultural spear- they expect people to not consider their own view point when considering public and political issues, this is not natural because we base on our decisions off of our group
  • 2 reasons major reasons for doubting that egalitaria can be realized anywhere in this world
    1. We are naturally lead people to take anti egalitarian political positions
    2. Because we think in libertarian and communitarian ways humans cannot have a neutral view that will lead to everybody being equally valuable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is Libertaria? What group is it in?

A
  • Takes rights seriously
  • Everything revolves around market and should have a price- inequality wealth
  • no public anything- no right to free educations
  • No shared rights, only individual rights
  • every interaction you have a exchange of value (because everything has a market value
  • No discrimination but inequality and no effort for inequality because it is infringing on their values?
  • All have the same rights but if for example homeless people have the right to shelter and they don’t have it then sucks
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is Egalitaria? What group is it in?

A
  • Human rights taken seriously
  • All humans are equal
  • all freedoms re equally respected
  • Only justified inequality is when it allows someone less equal to be better off
  • If not equal there will be taxed and given to the poor
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What do human rights share with natural law and natural rights?

A
  • All three used to express a special kind of moral concern
  • These moral concerns are the most important ones, the most unrestricted (no matter cultural, religion etc. You have to follow these) and broadly shareable (They are understood and appreciated by everybody)
  • The three rights that human rights have within them are ones that are understood by everyone and shared by everyone because it is wrong to judge and action if they don’t understand it
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What is a state action?

A
  • human rights are protect us from the power of the state

- your human rights are only infringed upon when the states fails to take action

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What’s the difference between official violation of human rights and official disrespect for human rights?

A
  • official disrespect for human rights is much more common- an unofficial violates a right and the government or the state doesn’t do anything
  • unofficial violations (not official violates the right, not the government ) of a human rights is not a violation of human rights
  • Official violations happen when the government itself directly violate the human right
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is the difference between a minimalist and maximalist account of rights?

A
  • Minimalist believe that rights should prevent you from doing stuff (believe in free speech because it prevents people from stopping you from speaking)
  • Maximalist believes it should give you things while also preventing you from doing stuff (believes in free education because they are GIVING you education)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is “Cultural Relativism”?

A

It’s belief that there are a bunch of morality and they believe that they are all right for them

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What does Donnelly want to defend in his article?

A
  • functional
  • legal universalism
  • overlapping consensus universality (something that can be understood everywhere)
  • Human Rights demands a universality that is unique
  • they do this in a legal way and in a way that everyone agrees upon
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What’s the difference between Conceptual Universality and Substantive Universality?

A
  • Substantive universality = in the actual world – the practice of human rights in the real world
  • Conceptual universality = the idea – the idea of human rights – says that if human rights exist they need to be universal
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Does Donnelly believe that we ought to have human rights?

A
  • No
  • we all respect human rights as a moral standard and that gives it empirical universality
  • it is possible to have a society with notions of fairness and equality without having any human rights
  • Just because we have always done something does not mean that we ought to do it
  • Main two points are
  • there have been societies without human rights
  • and even if they all did that does not mean that they always ought to
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What makes human rights universally functional?

A
  • Before the human rights were created the possibilities listed were not possible
  • As long as these conditions stay, the rights will also stay
  • the rights are not universal, it’s the threats that are universal
  • If the threats stay then the human rights will stay
  • If the conditions change then human rights will be obsolete
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What’s the conclusion of cultural relativism?

A
  • No matter what, if we try to judge a culture, our judgment will be unjustified because there is no culturally neutral standard
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What gives human rights international legal universality?

A
  • It hinges on the states deciding to give it power

- they could decide tomorrow not to follow it anymore because they are the ones that give it power

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Why is there overlapping consensus universality?

A

-Everyone agrees on it because we all believe that we need human rights to protect our humanity and dignity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What is MacKinnon’s overall point and what does she base it on?

A
  • Human rights need to be changed in order to be relevant to the threats we are facing today
  • They are written from a male point of view to face the threats they were facing at that time
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Where does MacKinnon propose where law and principle come from?

A
  • It comes from the real world not just conceptual arguments
  • These laws come from when extremist ideas and people threaten other people laws are made against (ex. Hitler- Holocaust- Human Rights)
  • She connects this with the her idea of making Human rights more current and how it’s a threat to other people we should make a law
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What does MacKinnon say about the differences about the creation of law versus the creation of human rights? What is the consequence of this?

A
  • Laws are constantly changing based on people’s experiences
  • Human rights believe that they are a combination of law and natural law therefore they don’t have to change with people’s experiences (they think they are the shit so they are too good to change)
  • Because of this it protects us from what has already happened but not for future things that can happen
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What’s the significance of things that are absent in human rights according to MacKinnon?

A
  • Human rights were written at a time where it was believed that the home is a place that law ought to not enter
  • therefore there are gaps in human rights that allow for theses types of crimes to happen and nobody knows where to bring these problems to because of gaps in laws
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

According to MacKinnion what is one way that we decide that a conflict is not our problem?

A
  • We characterize it as a civil war
  • we pat ourselves on the back for not getting into other arguments and et them be
  • Like patting ourselves on the back that we didn’t intervene in a fight and stayed in our lane
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What was the feminist critic in Bosnia? What was MacKinnon’s response?

A
  • That this was a crime against all woman from all men
  • MacKinnon thinks this is a crime against all Croatian and Muslim woman against Serbian men
  • problem is not what they are trying to say but the result makes it hard to understand what needs to be understood- that what’s happening is not a result about boys being boys
  • In Bosnia they were ordered and obviously strategic raped, all men new exactly what they were doing
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Why does MacKinnon claim that a woman is not yet a name for a way of being human?

A
  • Human rights apply to humans and a human is understood to be an individual
  • woman and slaves were not seen as individuals which is why a woman is not a name for being human under human rights
  • This explains why if your a member of a group the chances of that group being recognized for human rights increases proportionate to the amount of men in it
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

How does MacKinnon undercut the state action requirement?

A
  • she says that if the state is to be a neutral agent then they should not interfere
  • the state action requirement does not allow the state to act outside of the state
  • it says that the best state is the one that does the least but at the same time it is impossible to deny that it abandons the rest of us
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What is MacKinnon solution to her entire paper?

A
  • we need to reconceptualize what equality means
  • right now the way it’s set up the rights of one come at the expense of the rights of another person (ex. Free speech can’t be hate speech)
  • they try to list rights to everyone and not specific groups
  • First recognize natural differences, build a state where these differences matter and not see them as inequalities
  • right now we look at inequalities first and justify through differences but we need to accept there are differences and not make excuses for in equalities
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

What’s the difference between equity and equality?

A
  • Equality = everyone is on same ground

- Equity = Everyone has equal opportunity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

What does MacKinnon propose a solution that can be put into effect right now?

A

-We live in a word where there are inequalities so when the state takes action they must take that into account

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Why is relativism a challenge for human rights?

A

-claims of cultural relativism seem like a problem for human rights because they are suppose to be rights that are universally held so human rights and universalities are intertwined

32
Q

What is Donnelly’s response to why relativism poses a challenge in the presute of human rights?

A
  • human rights demands a universality that is unique
  • they are universal but in a fictional, legal universalism and a overlapping consensus universality way
  • functional universality- refers to the conditions that demand a tool like human as long as these conditions remain universal then these rights will function universally
  • legal universality- the authority of human rights are accepted everywhere which gives them universal legal power
  • overlapping consensus universality way- everyone agrees human rights list protects them
33
Q

What do Pragmatists believe?

A
  • Truth and meaning, for the pragmatists are functions of usefulness
  • when a belief stops being useful they think you should get rid of it because it no longer serves any point
  • having a whole bunch of useless beliefs makes it harder to distinguish which ones are actually useful
  • Theories are instruments not answers to a something that’s difficult understand
  • Beliefs and theories are tools to help us do that
34
Q

What does James mean when he says how something comes to be true is why something is true?

A
  • pragmatists believe that for you to justifiably claim that something is true you must be able to explain why it is true
  • nonpragmatists often say the they are denying the truth of truths but this is a bad stance to hold because they often cannot explain why their beliefs are true
  • James says that this is important because when explaining why something is true you usually also figure out why you ought to believe it
35
Q

What is Mill’s principle of harm?

A
  • You can do anything you want unless it causes harm to others
  • You have total freedom unless it causes harm to other people
  • You can’t do anything about someone else’s beliefs unless they impact you in a real way
36
Q

According Mill’s harm principle, what are the two conditions that would justify a prohibition of an action?

A
  1. the action must result in harm
    - if what someone does is offensive but not harmful the law cannot interfere
    - you need to rule out legal moralism ex gay people
    - Mill says that just because it’s immoral it’s enough to prohibit he action
  2. The harm must be to others
    - ex. not protecting people from themselves
37
Q

According to Mill what are the two kinds of restrictions on Free Speech?

A
  1. Context restrictions
    - restrictions on time, manner, or circumstances of speech
    - impose restrictions on the occasions when certain kinda of speech or expression of ideas could be said
    Ex. Yelling fire
    - Mill agrees with context restrictions
  2. Content restrictions
    - something is banned no matter where or when you say it
    - Mill doesn’t believe in these restrictions because he doesn’t think that satisfy the principle of harm
38
Q

What are the two reasons Mill thinks that expressing different opinions is a good thing?

A
  • it is worth discussing because it’s how we get better and better truths and discussing it we are to better understand opinions
  • We can never be sure if our opinions are right and even if we are it’s wrong to not talk about it because when we talk about it we have to argue in favour of it and giving those reasons makes argument stronger
39
Q

According to Mill how does freedom of expression benefit truth? There are b2 ways

A
  1. If we are wrong then we need to be exposed to the opposing view point
  2. It prevents it from being a “dead dogma”- if our opinion is never challenged it weakens our belief because we won’t have reasons for our belief
40
Q

According to Mill what area the 3 standard defences of free expression?

A
  1. Argument from truth
    - it’s good for arriving at the best truth opinion
    - protects us from dead dogma
  2. The argument from democracy
    - it’s good to have multiple opinions on the table
    - good for democracy because all opinions from all sides are on the table
  3. Argument from self fulfilment
    - knowing what your saying is good just for yourself
41
Q

What does he mean by there’s not such thing as free speech and it’s a good thing too? Connect it to the first amendment

A
  • When you protect free speech you are essentially saying that it is not an action
  • But speech is an action
  • In actuality it is an action but in practice it’s not
  • Speech is good in an of itself and any restriction is bad
  • The 1st amendment assumes that speech can be separated from action and that it distinguishable
  • but it really does have meaning and action attached to it
42
Q

What does Mill conclude from this?

A
  • there is never going to be a place were speech is restricted at all
  • we need to chose wisely on what those restrictions are
  • what free speech actually protects is our zones of free speech (depending on where you are they have a predetermined set of things you will talk about and if you go out of the predetermined stuff then it has no value)
  • To speak is to say one thing and deny another because you can not believe in one thing without denying the other and if you don’t believe this is that you don’t believ in anything
43
Q

What does Arendt mean by stateless people?

A
  • because of totalitarianism each nation state had the right to declare who was a member of their state and who wasn’t
  • This left a lot of people with no state to belong to which also meant they had no state to protect their rights
  • Happened in WW2 but now happens in Syria
44
Q

What does Arendt mean by having no right to rights?

A
  • unless you have the state to enforce your rights then you don’t have any
  • This is why stateless people don’t have rights in the eyes of the government
45
Q

According to Arendt what are human rights founded on?

A
  • The non-existent man
  • this means that because they try to make something so universal that i doesn’t look like anything at all
  • example, DaVinci’s man is so universal that it really doesn’t look like anyone at all
  • they also can only be founded on a group of people that founded themselves because it is based off this universal system
46
Q

What does Arendt say about refugees?

A
  • Legally there is no such thing
  • You should be either seeking refugee status or someone who has already been taken in - there shouldn’t be any in between
  • She thinks that the only answer to this is to create a nation of just refugees but the problem with this is that it is a temporary solution - if it solves this refugee crisis it will not solve the next
47
Q

According to Ardent, how do people in power act toward the people who are powerless in terms of human rights?

A
  • Even though every nation state says that they protect the rights of everyone they really only protect the rights of their citizens
  • When you no long allow someone to be a citizen you confirm their “scum of the earth” status because when they leave that place and go somewhere else they are seen as “their problem” - no matter where they go they will always be seen as a place’s “problem”
48
Q

What is Ardent’s solution to the stateless problem?

A
  • She thinks that we need a place that has a jurisdiction everywhere - like a world government - this would ensure that people would not become “some other place’s problem”
  • The problem with this is that even we had such a state, we would still be able to exile people outside of humanity, depriving them of their citizenship there
  • So not really an answer
49
Q

According to Moeller what his compassion fatigue?

A
  • We keep jumping from issue to issue because we are aware of it all and we become tired of being disappointed that nothing is happening to help
  • The more public something is the more I different we become
  • not because we are bad people we just want to help but the problems are so big we get so tried of being invested and just want to stop
  • ex. Homeless people and how if there was only one homeless person we would help but because there are a lot then it just becomes apart of our every day
50
Q

According Moeller what are the conditions that set up compassion fatigue?

A
  • because the news media presents the world like it’s in a steady stream of decline, just one crisis flowing into the next and because if this we come to the conclusion that the world is in a constant state of crisis
  • this is both our fault because of how we engage in it and the media’s fault for how they present it
  • media presents and prioritized stories in certain ways
51
Q

According to Moeller how does the news treat different situations

A
  • prioritize the market value, what will make money
  • the news prioritizes new things that are happen, bombs everyday in Syria is not news everyday but a hurricane that just happened is news
  • also stories that involve your country like canada they always say like 1 Canadian died etc.
  • blockbuster human rights cause shifts and manipulates stories that appeal to us
52
Q

According to Moeller why are images significant?

A
  • because it how we relate to the world
  • even our memories are short start images
  • they work as a visual short hand
  • one image can call us to a new entire world view
53
Q

According to Moeller what did the famine in Ethiopia prove?

A
  • bunch of celebrities created a single and showed pictures of famine in Ethiopia to appeal to emotion
  • whole bunch of people bought the singles and made a lot of money for charity
  • they figured out that famines are easy to fix and the images didn’t stop or change or they would change but come back once it ran out of money
  • this caused people to stop caring think that it’s impossible
  • that’s where sponser a family came in and see one family grow and that’s why we like
54
Q

How does Moeller propose media outlets improve? And how do we improve?

A
  • cover the stories in distinctive ways
  • be different from other news
  • we need to be more visually literate
  • what an image actually means
  • critically think more and look beyond the stories in which media tells you
55
Q

Why does Kennan state that the media goes hand in hand with disasters?

A
  • uses Bosnia to explain himself
  • instead of using money to send troops they used it to send reporters
  • nobody helped in Bosnia
  • it’s a world event that can’t be understood without speaking about how it was covered
  • the media is apart of what did and didn’t happened
56
Q

According to Kennan what is the CNN effect?

A
  • the way that wed report world news effects the way we hear it and effects how it actually occurs
  • it changes the meaning for something to happen
  • for example black hawk down was dramatized for the new reports and they acting things out specially for the news
57
Q

According to Kennan what the significance of television as a medium?

A
  • television is where we filter and encounter information
  • we experience things as they happen on TV
  • for example we experience 911 on TV even though we were not in NY
  • humanitarians go to where there will be publicity but once the news reporters leave the humanitarians leave
58
Q

Why Kennan thinks that having an emotional response is not always a bad thing?

A
  • he thinks that not all appeals to emotion are the same there are some that can still produce an immediate response
  • supports gut reactions more than emotional reactions
  • we measure what is true on what we feel instead of what we feel is based on what is true
59
Q

According Kennan why doesn’t just seeing a photograph automatically lead to action?

A
  • could lead to casuistry (debates about debates that doesn’t do anything)
  • thing about an image is we see it as something in the past, that it is over
60
Q

Why does Kennan think inaction is a kind of response?

A
  • before we worry about how complicated the political world is we make sure of our immediate safety
  • immediately try to see if everyone is safe only around you and yourself before looking at the world
61
Q

According to Kennan, What is the difference between guilt and shame? How do people use shame?

A
  • guilt comes from having a internal compass
  • shame is an external pressure that comes from being embarrassed
  • mobilizing shame- if you shame people for doing something wrong then that is enough to get them to change what they are doing
62
Q

According to Kennan, Why are people becoming shameless?

A
  • because of the media
  • people are constantly being exposed to thing that would otherwise be hidden so people are no longer embarrassed when what they try to keep hidden is exposed
  • therefore no longer feeling shame
63
Q

What is Kennan’s conclusion?

A
  • When something like the news does not compel us one way or another we are left with ourselves and our regular morals
  • with those morals we now have responsibility to either do or not do something
64
Q

Keegstra- What is section 318?

A
  • it defines what an identifier group is
  • if any section of the public distinguished by colour race religion or ethnicity origin
  • with the exception of religion the list is made up of things that everyone poses and you can not change
  • makes sure nobody is advocating or promoting genicide?
65
Q

Keegstra- What’s section 319 (1)?

A
  • protect Canadians from the speech that could lead to death or violence
  • ex. Hate speech can lead to mobs and there is danger and violence associated with them
  • in order to be convicted of this the violence or danger must be likely
  • the speech must incite hate in others
  • there needs to be evidence that the speech is causing people to feel hate toward the people you are targeting
  • you don’t need to intend to incite hatred you just need to incite hatred
  • only thing excluded from this is private conversations
66
Q

Keegstra- What is 319 (2) and (3)?

A
  • the speech excluding this law is speech in private places as well as private conversation in public places
  • crime is not inciting hatred but promoting it
  • all you need is intention to promote hatred you don’t need to actually promote it
  • using true statements is an absolute defence
  • the law excludes religious speech
67
Q

What’s Keegstra’s story from school to

A
  • taught to hate Jews in high school
  • went to small claims court he won
  • went to Alberta and won also Alberta struck down that part of free speech
  • went to Supreme Court and so much stuff happened including oaks test
68
Q

Keegstra- What’s section 2 (b)?

A

-freedom of expression and opinion

69
Q

Keegstra- What’s the objective of section 319 (2)?

A
  • the aim is the prevention of harm to the target groups
  • if there is going to be harm it is going to be in the speaking it’s self
  • to protect us from harm not just being offended
70
Q

Keegstra- What is the nature of harm that section 319 is protecting it?

A
  • direct to the target groups themselves in the form of emotional harm, degraded, humiliation
  • it makes them develop habits and desires for making the same as them
  • there is indirect harm for the society at large because individuals can be pressed to believe almost anything
  • if one hate group is really popular and successful that is telling all other hate groups that they can be successful too and they come out from hiding
71
Q

Keegstra- What are the three standard defences for freedom of expression and does Keegstra stand up against them?

A
  1. The argument from truth
  2. The argument from democracy
  3. The argument from self-fulfillment

-The court looked at how much the prohibition of hate speech effected our access to truth, democracy, and self-fulfillment and they found it affected it very little
-The argument in favour of the antihate speech laws is that there is actually more freedom of speech with this law than without it
– this law makes free speech richer in the Canadian context than without it

72
Q

Keegstra- What are McLachlan’s 3 arguments for failing the rational connection test and what are Dixon’s rebuttals to them?

A

McLachlan
1. Even as it suppresses hate speech it promotes that very speech because when you are trailing someone for it you are repeating it a lot and end up publicizing it as well
Dixon
1. The media coverage targets the groups and don’t tolerate that stuff and it shows the rest of the world to not do it

McLachlan
2. Suppression itself gives the lies a shimmer of truth because there must be truth to it because the government suppresses it
Dixon
2. Just because something is being suppressed doesn’t mean it’s inevitably true We can’t just not suppresses this speech if it MIGHT make a few people think they MIGHT be true

McLachlan
3.Inter war Germany had similar laws and did nothing to stop the holocaust
Dixon
3. Canada is not interwar Germany- different time, different everything

73
Q

Keegstra- Why does McLachlan meet the minimal requirement of the oaks test and what is his response?

A
  • it is too broad and takes out too much of our freedom of expression
  • Dixon’s response is it does meet the requirement because you can’t accedently promote hatred because you can not intend to willfully promote hatred by accendent
74
Q

Keegstra - what is the cost benefit analysis?

A
  • Weighs the benefit of the law versus the inescapable costs

- Claims that there is more free speech with the law so it passes

75
Q

Keegstra - How Dickson and McLachlin come to different conclusions looking at the same evidence?

A
  • McLachlin has a minimalist reading of the charter so she thinks that it should only suppress state power
  • Dickson and the rest saw both the suppression and what is gained while McLachlin only saw the suppression
  • McLachlin thinks that they should not prioritize multiculturalism over free speech while Dickson disagrees that this is what they’re even doing because it increases free speech anyway
76
Q

What is the oaks test and what are the steps to passing it?

A

-purpose is to find out if a law can justifiably infringe on a charter in a free democratic society according to section 1 on the charter of rights and freedoms

STEPS

  1. Does the law actually infringe on a protected right? If it does then the oaks test comes into play
  2. If the objective of the law is sufficiently important- to pass this you must prove that it’s important the risk is and if it is a real risk
  3. Are the means proportional to the end? Are they reasonable? And demonstrably justified in light of it’s goal
  4. a the means must be rationally connected to the objective (benefit)
  5. b. there must be minimum impairment of rights (cost)
  6. c there must be proportionality between the infringement and the objective (cost/ benefit analysis)

PHL Of Human Rights (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions