Law Flashcards
What are human rights? Explain.
Rights that every person is entitled to simply because they are human.
Who has a responsibility to uphold human rights? Describe.
Governments, United Nations, Citizens, Corporations, Police….
What is the Universal Declaration of Human RIghts and when and why was it created?
A United Nations document that sets out fundamental human rights to be universally protected. It was created in 1948 in an attempt to stop human rights tragedies such as what occurred during WWII.
List six categories of rights covered in the UDHR. Provide one example of a specific right from the UDHR for each category identified.
Basic rights (e.g., life, security of the person, freedom)
- Political rights (e.g., right to vote)
- Civil rights and liberties (e.g., freedom of opinion and expression);
- Equality rights (e.g., the right to be free from discrimination)
- Economic rights (e.g., the right to fair wages and safe working conditions) - Social rights (e.g., access to education and adequate health care)
- Cultural rights (e.g., the right to speak your native language and practice your culture)
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights easily enforceable? Explain.
The UDHR is not legally binding and is difficult to enforce upon sovereign states. There is not an international police force that has the jurisdiction to enter sovereign territories to enforce the UDHR
What is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Why is it embedded in the Constitution? Explain.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms sets out all of the rights and freedoms that Canadian citizens are entitled to. It protects citizens from having these rights infringed upon by the government.
It is embedded in the Constitution so that the Charter may not be easily changed by the government of the day.
What is the general formula (amending formula) required for making changes to the Constitution?
The federal government (House and the Senate) and at least 7 of 10 provincial governments representing 50%+ of the population must be in agreement with the proposed change.
The Canadian Bill of Rights was enacted in 1960 in an attempt to promote and protect human rights in Canada. However, the creation of the Charter of Rights & Freedoms in 1982 was an improved effort at this. Explain 3 reasons why the Charter is considered superior to the Canadian Bill of Rights.
The Canadian Bill of Rights only applied only to federal matters; did not apply to provincial and territorial governments whereas the Charter does.
The Canadian Bill of Rights may be much more easily changed than the Charter.
The Canadian Bill of Rights is considered a static document (new rights not identified) whereas the Charter is considered a living document based on new rights being interpreted/identified
What is capital punishment?
Capital punishment is the legally authorized killing of an individual as punishment for committing a crime.
Briefly, describe Canada’s history regarding capital punishment.
Canada used the death penalty as a possible punishment for murder by citizens from 1867 to 1976. The last citizens put to death in Canada were executed in 1962. After 1976, the death penalty was only used for members of the armed forces. In 1998, Canada completely abolished use of the death penalty.
Describe 3 arguments in favor of using capital punishment and 3 arguments not in favor of using capital punishment.
Possible pro arguments depending of how they are explained:
● Justice to victims
● No recidivism
● Retribution
● Deterrent
● Protect Society
Possible against arguments depending on how they are explained.
● ● ● ● ●
Wrongful Convictions
Morally wrong
Is jail more punishing?
No opportunity for rehabilitation Discriminatory
The Multani v. Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys and the R v. Big M Drug Mart cases were both important/landmark cases centered around freedom of religion. Describe each of these cases, their outcome and the importance of that outcome
Multani Case
For religious reasons (Sikh), the Multani family believes that a kirpan (religious dagger) should be worn at all times including by their son while at school.
One day in the playground at school the kirpan the child was wearing fell off in the play ground
The school board and the family initially agreed to an accommodation that the kirpan could still be brought to school as long as it was well secured and protected by his clothing.
However, the school board’s council of commissioners did not allow this a
they stated it violated their rule that no weapons may be brought to school.
The Supreme Court ruled the infringement of religious rights was not justified and appropriate accommodation was needed.
It set a standard that religious rights should not be easily dismissed and that all religious rights should be accommodated when it is reasonable to do so.
Big M Drug Mart Case
Big M Drug Mart Ltd. was charged with unlawfully carrying on the sale of goods on a Sunday contrary to the Lord’s Day Act (this act did not allow stores to be open for business on Sundays).
Big M Drug Mart was acquitted at trial.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The constitutional questions before this Court were whether the Lord’s Day Act unreasonably infringed the right to freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed in the Charter.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Lord’s Day Act was an unconstitutional law as it infringed upon religious rights and was not justifiable by the reasonable limits clause.
Upheld religious rights (not just Cristian rights). Allowed stores to begin opening on Sundays (Sunday shopping). Contributed to the future creation of the Oakes Test.
The R v. Zundel case and the R v. Keegstra case were both important cases centered around freedom of expression. Describe each of these cases, their outcome and the importance of that outcome.
R v. Zundel
In 1985 Zundel was charged with spreading false news by publishing a pamphlet “Did Six Million People Really Die”. The pamphlet stated that the Holocaust never happened. As a result of this Zundel was charged under s. 181 of the criminal code that states: “[e]very one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment”. Zundel was convicted in his original trial but on appeal the case was sent back for a new trial due to a procedural error in admitting evidence and instructing the jury. He was re-tried and convicted again in 1988. The judgement was upheld by the Court of Appeal, and Zundel appealed to the Supreme Court.
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether s. 181 (formerly s. 177) of the Code infringed “the guarantee of freedom of expression in s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, if so, whether s. 181 is justifiable under s. 1 of the Charter”.
The Supreme Court ruled that the information was of a non-violent form and despite being inaccurate in comparison to historical evidence and authorities, s. 181 unfairly infringed upon freedom of expression rights and the law could not be justified by s. 1 (reasonable limits clause) of the Charter.
R v. Keegstra
James Keegstra was a public school teacher in Eckville, Alberta. In 1984, he was charged under section 281.2(2) - now section 319(2) - of the Criminal Code that he unlawfully promoted hatred against an identifiable group, Jewish people. During classes, he described Jews as a people of profound evil who had “created the Holocaust to gain sympathy”. Keegstra held anti-Semitic views and believed in a Jewish conspiracy bent on world domination and annihilating Christianity. He asserted that the current historical information being taught in universities and schools is a trap set by the Jews to mislead the public. He also tested his students in exams on his theories and opinions of Jews.
The Criminal Code provision, now section 319(2), makes it a criminal offence to promote hatred: “Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group”.
At the beginning of his trial in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Keegstra applied to the trial judge to have the charge quashed for violation of his freedom of expression; however, this motion was denied. He was eventually convicted at trial. He then appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeal of Alberta on the basis that section 319(2) breached the constitutional right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter. The Court of Appeal of Alberta ruled that section 319(2) did indeed breach section 2(b) and could not be upheld under section 1 of the Charter. The Crown appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether sections 319(2) and 319(3)(a) of the Criminal Code violated section 2(b) and section 11(d) of the Charter and if so, whether they could be upheld under section 1. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the provisions. After a lengthy appeal process the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
S1 Reasonable limits
At times maybe infringed upon for the betterment of society if it can be justified in a free democratic society
S2 Fundamental freedoms
Freedom of expression freedom of religion freedom of association freedom of peaceful assembly
