Law Test Answers Flashcards
Give an example of two individuals (not philosophers) who we studied in class that have helped shape the law in Canada. Explain their contribution.
Two Individuals who we studied in class that have helped shape the law in Canada include…
- Sharon Donna McIvor - She realized that if she married a non-indigenous man and had children with him, under section 6 of the Indian Act, she would not be able to pass Indian status down to her children and grandchildren in the same way a man could. She appeared infront of the Supreme Court to prove that section 6 of the Indian act did infact violate her charter rights and a new bill that allows women to pass on Indian status was passed as a result.
- Sue Rodriguez - She dealt with a disease (ALPS) that put her in a constant state of pain. She wanted the legal right to end her own life because she was not experiencing the same right to life that everyone else was. When she took this to court they initially denied her. However, after she has comitted suicide her case was revisited and medically assisted death was approved as of 2015. This was done because it was proven that she wac not experiencing the same right to life promised by the charter in sections 5, 7, and 12.
Assume that you are dissatisfied with a current law. Explain three ways you could go about changing the law. (Collective Action)
Royal Commission - Lend your voice to the government panels
Lobby Group - Become a member of a National focus group
Legal Scholarship - Produce scholarly issues or books
Political Demonstrations - Protest & Rally
How has the British system of law helped shape Canadian law? Give 2 examples (2 marks)
Rule of Law
Common Law
Trial by Ordeal
Trial by Combat
Habeus Corpus
Explain the difference between the way in which case law and statute law are created. (2 marks)
Common Law - Created by judges, based on precedent
Statute Law - Created by the legislature/elected officials
What is the basic theory behind Feminist Jurisprudence? Give an example of a Canadian law that is tied to the ideas of Feminist Jurisprudence.
The basic theory behind Feminist Jurisprudence is that laws are inherently male and male created thus, the law views women the way men view women. This means that laws promote patriarchy. An example of how Canadian law is tied to Feminist Jurisprudence is sexual assault laws. While sexual assault laws appear to be in place to protect women, they were formed because women were male property and when a women was sexually assaulted and “sullied” men wanted compensation for their property being sullied and no longer “pure.”
Which level of government will you find Education under?
Provincial Government
Looking at the ongoing issues in EITHER Myanmar or in China, give TWO example as to what the international community is currently trying to do to safeguard minority rights in the country. Be specific.
Looking at the ongoing issues in China, surrounding the minority rights of the Uguyhur people (a muslim group in China), where they are being detained and taught Madarin Chinese and Chinese Ideology, as well as beaten, and women are undergoing sterilization, this is clearly an example of cultural genocide. Thus, the international community is trying to safeguard their. rights
Specifically….
1. The United Nations has condemmed Bejing, China and stated that what they are doing is a clear violation of human rights, and declared it a Cultural Genocide in order to increase the awareness of the treatment of the Uguyhur people internationally.
2. The United States specifically issued a human rights act in support of the Uguyhur people, in another attempt to safeguard the rights of the Uguyhur people. Additionally, they have also increased sanctions on China in an attempt to provide economic pressure.
Explain the difference between Formal and Substantive equality. Give an example to support your explanation.
Formal and Substantive equality deal with discrimination in the law and look into different approaches of applying human rights law to guarantee equality, but not always equity.
- Formal equality - this is the equality of TREATMENT of an individual and is a formal legal proceeding that essentially achieves “equality” by treating everyone the same, it does not look into the results of the discrimination, and how they might vary depending on one’s social group. This is why it does not achieve equity. It may ask “how would this treatment vary from a white persons?” (in the case where race is involved) but would not look further into the results of the discrimination and how they may be worse for certain social groups.
- Substantive Equality - this is the equality of results of an individual and focuses on the results of what occured in the discrimination case. For example, it may look into the results of not allowing someone who is 6 feet to join the police force, and would then recognize the lack of women in policing. In doing so, this is a more equitable approach as it acknowledges the affects of discrimination and how they vary accross social groups.
- Thus, the main diffferent is looking at treatment versus looking at result. While neither guarantee equity, the Substanive Equality is a more equitable approach.
Explain how the role of the courts has expanded since 1982. What issue could/have arisen because of these expanded powers?
- In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was entrenched in our constitution. Prior to this, the courts (the supreme court specifically) mainly ruled over the power each government had, however, now they were responsible for appeals on Charter Rights as they gained constitutional status. This allowed them to make precedents ruling over our fundamental rights and freedoms, and control a major part of our Canadian law.
- The issue that arises with this is judicial activism aka judicial biases. The appointed lawyers in the supreme court may impose their personal biases into these major cases and make precedents based off of them. Thus, the law was no longer made by elected officals, but by judges who could easily impose their own biases into the law. This rasies concerns over who is making the law, as it is no longer the people when they elect in represented officals, it is judges with their own biases who are appointed by the Government. There is less power to the people and biases can seep into our laws in major cases
Your friend asks for an application for employment at the local fast food restaurant. The manager refuses to give him an application. He tells him that hiring girls is a better choice as they are more reliable. Explain why this is discrimination not stereotyping.
This is discrimination and not sterotyping because the definition for discrimination is the ACTION of treating someone differently for no valid reason while stereotyping is a generalized notion that one imposes on a specific group.
While the manager clearly has a preconcieved notion about men, this is discrimination and not stereotyping because by putting that notion into action through not even giving my friend an application, the manager is discrimination aganist him, not just stereotyping him.
Stereotyping is legal, it is the freedom of thought, however, when it becomes an action, it goes beyond the limits of the charter and is considered discrimination.
Additionally, this is an example of direct discrimination as he was clearly being discrimination againist in a very covert way and not even given an application, he was straight up told it was because he is a man.
“Treating all persons equally without recognizing their different needs may lead to discrimination.” Is it true or not? Use an example to illustrate your answer.
This is true. Treating all people equally wihtout recognizing their different needs leads to discrimination because it does not guarantee EQUITY.
While equality comes from treating all people the same, it does not recognize the historical treatment of a certain group and work to amend the disadvantges already being faced due to a lack of privledge. Equity does this.
A clear example of this is the White Papers, an ammendment to the Indian Act that did not go through for this very reason. As the Indian Act was inherently discriminatory, Pierre Elliot Trudeau tried to change it in 1969 with the White Papers, however, in doing so he tried to treat all people equally, and make Indigenous people equal to everyone else, not recognizes their different needs.
When the indigenous people were under the Indian Act, they were given Indian Status, a small benefit that protected them and allowed them easier access to the materials of society (healthcare, etc). But in trying to make Indigenous people equal, they would be stripped of this small protection and left without the recognition of their status as it aided them due to their lack of education, healthcare, etc, which was caused by the systemic inequalities that the Indian Act had - these are their different needs.
Give 2 examples of our fundamental freedoms found in Section 2 of the Charter.
freedom of conscience and religion;
freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
freedom of peaceful assembly; and
freedom of association.
The assimilation of Indigenous peoples into the broader Canadian society has been referred to as cultural genocide. Explain what this means. Give examples of either cases, acts or laws from this unit that back up this view.
Cultural Genocide: The killing off of a culture (art, history, language, customs) in hope of assimilating the group into broader society.
Acts/Laws/Cases
Indian Act
White Papers
The Truth and Reconcilliation Committee - did not solve problems
If a police officer is searching a suspect as part of the arrest process and she finds a gun in the accused’s belt, is this a legal search? Explain.
This is a legal search because the police can legally search the suspect if…
1) They have arrested the suspect - in this case they have because this is “as a part of the arrest proess.”
2) They have reasonable grounds to believe that the suspect has a weapon - in this case the suspect has a gun.
Explain TWO of the main goals of sentencing.
Two of the main goals of sentencing are as follows…
1) Public Safety and Protection - sentencing serves to protect the public from a dangerous offender who could be a threat to society.
2) Deterrence - sentencing prevents the public from committing crimes as people do not want to be sentenced to jail or federal prison, and are deterred it also deterrs previous offenders from re-offending (recidivism) as they will not want to be sentenced again.
