When was the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms made law in Canada?
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was made law on April 17th, 1982.
Which section of the Charter guarantees the right of Canadians to gather with others in peaceful protest?
Section 2c states that Canadians have the freedom of peaceful assembly, which guarantees the right of Canadians to gather with others in peaceful protest.
True or false: The Charter protects the right to not face racial discrimination when seeking an apartment.
This statement is false. The Charter applies to relationships between the people and the government. This scenario applies between two individuals, therefore the Charter does not apply in this scenario.
What is the most significant difference between the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter?
The most significant difference between the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter is that the Canadian Bill of Rights is a statute, while the Charter is enriched in the Constitution. This means that the Canadian Bill of Rights could be repealed by an Act of Parliament, while the Charter can only be changed through the constitutional amending formula which is much more difficult.
Why do you think the authors of the Charter included the category "analogous grounds" in the section on equality rights?
The usage of the "analogous grounds" category allows for the Charter to evolve over time and change as society deems which forms of discrimination are acceptable or unacceptable.
The Charter specifically prohibits government discrimination on the basis of age, yet there are laws against drinking, driving and voting that clearly discriminate against young people.
Under what section of the Charter is this infringement saved?
This infringement is saved under Section 1 of the Charter.
Is this discrimination justifiable in your opinion?
I believe this discrimination is somewhat justifiable in my opinion. So, while it is important to not discriminate against age, it is crucial to note that these acts can put an individual and members of society at risk and being able to drink and drive can be considered privileges, thus, these acts should not be committed by children (people under 18). A brain is not developed until the age of 25 and doing such actions might not be appropriate, because it could impact their brain development and might be too big of a responsibility to give to them. Thus, I think the minimum age to partake in these actions are justifiable. However, I do not think that the minimum age to vote is justifiable, the future of younger generations are gravely impacted by the Government – thus, it is crucial to allow them the opportunity to make an input on how their future. However, a crucial question to consider is why are young people solely discriminated against? Why aren't there maximum ages on these laws? Letting an 85-year old drive can put society and the driver at risk. To make this discrimination fully justifable, I think there should maximum ages on driving, drinking and voting.
In your opinion, is it a threat to rights and freedoms that the Charter can still be overridden via s. 33? Explain.
I believe it is a threat. If a Government decides to remove the right to freedom of religion when they enter the office, for at least the next 4 years, all members of society will not have their right to freedom of religion. The existence of s. 33 puts people's rights at risk because of a Government's beliefs. Someone's fundamental rights can be put at risk which basically defeats the whole purpose of the Charter as it's supposed to protect those very same rights.
Why is it significant that s. 33 cannot ever apply to democratic rights, such as the right to vote in a democratic election, at least once every five years?
It is significant because if a party in power realises that, for example, men mainly vote for them, they might decide to remove women's right to vote using s. 33. This would allow for a constant loop of one party being in power. Thus, to ensure our democratic values are upheld and that Canada remains a free democratic country, s. 33 cannot ever apply to the democratic rights section.
Review the formula for amending the Charter. Does it do enough to ensure that a proposed amendment has the support of the Canadian public?
I do not think that this does enough to ensure that a proposed amendment has the support of the Canadian public. This provincial election, the popular vote's winner was not Doug Ford, however he won the election. This shows that sometimes the provincial legislatures might not accurately represent a province. Alongside, asking for 50% of the provinces to be in accordance is not fair. If 50% agree with an amendment, 50% must disagree. Invalidating the opinion of such a large group of people when it comes to amending the Charter is not fair whatsoever. I think ensuring that every Canadian citizen is able to vote for an amendment would be better and ensure that the decision is accurately made.
