Charter Of Rights And Freedoms In Canada's Constitution
There is a great deal of debate regarding the entrenchment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada’s constitution. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a document that “sought to protect individual rights by preventing laws that unfairly discriminate or that take away human rights”, was entrenched when Canada’s Constitution was patriated in 1982 (Canadian Human Rights Commission [CHRC], n.d.). However, the entrenchment of the Charter of Rights in the Constitution was controversial as some believed that it transfers the power from elected representatives to the court (University of Alberta, 2013). This paper will be arguing that the entrenchment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada’s Constitution promotes democracy
…show more content…
Consequently, vulnerable groups (such as minorities) are protected, ensuring that they have a voice and are not silenced. One great example what happens in the absence of proper human rights protection is how the Chinese people got their right to vote. At the turn of the 20th century, the Chinese people only got their right to vote only because of popular opinion, not because it was their right (CHRC, n.d.). While things went favorably for the Chinese minority, it could have easily gone the opposite way and the Chinese people would never have any voting rights had public opinion turned against them. The fact that the Chinese gained voting “rights” because of popular opinion shows how human rights were at the mercy of laws passed by the government. There is no doubt that an entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms would have ensured that the Chinese people would have gotten their right to vote, instead of leaving this precious right at the mercy of popular opinion. Nevertheless, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was not the first of its kind; the Bill of Rights was introduced in 1960 with similar purposes. The Bill of Rights was used in 1970 (R v. Drybones) to strike down certain discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act (Radio Canada International, 2016). In this case, an Aboriginal was convicted for being intoxicated off a reserve, which was contrary to s. 94(b) of the Indian Act. However, he was acquitted after appealing as s. 94(b) was inoperative in the circumstances as it was conflict with the Canadian Bill of Rights c. 44 (Lexum, 1969). This was so as s. 94 rendered Aboriginals guilty while any person who was not an Indian would not have been punished, infringing on the right to equality before the law. Therefore, one can see that
Consequently, vulnerable groups (such as minorities) are protected, ensuring that they have a voice and are not silenced. One great example what happens in the absence of proper human rights protection is how the Chinese people got their right to vote. At the turn of the 20th century, the Chinese people only got their right to vote only because of popular opinion, not because it was their right (CHRC, n.d.). While things went favorably for the Chinese minority, it could have easily gone the opposite way and the Chinese people would never have any voting rights had public opinion turned against them. The fact that the Chinese gained voting “rights” because of popular opinion shows how human rights were at the mercy of laws passed by the government. There is no doubt that an entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms would have ensured that the Chinese people would have gotten their right to vote, instead of leaving this precious right at the mercy of popular opinion. Nevertheless, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was not the first of its kind; the Bill of Rights was introduced in 1960 with similar purposes. The Bill of Rights was used in 1970 (R v. Drybones) to strike down certain discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act (Radio Canada International, 2016). In this case, an Aboriginal was convicted for being intoxicated off a reserve, which was contrary to s. 94(b) of the Indian Act. However, he was acquitted after appealing as s. 94(b) was inoperative in the circumstances as it was conflict with the Canadian Bill of Rights c. 44 (Lexum, 1969). This was so as s. 94 rendered Aboriginals guilty while any person who was not an Indian would not have been punished, infringing on the right to equality before the law. Therefore, one can see that