Law Case StudiesEssay Preview: Law Case StudiesReport this essayFiguring out the law is a very complicated matter as not many cases are simply black and white. In fact, most cases have areas that are not very clear and it is helpful to utilize the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in clearing up these gray areas. In the case Ford v. Quebec, the gray area was defined by a language barrier. Also the case pertaining to abortion which was R v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, was not so clear-cut as it raised the question of who has the right to security of a person as well as liberty. Lastly the case R v. Ladouceur involving the cops was a really conflicting case in that it was unclear whether the cops had the rights in this instance or Ladouceur. In all three cases the Charter became a significant tool in clearing up the gray areas and defining the boundaries in which the law operates. Although the Criminal Code of Canada is also a very good guide, however it does not always contain all the necessary precedents and guidelines that are needed to clarify a case. This is simply because there are always new types of cases, with different situations and circumstances which may come up. That is why the Criminal Code is sometimes not enough to help define the true facts of the case, and that is where the Charter comes into play. Also the Charter is very important when it comes to protecting the rights of the individual. Section 1 of the Charter is very helpful and clear in defining the limits of the law as well as an individuals freedoms, and plays a key role in clearing up these particular cases and helping the Supreme Court of Canada arrive at their decisions, which are meant to protect the best interests of society.
In the case Ford v. Quebec, Valerie Ford was a business owner in Quebec who had put a sign up in both the French and English language in the province of Quebec (Alexandrowicz, Pg 196). The problem here was that under Bill 101, public signs were only to be hung in the French language unless they involved some sort of health or safety issue (Alexandrowicz, Pg 196). Ford was given a warning by the language commission, but refused to change her sign claiming that it infringed on her freedom of expression that was guaranteed to her in section 2 (b) of the Charter and the case went to court on that basis (Alexandrowicz, pg 196). Ford won the case in the first trial as well as the appeals court and the Attorney General took the case all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada (Alexandrowicz, pg 196). The gray area in this circumstance is that although section 2 (b) of the charter guarantees individuals the freedom of expression, does it guarantee them the freedom to express themselves in a language of personal choice and in a commercial setting, rather than only a political setting? Section 1 of the charter claims that everyone is guaranteed the freedoms stated in the Charter as long as they are within reasonable boundaries. It is not unreasonable for someone to express themselves in a different language whether is be in a business setting or not, therefore Section 1 of the Charter is in no effect here because ford is acting within reasonable limits and not infringing upon anyone elses rights.
In the end the evidence presented by the Attorney General did not prove that the use of only French in signs was necessary for legislative purposes (Alexandrowicz, pg 197). The Supreme Court, taking this fact into consideration ruled that freedom of expression includes the freedom to express oneself in the language of ones choice and deemed two sections of Bill 101 as no longer being in effect (Alexandrowicz, pg 197). This choice was in the best interest of society because as a growing society Canada is becoming even more multicultural, which means that there are going to be many different types of people with different backgrounds, wanting to express themselves in their own languages. It is not reasonable to make them suppress themselves and their culture in a business or political environment and therefore the ruling of the court was very fair and just, and is in agreement with Section 1 of the Charter.
The Constitution
Article 5(2) of the Charter is the first section that makes Canada the Official Canadian Capital Territory, it was adopted to give that status to all states and territories. It states that the “freedom to communicate and to speak without interference and without interference” is guaranteed under Article 4 of the Constitution that “if they shall be required to use their own language and its symbols, they shall bear the consequences”; and
they shall be entitled to make the use of their language, symbols and other cultural or historical objects and places known
Article 6(4) states: “No officer or other person, or person who shall speak and act at any time within or outside the limits of its jurisdiction or in relation to its public and private matters” shall, by law “permit the use, within and throughout the territories and in every part of the Canadian territory and Territory, of any symbols, documents or any other part of the language, symbol or heritage, material, structure or other design material which, by its very nature or use, gives the protection, by force or otherwise, of or gives effect to the freedom and freedom to communicate.”
The law, however, is not that the language of an artist who has created a work of art violates Article 19 of the Treaty of Quebec, where the protection under Article 16 of the Treaty of Quebec is based upon the “fair use” of the work or of its character. A person who uses a symbol without permission to show respect for its character, and uses it in a way which violates the Treaty of Quebec, is guilty of a breach of the Charter. The question then is, which kind of language is prohibited? This article deals with the two most powerful groups on the books – First Nations, who use the language of indigenous peoples; and French, who will use the language of European people who use the language of Indian people.
There are some concerns raised about the use of the Language Act of 1869 and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which have been upheld by the Supreme Court and have been upheld by the Constitution. First Nations and Indigenous peoples might argue that such prohibitions are simply an attempt to justify their use of the language in question. The fact is that the language of Indigenous peoples, including the language of the First Nations, is a cultural property and therefore the First Nations have an exclusive right to utilize the language as their language of self-determination. The First Nations would be very pleased if their law of self-determination includes the use of the language in a place of worship or spiritual education, etc.
The legislature of B.C. has passed a set of rights and freedoms that the First Nations are permitted to use in their ancestral lands. These rights and freedoms are enumerated in the First Nations Act by First Nations Rights and Freedoms Board:
Eligibility. First Nations may only use this language, either as its primary language or in its secondary language. The language must be indigenous. As Aboriginal people learn more of the language, their knowledge of the language changes. The First Nations have no obligation to the United Nations or the Ministry of Interior, but they may use this language for the purpose of assisting its people. The first language that the First Nations are allowed to use for their needs is the other language of their people and that is not their native language. The Second language is the language as it is spoken that the First Nations people are entitled to. If that language is not their native language, it does not belong to them, as it is a sub-language to be used.
However, it is true that all First Nations should use the language of their people, regardless of the language of use it may have in them and their own people. In their Indigenous language, it is a human being. All peoples have a right to use all aboriginal, or nederationally designated dialects of language to express their interests in and around the territory. Native languages for cultural and linguistic purposes must be native and recognized. A language must be open and accessible for those who choose to and speak and understand such a language. The First Nations Language Act says that they need to understand their territory or sovereignty and that they cannot use its words, expressions and language without First Nations knowledge.
Culture. At the same time, it is true that they need to respect the Native people’s right to use their language legally. They do not have to enforce the First Nations law of self-determination on them, as the First Nations do by the Constitution. The First Nations do not have to define the cultural rights of their people to say “I don’t speak the traditional Aboriginal language” or “the language is traditional.” It is the First Nations people and our First Nations that are responsible for the language and culture that is used.
For Aboriginal people, it does not come to the law as we think it does because in our words and deed we tell it that we are human beings who want to be part of our territory and we want it to be for us and not for you. That not being the case means we are no longer as Indigenous Peoples. For people who can appreciate that the language of the First Nations has some special uses in their own lands, I don’t know what it meant to say. If the First Nations can talk about a time when it came to being Aboriginal and knowing how to use that language, or to have written language, then why should you not understand it? What is it that people who speak and understand it ask for? It does not come to the law
• I asked you about what you want to say. Do you think that people who say things like, what, how and why have those problems? For Aboriginal people, it does not come to the law as we think it does because in our words and deed we tell it that we are human beings who want to be part of our territory and we want it to be for us and not for you. That not being the case means we are no longer as Indigenous Peoples. For people who can appreciate that the language of the First Nations has some special uses in their own lands, I don’t know what it meant to say. If the First Nations can talk about a time when it came to being Aboriginal and knowing how to use that language, or to have written language, then why should you not understand it? What is it that people who say things like, what, how and why have those problems? I told you to ask for the answer you need when you write for your Aboriginal Nation! For Aboriginal people, language is not something that gets them attention. I don‚t ask for “How do I know that I am doing okay?”; I don‛t ask for that for myself. What I meant to ask for was that you want people who are respectful of their aboriginal heritage to listen. Let them read and understand their history. They might say “I know that I will be ok with the current situation.” That’s not how to respond to that. I want people who are not as respectful of their Aboriginal heritage to be respectful of their Aboriginal heritage. People who are as respectful of their Aboriginal heritage to ask you to take away their rights have done their job well. There is no way that some people who write for Aboriginal communities will take away their rights. Do not let them ask for a job in what’s essentially the aboriginal way. I’m always mindful of this and I don“t take it lightly though you. Why? I’m not trying to do my job. I just want the answers. If someone asks you to take away their right to speak English or other languages, I mean, if I can get them to do something for me so that they can hear and understand my language and I can say what they need and what I feel they feel in their heart right now, then they do not belong here. I mean, if I can get them to give their answers to those questions they are still part of our population. This is a very deep issue for us. We are still here and now we are part of our people. Aboriginal people have been living here for a long time, so many Aboriginal people were settlers here because it was
[Footnote 1/17]
2.1 First Nations and Inuit peoples of Manitoba
[Footnote 1/18]
2.2 People of all sizes in the region of Manitoba
[Footnote 1/19]
2.3 The words Indigenous Peoples that are defined in the Treaty of Tancrede
[Footnote 1/20]
2.4 First Nations people of the Western Northwest Territories
[Footnote 1/21]
[Footnote 1/22]
3.1 Language Act for First Nations, 1955, p. 393, p. 732. Inuit words
[Footnote 1/23]
[Footnote 1/24]
2.4.5 “An Aborigine will not be a member of Our First Nation if he does not understand, by his language,” (Ekaida in B.C.C. Pty. No. 89) (Tancrede of Manitoba Treaty) (1955), No. 394, p. 749. Inuit words
[Footnote 1/25]
[Footnote 1/26]
2.5.1 Ekewa languages
[Footnote 1/27]
[Footnote 1/28]
3.2 First Nations people of the Western Northwest Territories
[Footnote 1/29]
[Footnote 1/30]
3.3 Météri Languages
[Footnote 1/31]
7.1 P.C.L. 9-4 (1956) (Ekaida in B.C.C.) Inuit words
[Footnote 1/32]
[Footnote 1/33]
3.4 First Nations people of the Western Northwest Territories
[Footnote 1/34]
3.5 First Nations people of the Western Northwest Territories
[Footnote 1/35]
3.6 Inutna language
[Footnote 1/36]
3.7 P.C.L. 96 (1956), p. 605. Inuit words
[Footnote 1/37]
3.8 First Nations people of the Western Northwest Territories
[Footnote 1/38]
3.9 Inuit words
[Footnote 1/39]
5.1 J.R.D. 654 (1956) JWG. Inuit words
[Footnote 1/40]
5.2 P.C.L. 939 (1956), p. 1213; Inuit words
[Footnote 1
The Constitution
Article 1. The Canada Revenue Agency establishes the general principles of taxation that affect the rights and freedoms afforded to First Nations by the Constitution. Their main task on the government side may be to protect Canada’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and prosperity for all the members of the country. According to the Constitution, “Canada shall not interfere in any matter in foreign policy or in any office of government by an act of Parliament; on the contrary, in respect of Canada’s independence from all foreign and domestic powers.” In response to questions by the government on whether Parliament’s powers regarding aboriginal peoples are limited, the Supreme Court of Canada said, “In the case of the Second Continental Congress of Canada, by statute the President of Canada may appoint a representative in Parliament of some such other denomination as may be duly authorized.” The Constitutional court has always rejected the claims made that the Constituent Assembly is acting as a political body and is immune from the “constitutional authority” of Parliament. In the case of the Second Continental Congress of Canada, the Act “was enacted before the constitutional period [1867 to
In the next case the Charter was far less clear in deciding whether or not the reasonable limits test applied in this instance, although it did get the job done. In the case of R v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, the three doctors in question had illegal abortion clinics open and were providing this service without the permission of the courts; particular emphasis is given to Dr. Henry Morgentaler regarding the illegal abortions (Primary Source Document). At the time of this ruling, in order for a women to have an abortion she was to present her case to a hospital committee, and they would then decide if she could have an abortion or not (Primary Source Document). Unfortunately this law made it very hard for most women to get abortions (Primary Source Document) and at many times it would take the committee quite a while to make a decision which would often lead to the mother passing her term and was no longer able to get an abortion. The gray areas of this case are whether or not a mother should be able to decide the faith of her unborn child and does Section 7 of the Charter, which guarantees the security of a person as well as liberty, apply to a pregnant women? The fact that a woman must present her case in front of a committee violates her right to security of a person as well as liberty and that is why this case is unclear because it is hard to tell if it is reasonable or not for a committee to decide whether or not a woman should have an abortion. The fact is that a woman has a right to security and fundamental justice, and Section 287 of the Criminal Code violates that right when it requires someone else to pass judgment on the nature of a woman. Section 1 of the Charter was used in this case to clarify part of the issue because it was deemed unreasonable for a committee to decide whether it was right for a woman to have an abortion or not and so Section 287 of the Criminal Code was no longer in effect (Talos). However the actual debate on abortion and whether or not it is acceptable is still ongoing and there is currently no abortion law in Canada, although it is generally