Multiculturalism describes an alignment of power surrounded by two cultures recognized by the constitution of Canada. These include the French and the English around which are the less native cultures. Up to date, Native culture remains unrecognized by the Canadian constitution. This alignment of power appears to be designed to equalize power among the native cultures and the two central cultures, the French and English. Multiculturalism is thus, based on a pre assumption of equality which is not necessarily real.
The Compact Theory of Confederation The provincial rights movement led to the “compact theory of Confederation.” Promoted by many provincial premiers, it contended that Confederation was a contract or a compact or a treaty among the original signatory provinces, and could not be revised without their consent. Although not historically or legally correct, this theory had much support in provincial governments and Quebec. It also had implications for developing a made-in-Canada constitutional amending formula: which parts of the constitution could be amended with how much provincial consent? An alternate version of the theory was that Confederation was a compact between English and French, and could not be revised without the consent of both groups. The implication of that was often taken to be that Quebec represented the French, and whether or not the other provinces had a veto over constitutional amendments, Quebec did!
B. The Primary Interdependent Parties of the Conflict The primary interdependent parties involved in the "Canada - Free Québec" conflict are the separatists of Québec and the rest of the people of Québec. The goals of the Québécois separatists involve Québec's designation as a distinct society which would enable Québec to govern itself while still remaining a part Canada. These separatists consider themselves a distinct society and therefore want the right to have their own government and laws. The remainders of the peoples of Québec have a non-separatist view.
The charter, subject to the non obstinate clause, is entrenched as the supreme law in Canada. Any law enacted by parliament or provinces that is inconsistent with the Charter will be, to the extent of its inconsistency, without force and effect. Fundamental freedoms will now beyond the reach of provincial (and federal) legislation. One of the happy results of the enactment of the charter is that it will reverse the Dupond decision and enshrine fundamental freedoms and independent constitutional
This essay will explain and analyze two essays by individuals who express entirely different opinions of civil disobedience. In his essay, “Civil Disobedience: Destroyer of Democracy”, Lewis H. Van Dusen strongly discourages the use of civil disobedience as a means for change. He feels that this act of disobedience directly contradicts our democratic system. The other individual being compared in this essay is Henry David Thoreau; who in his essay, “Civil Disobedience”, supports the act of peacefully challenging or protesting unjust laws. He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice.
Despite these 'similarities' between the two documents, the statements reach separate conclusions as to how the United States should continue to protect liberty. While both statements appear to uphold the Declaration, it is the Sharon Statement, and not the Port Huron Statement, which supports the Founder's intentions for the United States' government. The Port Huron Statement deviates from the original documents and proposes an expansion of the government in order to protect individual freedom; it suggest publicizing private affairs to protect liberty, a paradox it creates even as it names paradoxes in the United States. The Sharon Statement upholds the integrity of the Declaration and the Founders by adhering to the Constitution and not stepping past the bounds of government it lays out in its structure. The Port Huron Statement, if applied to United States policies, would destroy the liberty carefully established by the Founders, laid out in the Constitution, and defended throughout American history.
It was these democratic principles that have gotten us to the place we are today. We must not look to the judicial branch to affect the regulation of business; instead we must take on this issue in the tried and proven democratic process. The role of the Supreme Court is to determine the constitutionality of laws and regulations, not create them, and that is exactly what the reinterpretation of the commerce clause has done. The reinterpretation has extended the power of the federal government, and the judicial system too far, allowing them to overstep their boundaries. The continued power grab will destroy the capitalist system shackling the limbs of the free market.
Birch was preceded by a path-breaking line of cases in which Canadian appellate courts signalled their willingness to depart from the strict common law rule against enforcing a stipulated remedy that amounts to a penalty rather than a genuine pre-estimate of damages.2 Those cases marked a positive development in Canadian contract law, as adherence to the traditional rule against penalty clauses is difficult to justify. This is not to say that all penalty clauses ought to be enforced. But some of them should be enforced, while the reasons not to enforce the rest are more or less the same as the reasons not to enforce other contractual provisions. Consequently, doctrines such as unconscionability, mistake, and contra proferentem ought to be capable of addressing concerns relevant to the enforceability of stipulated remedies. There is no need for a rule that singles out penalty clauses for special treatment.
CHARTER OF FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS As mirror of current societal beliefs, laws reflect a country’s national identity. While Canada shares similar values with other nations, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms truly sets Canada apart from other civil rights legislations. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms advocates the diversity of Canadian society and guarantees freedoms that extend beyond boundaries definable by constitutionalized law. Consequently, compared to other countries, our judiciary plays a significant role in interpreting the law. The wide scope of the Charter, encompassing official language to aboriginal rights, reflects our commitment to social diversity.
The state assumes that it has power over individuals, which a view blights human freedom as was expressed by Proudhon ‘to be governed is to be inspected by creatures who neither have the right nor virtue to do so’. Liberals on the over hand do not view the state in such an pessimistic way, however believe that if the state was so have too much power it could indeed become oppressive and tyrannic thus threatening the sovereign individual: something that liberals heavily endorse. Therefore, liberals argue for a minimum ‘night watchman’ state (Nozick). This essay will argue that the state is not an oppressive body but instead a paternal figure, which serves to protect individuals more than it oppresses them. It can be argued from the anarchist perspective that the state is an oppressive body, which undermines human reason and the capacity for self governance.