"Why Establish This Paper?" is a great title for the editorial written by Mary Ann Shadd Cary. It was published in the second issue of her newspaper, the Provincial Freeman (March 25, 1854). The editorial is about the need in Canada for her newspaper and she uses many persuasive tactics to prove her point. Cary uses emotional and logical appeal, among other persuasive devices, throughout the piece to convince the reader that this particular newspaper is important.
Conversely, Philip L. Bryden argues against Martin, concluding that the charter is indeed democratic and Canadian. This essay agrees with Bryden’s argument that the Charter is not un-Canadian or antidemocratic, citing problems with Martin’s argument and making reasons as to why the Charter is such a fundamental part of Canadian Constitution. Robert Martin bases one part of his argument on the idea that the Charter is antidemocratic. He clarifies himself in his introduction, not faulting the Charter in and of its own for being antidemocratic, but instead claiming that the application of the Charter by humans is what is antidemocratic. Martin’s argument on how the Charter is antidemocratic has six main premises.
In each of the stories the characters are tested with difficulties such as racism, prejudice, death, or love affairs. These novels show how deeply treasured the American/Canadian dream really is and how much of a struggle it can be to pursue it. Cather’s style of writing is based on her personal experiences with the world. In My Antonia she portrayed
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.
People with alternate cultures, other than the most popular for a given region are always viewed differently. Mustafa writes that she is seen as a Muslim radical or a fundamentalist, she is seen as an immigrant although she is a Canadian born and raised citizen. She writes, “Strangers speak to me in a loud, slow English and often appear to be playing charades.”, her fellow countrymen and women see her as an immigrant because of her alternate culture. Watt-Cloutier is an activist for her Inuit people, and is fighting hard for them. Depending on what side of the argument you sit on,
Rodriguez then appealed the B.C. courts decision to a higher power, the Supreme Court of Canada. Rodriquez stated that section 241 (b) violated section 7, 12, and 15 of charter. and her fundamental rights as a Canadian citizen. The right to life, to not be subjected to cruel/unusual punishment, and an individual being equal before the law.
The Quebec Student Protests is a good example of Canadian Political science because it demonstrates the role of Canadian government and their relationship with the public, and because concepts of Canadian political science can be applied to it. The three concepts that will be applied to the issue of Quebec Student Protests are Interest Groups, Violation of Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Canadian Nation & Identity. These concepts will help build a better understanding of the issue by thoroughly analyzing the issue showing how it escalated and why it escalated and by demonstrating the significance of the issue in
Greetings Class MGT3010 Below is summary material of the Supreme Court of Canada in the R. v. Sharpe case. The full decision can be obtained by logging into http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2001/2001scc2/2001scc2.html Note below (p.4) in bold type the two exceptions allowed by the majority decision of the Supreme Court. You will note too that I was wrong in indicating that empirical evidence is needed to justify certain charges. The Supreme Court accepted that a priori (inferential evidence could be enough to establish the social evil created by portrayal of unlawful activity. I agree with that position.
Role Morality in Contemporary Legal Practice Contemporary legal practice is plagued by a variety of structural and philosophical issues regarding the efficiency, direction and spirit of justice in Canada today. In “Law’s Ambition and the Reconstruction of Role Morality in Canada,” David M. Tanovich theorizes that the professional role disconnect of lawyers between facilitating justice and zealous advocacy can be bridged by a reconstructed role morality grounded in a justice-seeking ethic. Such a reconstruction relies on lawyers to formulate, modulate and emulate the set of norms, standards and values that create the contemporary legal conscience, essentially its role morality. I believe that Tanovich’s rebuttals of role morality’s critiques are strong, tie into our week’s discussion of lawyers’ moral/ethical challenges and should form the core of every lawyer’s modus operandi. I will reflect on these rebuttals within the context of the critique and the importance of ethical lawyering as a whole.
To have a clear perspective regarding the ongoing question if collective bargaining should be recognized as a human right in Canada. It is essential to be familiar with what exactly collective bargaining and human rights are. “Collective bargaining serves as an important means of conflict resolution, ideally enabling both parties to come to a mutually satisfactory compromise on issues of concerns to their constituents.” (p302) Human rights are something that you are entitled to based on being a human being, and in theory they cannot be modified by the government. “The international human rights consensus holds that human rights are a function of ones humanity. They are rights that are not dependent on law or social custom.” (Adams p.5) Simply, the continuous debate is if employees should be granted the ability to bargain freely about all means of work without any modifications from the government.