Friday, September 15. 2023

Today's schedule is CDAB

C/D Blocks Social and Environmental Sciences - Young in #115 first, then Benton. I wonder if you have something to work on? Hmmm... If you need more resources to help, check out:

What All Good STATIC Maps "Should" Have

A Good Map Is Worth A Thousand Words. A Bad One – A Single Expletive

Elements of a Map

It's due Wednesday, September 20. 2023 and you'll not get any more class time after today to work on it, so bear down, work hard and get as much done this morning as you can. 

A Block Legal Studies - We'll look at the three sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that limit your individual rights (Reasonable Limits, Notwithstanding Clause and Where the Charter Applies). From the Ontario Justice Education Network...Section 1 of the Charter establishes that every Canadian is guaranteed the rights protected by the Charter while simultaneously providing for the possibility that these rights be limited by the government if such a limit could be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. As such, it both guarantees and limits Charter rights. 

This means that "Freedom" or "Liberty" are not absolute...

The Charter is in place to ensure that the rights and freedoms of Canadians are protected. Requiring the government to justify Charter infringements ensures that these rights and freedoms are not arbitrarily limited by the government. The government has the burden of proving that any limit is justified. 

Next as a class we'll look at the R. v. Oakes (1986) case which established the "Oakes Test" in Canadian law which allows reasonable limitations on rights and freedoms through legislation if it can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. 

David Edwin Oakes was charged with possession of drugs, and possession with the intent to traffic. At the time of the trial, a person charged with drug possession was automatically charged with possession with the intent to traffic. If a person was found guilty of possession of drugs, s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act (NCA) (now called the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act) placed the onus on the person charged to prove that there was no intent to traffic. If the accused could not prove lack of intent, the accused would automatically be found guilty of the charge. 

Mr. Oakes challenged this section of the NCA as an infringement of his s. 11(d) Charter right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The SCC found that s. 8 of the NCA violated s. 11(d) of the Charter. The Court then considered whether the government could justify this infringement under s. 1 of the Charter. Section 1 requires the government to show that the law in question is a reasonable limit on Charter rights, which can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. The Court found that the government failed to satisfy s. 1 of the Charter, and as a result, held that s. 8 of the NCA was of no force or effect

So, the Oakes Test is a two-step balancing test to determine whether a government can justify a law which limits a Charter right. The government must establish that the law under review has a goal that is both “pressing and substantial.” The law must be both important and necessary (Step One). Next, the court then conducts a proportionality analysis using three sub-tests (Step Two). The government must first establish that the provision of the law which limits a Charter right is rationally connected to the law’s purpose. If it is arbitrary or serves no logical purpose, then it will not meet this standard. Secondly, a provision must minimally impair the violated Charter right. A provision that limits a Charter right will be constitutional only if it impairs the Charter right as little as possible or is “within a range of reasonably supportable alternatives.” Finally, the court examines the law’s proportionate effects. Even if the government can satisfy the above steps, the effect of the provision on Charter rights may be too high a price to pay for the advantage the provision would provide in advancing the law’s purpose.

I'll have you work on the following questions:

1. Do you think there should ever be limits to Charter rights? Why or why not?
2. Describe a situation where an infringement of a right would be justified.
3. Describe a situation where an infringement of a Charter right would not be justified?
4. What do you think about the courts’ role in deciding whether an infringement of a right can be justified?
5. What happens if the government cannot show that a Charter infringement is justified (i.e. it does not satisfy the elements of the s. 1 analysis)?

After a bit (even if you're not finished) we're going to watch an episode of Law and Order from season 9 called True North. From tv.com...The double murder of a wealthy man and his daughter leads the detectives to the wife and stepmother of the deceased. However, Canada's objection to the death penalty hampers McCoy and Carmichael in seeking crucial evidence for obtaining a conviction. Hmmm... death penalty and Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms 7 - 14 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms I wonder if those two are incompatible?  In 1976, the majority of the House of Commons voted to abolish capital punishment for all offenses under its Criminal Code. This anti-death penalty sentiment was later reiterated and reinforced in a 1987 House of Commons vote, when the reinstitution of capital punishment was again met with stern disapproval.

The cases of Atif Rafay and Sebastien Burns ended up making new extradition law in death penalty cases. The two Canadians were charged with the 1995 murders of Rafay's parents and sister in Washington state. They fled to Canada and Washington State subsequently asked for their extradition. The Canadian justice minister said he was not bound to automatically seek assurances that they would not face execution. "If the general rule was that Canadians were never to be returned to face the death penalty in the United States, the result would be unsatisfactory," said a release from the justice department. "Canadian suspects who managed to return to Canada before arrest would gain an advantage, since they would never be extradited without assurances." But on reviewing this case in 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the minister of justice is constitutionally required to seek assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed in all but "exceptional" cases. The court did not spell out what it meant by "exceptional."

From the legal analysis of our Charter

Where individuals are affected by a Canadian or foreign government action that took place outside Canada, the extent to which they may rely upon section 7 will depend on the circumstances, and may require the claimant to establish Canadian government “participation in activities of a foreign state or its agents that are contrary to Canada’s international obligations or fundamental human rights norms” 

In extradition and deportation cases, where the government’s participation is a necessary precondition for the deprivation of the rights to life, liberty or security of the person by another state, and the deprivation is an entirely foreseeable consequence of the participation, deportations or extraditions must accord with the principles of fundamental justice (United States v. Burns, 2001)

So, the decision of United States of America v. Burns and Rafay, 2001 SCC 7 specifically states (the Supreme Court of Canada ruled) that people cannot be extradited to face the death penalty abroad, unless the country requesting them agrees to keep death off the table. Welcome to the beginning of our discussion about Charter and Human Rights in Canada.

B Block Human Geography - Today we'll start by reviewing place, sense of place, regions, and touch on culture. From the Province of BC Geographical Names website:

Geographical names are essential for communication and navigation but also represent much more. They reflect the values of communities or decision makers at the times the names were created and continue to influence how we view, understand, interact with, and remember places and their histories.  

From the article Euro-Settler Place Naming Practices for North America through a Gendered and Racialized Lens

Toponyms articulate the socio-economic, political, and cultural history of a place as well as the taxonomies of power that influence every moment of a place name’s existence, particularly in terms of how the name is spelled, pronounced, and the language(s) from which it originates, in addition to the meaning of the name itself...Not unlike the bestowing of names upon children by their parents, place nomenclature implies a relationship invested with the authority to not only name, but also to claim the named as belonging to the namer.  

Did you know that India has another name? From the website Time Out India could be changing its name – here’s why (think decolonization)

So names are connected to place and give an identity (we talked about this yesterday). The “sense of place” that humans possess may apply to a larger area of Earth rather than to a specific point. A person may feel attachment as a native or resident of Black Creek, or of the Comox Valley, or the area of attachment could encompass Vancouver Island or British Columbia.  You have the rest of the block today to work on the following:

1. Find the names of two Canadian cities that have changed their names and explain why they changed their names
2. How do people shape places? How do places shape people?

To help with question the question on place:

How does Place shape who we are?

How Geography Shapes Our Identity

Does Where You Live Make You Who You Are?

Where you live affects your personality, study says

Today's Fit...