|
|
|
Q: Sir I have a question for you. Can you please help me to understand systemic
discrimination. If you could help me that would be great thank you very much.
A: Systemic discrimination occurs in situations where a system discriminates against a group protected under human rights legislation. In other words, no particular individual within an organization is actively discriminating against anyone. Rather, it is a policy, the infrastructure, or some aspect of the physical plant that is discriminatory. Therefore, if you were to end the discrimination, you would have to do more than just get one person to change his/her behaviour - you would have to change some aspect of the system.
Examples of systemic discrimination would include:
Although the discrimination in these cases is part of a system (a way of doing things), the discriminatory effect is still fairly obvious. This can be contrasted with constructive discrimination, which is also generally caused by a policy. However, in the case of constructive discrimination the discriminatory effect is unintended and unforseen. (ie. The policy that required the wearing of the customary RCMP hat was certainly not intended to prevent Muslims from joining the RCMP. None-the-less, this policy did have this effect.)
Q: I don't know how to answer the first question of the "Samples of Written
Response Questions" in the exam section. (not a good sign) Could you
describe what is meant by "burden of proof", how it is entrenched in
our constitution, and which historical document referred to this concept. Thank
you so much!!!!
A: In answer to your query, the "burden of proof" in a criminal case refers to the fact that the Crown must prove that the accused is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. This burden is entrenched in our constitution because it is stated quite clearly in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Section 11-d) that "Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;" If you recall, this same notion was originally expressed in the Magna Carta, (Section 39) "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land;"
Q: The reason I am e-mailing is the thesis statement due
> on Monday. I was
wondering where exactly we were supposed to get our
> topics from. Is it
like the previous exxay when we were to select a
> certain bill in
parliament and discuss the related issues to it, or are
> we free to come
up with our own topics, regardless of whether or not
> there is currently
a bill in readings at this moment? If this is the
> case, may we still
refer to the current bills for ideas and reference.
> Also, as this is the
first ISP I have ever done (I'm a rookie, unlike
> the rest of the
students in the class) I was wondering if I could ask
> you for some
possible ideas of what a good topic might be. I am totally
> lost right
now, and trying to find some ground on this. Thanks a bunch
A: For the purpose of this independent study project, your
thesis must be one
which pertains to a current issue in Canadian society - an
issue which you
feel should be a concern for the law. Therefore, I would
suggest looking at
the current issues you might find in recent Canadian news
services, such as
the CBC. The more "cutting edge" the better. For example,
these were just a
few of the current issues which I found when I looked at
the CBC today. All
of these can relate to Canadian law.
Gay Marriages
- should they be allowed?
http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/01/14/gay_marriage010114
Walkerton
- Who should be responsible for water?
http://cbc.ca/news/indepth/walkerton/
Internet
Security - Should the Internet be regulated?
http://cbc.ca/news/indepth/hackers/
Laser
Eye Surgery - Is it safe? Should it be legal? Should it be regulated?
http://cbc.ca/news/indepth/background/laser_eye.html
Gun
Control - Is Canada's New Firearms Act practical or effective?
http://cbc.ca/news/indepth/background/gun_control.html
The
Salmon War - Is the new Pacific Salmon Treaty good for Canada?
http://cbc.ca/news/indepth/salmon/
Will New Anti-Gang legislation solve Canada's drug gang problem?
http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/01/14/bikers_010114
Is Canada facing a nursing shortage? Should legislation be passed to encourage nurses to stay in Canada?
http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/01/15/nursing010115
Should taxpayers fund the costs of political lawsuits?
http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/01/17/day_suit010117
As you can see, news services are a quick and effective means of
locating
current topics which relate to Canadian law.
Good
luck!
Q: Why does the Magna Carta best represent utilitarianism?
A: The Magna Carta represents a utilitarianist perspective because it stated that the law should be established for the benefit of all people - not just an elite few. The law should uphold a higher purpose of "justice" for all men - not just uphold the power of a ruling class. Thus we see the ideal of pursuing the "greatest happiness for the greatest number of people" in the Magna Carta.
Q: ok sorry about the confusion. i was asking
if we had to agree or disagree with the bill that we choose. and then
write the essay on it. see what i dont understand is basically the
whole thing. like i know that we have to choose a bill, i chose S-10.
so do i write about the bill? and then talk about if is agrere or
disagree. i hope that helps.
A: Okay, I think I see your question. To clarify, I will offer this brief explanation of
an essay. An essay is a presentation of an argument. In an essay you are
attempting to convince the reader to accept a certain perspective on a
certain topic. This "perspective" on the particular topic is called your thesis.
In this case, you must argue whether the proposed law which you are analyzing
will be good for Canada, or bad for Canada. To quote the assignment, "The
student will then prepare an essay which argues: what specific interests or
objectives are being addressed within this proposed law, and whether the
proposed law will be good or bad for the general population of Canada."
To clarify the basic forms of writing which you are asked to produce as a student, I would offer you this simple summary:
I hope this helps. Good luck!
Hi Mr. Lightstone.... > I hope you're having a great weekend!!! I'm trying to > get some of my research done for the washignton > assignment, but I'm having a few real problems. I > cannot find anything on how Canadian laws are made, > and I was wondering what exactly you wanted to know > about the legislative processes? Just bare bones fact, > or would an example of a law made in Canada and > another in the states be helpful? Also, the site about > how US laws are made is 156K document. Any advice as > to how I can extrapolate the important information out > of the filler w/out printing everything?? Any advice > you have would be great. Thanks!!!! > Regards, >
Hello,
You will find a wonderful resource on how a bill becomes a law
at:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/refmat/library/faq/en/ParliamentFAQ01.htm
The
challenge of this assignment is to read the information on both the Canadian and the US
system,
and then to highlight the differences. I don't expect a full
account of how
each system makes a law. Just give me the steps in each
process - not
necessarily the details within each step.
Good luck!
--> Mr.
L
> Q: Hi Mr. Lightstone, it's ______, how are u doing? > I have a question to ask about the Orel Defence. I know that we have to > present to the class about your thesis structure, but in what way do u > want us to present? Do we need to give out handout or use Power point or > overhead when we are presenting? > > Thank You for your kind attention A: I am fine! How are you? In answer to your query, you are not required to provide any audio visual aids for your presentation. However, you are allowed to use such aids if you wish. I have seen students use overheads, powerpoint, and even scale models of cars and buildings as visual aids in the past. At times, such aids may indeed help a student express a point more clearly. None-the-less, in the end I am marking only your clear expression of each issue outlined on the marking scheme - there are no marks awarded for use of audio visual materials. Best of luck on your oral defence! > Q: Hi Mr. Lightstone, > Could you clear up the following for me? > > * The fundamental role of the Competition Act. A: To maintain open and fair competition between businesses in Canada. To ensure that some businesses do not use unethical tactics to draw consumers away from competitors. To ensure that some companies do not use their financial power or dominant position in the market to eliminate their competition. > Q: * The 2 fundamental loopholes, existing within the Pay Equity Act. A: i. The Act does not apply to differences in pay BETWEEN different companies. Thus, a business can simply split into two different legal entities in order to avoid infractions against the Pay Equity Act. ii. The Act does not apply to companies with fewer than 10 employees. > Q: * Understand and explain how the Pay Equity Act seeks to > standardize pay with respect to: > o skill, > o working conditions, > o responsibility, and > o effort; A: We can break it down into four easy steps: 1. Each company in Ontario is supposed to set up a human resources committee charged with the duty of establishing a consistent approach to compensation. 2. The committee will assign different point values to all of the various requirements that could possibly be associated with the different occupations in the company. For example, the committee would consider the skills/training that could be required for different positions. A job which requires a highschool diploma might be awarded 1 point, whereas a job requiring a two year college dimploma might receive 2 points, a three year college diploma might be awarded 3 points, a three year university degree might receive 4 points, etc. The committee will continue on this way until it has awarded points to every parameter under the four categories of skill, working conditions, responsibility, and effort. 3. The committee evaluates the minimum requirements for each and every position in the company. 4. Finally, the committee will simply calculate wages based on a mathematical function involving the points associated with the minimum requirements of any given occupation within the company. > Q: When we are citing stuff do you want us to cite only the quotes? Or is > it every sentence that we bring up? A: This is the deal with citation. If you present a quote, then you provide the citation after the quote (author's last name, page numbers). For example: "Like a recurring bad dream, labour unrest, locked doors and picket lines are returning to haunt 300,000 students in Toronto's nearly 600 elementary and high schools." (Talaga, 4) In additon, if you present a factual piece of information which you are not in a personal position to know, then you must also cite the source of this information. For example: The union claims the current budget cut of $300 million will claim 4,358 jobs over the next four years. (Talaga, 4) Your discussion of various facts and figures does not need to be cited, but the raw facts (ie. stats, data) do need to be cited at the point where you FIRST introduce them into your essay. After you have cited the data, you can refer to it later on without continuing to cite it. > Q: from my understanding, compulsion by threat can only excuse the accused > if he/she has comitted a summary offense under threat to bodily harm or > death. true or not true? A: Not true. Compulsion is a potential defence for most summary and indicatable offences EXCEPT some of the most severe indictable offences, ie. high treason or treason, murder, piracy, attempted murder, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm, aggravated sexual assault, forcible abduction, hostage taking, robbery, assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm, aggravated assault, unlawfully causing bodily harm, arson or an offence under sections 280 to 283 (abduction and detention of young persons). > Q: Compulsion of spouse > > 18. No presumption arises that a married person who commits an offence > does so under compulsion by reason only that the offence is committed in > the presence of the spouse of that married person. > > is that the same as the thing where no spouse can be charged of aiding > and abetting? A: Absolutely not! In fact, it is almost the opposite. Although "compulsion of spouse" is a potential defence for many criminal acts, this particular rule of law states that a spouse will NOT be able to claim such a defence simply because their spouse was present at the time that they committed the illegal act. Good question though. > Q: Could you please explain to me the following: > > * The "Rape Shield" Law > * Intoxication > * Mistake of the Law > * Colour of Right > * Officially Induced Mistake of Law > * Mistake of Fact > * De Facto A: The "Rape Shield" Law: "Rape Shield" is a term used to describe a number of amendments to the Criminal Code (enacted in 1983) which protect rape victims from harsh cross-examination regarding their sexual history (Section 276) and their sexual reputation (Section 277). In 1991 the Supreme Court struck down section 276, because the court believed that limiting questions regarding the accuser's sexual behaviour could actually compromise the accused's right to a fair trial. In 1993 a new Rape Shield law was enacted, which stated that evidence regarding the accuser's sexual history could be permitted only after it has been examined for relevance by the trial judge. Also, it states that the accused's honest belief that the accuser consented to the act is not a defence. Rather, the accused is required to take reasonable steps at the time to ensure that the accuser was giving consent. Intoxication: This is a defence to a number of criminal offences. If one is intoxicated (ie. drunk) at the time that they commit a crime, they may be able to argue that they lacked the ability to form the mens rea necessary to prove guilt. This will usually only succeed in negating the accused's ability to form a "specific intent" with respect to a particular crime. However, they will still be accountable for their "general intent." So, if John kills Bill in a fight, John may be able to argue that he was too drunk to form the "specific intent" to kill Bill. However, he is still responsible for the mens rea associated with his "general intent" to fight with someone. Thus he would likely avoid a conviction on first degree murder (which requires "specific intent" to kill someone), but he would not likely avoid a manslaughter conviction (which does not require "specific intent" to kill someone). Mistake of the Law: Mistake of law is a defence in which one argues that they did not realize that the act they committed was against the law. This is only permitted in two situations - those involving colour of right, or officially induced mistake of law: 1. Colour of Right: A perception that one has a claim to a particular assets, even though they technically do not. For example, if you take your car from a garage before you pay the bill, you might do this thinking that it is alright, because, after all, the car is yours. (However, you are not permitted to take it until you have paid your bill, or at least agreed to pay your bill at a later date.) 2. Officially Induced Mistake of Law: A perception that one's act was not against the law because a person in a position of authority previously informed the accused that the act in question was not against the law. Thus, if a police officer, lawyer, judge, government agent or civil servant informs an individual that a specific act is not against the law, that individual can defend him/herself against a charge it it turns out that the action is in fact against the law. Mistake of Fact: A defence in which one states that they only committed the act because, at the time, they mistook a particular fact involved in the situation. For example, an individual might defend him/herself by mistake of fact if they are charged with selling alcohol to a minor, IF they "mistook" the minor for an adult. This could be supported by the accused's claim that the minor displayed convincing identification at the time of the sale which indicated that the minor was the age of majority. De Facto: (...in reality; actually exercising power). A rule of law included within the Criminal Code which states that an individual will not be charged with a crime if they committed this crime while it was made legal by the government in power at a given time and place. > Q: I'm having trouble researching Nativists vs. Empiricists for the > test. It's not in the textbook, nor is it on Encarta 1999. Do you > know of a site that might explain this to me? I can't find it > anywhere. A: This is the formal way of referring to the old "nature versus nurture" debate. If you believe that human potential is determined at birth as a result of one's genetic heritage, then you would be considered a "nativist." However, if you believe that human potential is determined by environment and life experience, then you would be considered an "empiricist." Thus, some people believe that criminal behaviour is the result of genetic predisposition, while others believe it to be the result of environmental determinism. Q: > I'm sooo confused. In the marking scheme it sasys we have to have the > use of both primary and secondary resources, etc. BUt I've tried the > Star, the Sun, the Globe and MAil, CBC Newsworld Online, Time and > MAcleans and none of them had either the first Bill I was looking for > (Bill C-16) or the other one (Bill C-42) They did have stuff on the > controversy of the Bill but it was from like 1997 and that's no help to > me. I don't think or is it? HELP ME!!! A: Well, you don't seem confused. You seem to understand exactly where you stand with this assignment. Perhaps the bills you are considering are not presently at the forefront of the media, but that doesn't mean that they're not good topics. C-16 may be a little dry, as it regards criminal matters that most people can't relate to. C-42 is a little more pertinent to our everyday existance. There is certainly a lot of secondary information available on the smoking debate. Consider this summary of the act: "This enactment provides for a five-year phased-in transition period towards a prohibition of tobacco sponsorship promotions. The existing section 24 will continue to apply in limited circumstances during the transition period." Consider the resources you could investigate that are directly, or indirectly related to this. Health issues, advertising, media, sporting events, etc. There's a lot of material out there. First, take a moment to consider what you want to write (ie. Do you want to focus on the health risks associated with smoking? Do you want to write about the persuasive power of media? Do you want to talk about who views/attends the sporting events that are typically sponsored by tobacco companies? Do you want to write about the health costs associated with smoking-related disease? etc.) Consider what data you would need to support your argument, and then go out there and get it. People might not write about Bill C-42 itself, but they certainly write about the issues this bill addresses. Good luck! Q: How do i defend the effectiveness of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? A: That is entirely up to you. Do you believe protection of our human rights should be enshrined within our constitution? Or do you believe human rights should be dealt with in case law? Might you argue that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms simply allows criminals to find loopholes around the law? Or do you believe it offers necessary protection against a government that might otherwise be tempted to abuse its power? Q: Where should i be looking for all the information on the supreme court of canada (enforcing the charter, and structure)? A: My apologies. We didn't go over the Supreme Court as much as we did last year, so I won't ask anything beyond what was mentioned in our review class. If you recall, I pointed out a major criticism of the Charter - namely the fact that the Supreme Court (which presides over cases involving the constitution) has the authority to declare any act of Federal Parliament or of a Provincial Legislature as being unconstitutional. This, in effect, will quashes the law in question. Thus the question can be asked, "Who runs our country, our elected parliament, or the appointed Justices of the Supreme Court?" Q: > I was just going through my review sheet and i was > wondering if you could explain "federalism as it relates to Canada's > structure", and centralized and de-centralized federalist structures. A: Federalism refers to a government with two or more levels of government. In Canada's case this can be observed in our federal, provincial, and municipal governments. A centralized government is a political structure which places more power and control in the hands of the central government (ie. federal), while a decentralized government places more power and control in the hands of the regional governments (ie. provincial and municipal). Q: > We never covered H.L.A. Hart in our in class discussions, yet it was > included in the internet notes. Can you explain his thought, as I find > it confusing. A: Sure, however, I did not include H.L.A. Hart in the review sheet - so he is not our quiz. H.L.A. Hart felt that law could be divided into two main categories - primary rules, and secondary rules. Primary rules are the laws that actually regulate our conduct (as citizens within a society). Secondary rules are the rules that guide HOW our primary rules are created and enforced. Hart further divides secondary rules into three categories: Rules of Recognition: which outline how primary rules will be developed and passed. Rules of Change: which outline how existing primary rules can be changed over time. Rules of Adjudication: which outline how primary rules will be enforced by a society (ie. through courts, judges, and juries).------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q: > Also, aren't Austin and Benthem's beliefs the same? A: Yes, basically. However, Austin left a little room for civil disobedience. He believed that it would be alright to disobey a bad law if it meant that it would overcome the "mischiefs inflicted by a bad government..." In so doing, disobedient citizens would in fact be working toward achieving the greatest good for the greatest number of people.------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q: Mr Lightstone, This is ------ from your Law class. Remember how i had an old edition of the text book, i returned it, however they don't have another available copies of the correct text book. I'll try to look at the lesson plans and work from there. I just don't know if there is anything else i can do. To get to the point, i will not be able to read the assigned homework for at least a few week and i am afriad to fall behind. A: I undesrtand your concern. To assist students like yourself who are going to be without a textbook for the first couple of weeks, I am attempting to place summaries of required material on the net. You will find a note which summarizes many of the concepts contained in chapter #1 here: Note #1 Furthermore, you will find handouts designed to summarize many of the concepts contained in chapter #2 here: Note #2 Note #3 Note #4 Note #5 Note #6 Good luck to you!
1997/8 |