Class Notes (835,108)
Canada (508,934)
Greg Flynn (95)
Lecture

Feb 04, 2013 - Poli Sci 3NN6

3 Pages
93 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Political Science
Course
POLSCI 3NN6
Professor
Greg Flynn
Semester
Winter

Description
Started on: 02/04/2014 C LASS N OTES FOR : P OLI S CI 3NN6 McMaster University, Fall 2013 T UESDAY , FEBRUARY 4, Y 1. DOES THE CHARTERAPPLY? (Can skip over this step and then come back to it) a. Parliamentary b. Delegation c. Nature d. Control e. Gov’t activity MedicineACT - 5 prohibitsAdvertise services (b) Testimonial ( c) advertising a drug Assignment Whether this violates the freedom of expression under 2(b) or this limitation is saved under virtue of section 1 TEST According to the law, we are examining two different sections. 2(b) of the charter of rights and freedoms. To do this, we examine the purpose of the expression such thatsection it is for the pursuit of truth, democratic participation and individual self-fulfillment (Irwin Toy V. Quebec; Harper). Furthermore, the expression itself has to convey a meaning in terms of its content, to the point that the content of the message does not matter based on the principle of content neutrality (Keegstra).Additionally, expressions whether spoken, written, artistic or even physical gestures should warrant protection provided they meet a particular test (Ford V. Quebec). The second stage of the freedom of expression is concerned as to whether the government actually and physically limited the right for Dr. Rodd Noway to express himself (Irwin Toy v. Quebec). Assuming that a charter right has been violated, the government has to justify the law it imposed on Dr. Rodd Noway under section 1. If the law is justified under section 1, the charter violation goes away. Two factors that have to be considered (1) whether the limits have been prescribed by law (Little Sisters Books v. Canada) and (2) whether the reasonable limits are justifiable in a free and democratic society (Oakes). The second stage of the section 1 test, or the Oakes test, is composed of two parts. The first part is the purpose and objective, to see whether the purpose of the legislation or law in question is of sufficient important that it would warrant intrusion (RJR MacDonald V. Canada).Assuming that we’ve answered yes to the purpose and objective of the legislature, and whether its pressing and substantial for the government to infringe upon the rights, we would move to the means and proportionality section of the test, which consists of three additional parts. First, there must be a logical or common sense connection proven between the means chosen and the pressing and substantial (Oakes, Benner, RJR MacDonald). Second, whether the means chosen impair the right as little as reasonably necessary to meet the objective, Angie © McMaster University 1 Fall 2014 Started on: 02/04/2014 in a minimal impairment test (R. v. Edwards Books). Third, the proportionate effect is whether the infringement of the rights is too high a price to pay in order to achieve the objective (Sauve v. Canada) 2(b) 1. Does it fall within expression protected under 2(b) (expression of protection under 2(b)) • Purpose (IRWIN TOY) o Pursuit of truth? Is it for the pursuit? No o Democratic participation? No o Indiv
More Less

Related notes for POLSCI 3NN6

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit