Class Notes (835,529)
Canada (509,225)
York University (35,236)
Social Science (3,019)
SOSC 3391 (2)
Lecture

Social diversity and law chapter 10 questions .docx

9 Pages
107 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Social Science
Course
SOSC 3391
Professor
Tanja Juric
Semester
Fall

Description
Chapter 9 “Whose Reality? Culture and Context before Canadian Courts” Robert J. Currie Canadian court and the judges and if they should be able to bring in personal experience, social context etc. talked about the case where white police officers tend to racial profile blacks of judge used her discretion to side with the black. Talked about “hearsay” and mentioned how hard it is for Aboriginal since a lot isn’t codified or written down. Bias raising concern when using personal preferences within the case, what makes it bias? The problems with having a singular democratic government instead of diversity when dealing with the contextual biases within having one judge use their discretion within the law to come to the conclusion of a case. 1. Tools both in the law and their training to know about cultural diversities? Tools are very limited with tools. Difficult for the to utilize tools cause they are always going to be limited even if they are not limited literally because there decision always conflicting with public perception. 2. Common sense is not going to be the same everyone has different experiences relating to their interpretation and concept of what common sense is. Idea of culture and within culture we learn of what is good, what is bad and what an ideal citizen looks like. What culture becomes seen as the neutral one? We see law as neutral because its multicultural and welcomes diversity but in course like this we question whether or not norms, values and assumptions are all that neutral or come from context in a sense there is a communist census. May need to create and establish a common sense and what is seen as a status quo, need to be agreed upon. Things may be taking for granted and k now why that is? Are they punitive or extraordinary? 3. Yes (listen to recording) 4. Reasonable person experiences are appropriate and secondly, not based on stereotypes. These two constraints can make or break a decision in a sense. 5. Adjudicative neutrality is necessary for proper non-biased decision making (the Cory approach), 6. “fact neutrality” should be avoided since it produces excessive formalism and an inability to properly take context into account. To simply proceed from the starting point that everyone is “equal” and “neutral” until the facts prove otherwise (which is what the dissent suggests) is, in effect, a formal equality analysis: it renders one oblivious to the social forces that got the witness onto the stand in the first place. 7. Residual approach (pp.187) is the assessment of the reliability of the statement, which generally speaking involves assessing the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement and concluding whether or not those circumstances disclose sufficient reliability. 8. The blank ppl went to court historical event where aboriginal took province to court arguing against land claims and self-governance although they didn’t succeed in such cause the judge was a racist and there was extreme discrimination towards this. Reveals about oral history as fighting for these claims as our western cultures would argue its just them wanting the land but its about culture, theirs specifically. An important way for them having there own economic system cause although the Aboriginals don’t have a conventional method of passing down history that’s written down because they do oral history and the court saying that this cant be taking into account because it would be consider hearsay. A discrepancy as seeing oral transmission of tradition, religion. Hearsay evidence was not just hearsay evidence across the bored but a tradition of fact, history and culture. 9. A technique of which certain facts can be admitted based on the disposition of the case so it may not necessarily be a proven thing but the judge accepts it as fact because it is related and necessary toward the judicial notice. Doesn’t have to go to the extra step or burden towards the court. 10.Social framework facts? What has it done for trials? Curry mention is reflection to social science research for factual issues relating to proof and a unique way for courts to accommodate. (pp.189) It accommodates social context. 11.Referring to Canadian judicial council – implementing fairness. Front end meanings it’s the first step of the process, a step in the sense taking out of the legal procedure by doing it in advance, take that process out by judges get that certain kind of education before hand. The very least the relevant information has been filtered to them and hopefully they take into consideration when making decisions within case, but this is not done to jurors in the same sense. 12.Accurate information its enough but for stereotyping part if they are older judges might not make it enough if they already have had there set ideas values etc. and wont crack or change their view on the matter. Don’t think they can give 100% accurate information. Multiculturalism, Equality, and Canadian Constitutionalism: Cohesion and Difference Joan Small Public funds going towards school system public school being, protected but seems to but up against multicultural views in Canada going against Charter. 1. Well substantive law is the statutory or written law that defines rights and duties, such as crimes and punishments, civil rights and responsibilities in civil law. It is codified in legislated statutes or can be enacted through the initiative process. Substantive law stands in contrast to procedural law, which is the “machinery” for enforcing those rights and duties. Procedural law compromises the rules by which a court hears and determines what happens in civil or criminal proceedings, as well as the method and means by which substantive law is made and administered. So in regards to multiculturalism is challenging this form of law but writing it within the law to verify in the Charter to guarantee multicultural rights. We can see this with section 27. It is a movement towards securing the rights of “others” by codifying it and making it harder for people to discriminate or violate rights relating to multicultural values within Canada. Message- because very specific groups like Catholic schools are given certain rights the rest are a one shoe fits all since it’s so molded. That its not because the influence who it was established by was very apparent so the equality is not spread but concentrated on certain groups. 2. I do not agree with Pat Duffy Hutcheon, to gain group rights for ethnic groups does not diminish or sacrifice those of individual rights. Groups vs. individual rights conflict, saying group rights dominant individual by giving groups certain rights rather than individuals. Can’t really get equality if you don’t have group right first than establish individual rights afterwards. More realistic to get groups rights under the law in the Charter than focus on individual rights after but that the groups are sometimes more important. Interesting things that come up here, in course there a bias in language in human rights in either group or individual and tension in this liberal society in the right to prove this individual voice. Ideally you want that individual rights to be uniquely heard but if they are so bedded in the margins due to many reason least the group rights angle can shine some rights on the market for individuals to step forward. Really challenge notion that is sold to us in law and society literature that this apathetical of individual vs. group. Group made up of individual in regards to support individual. Group rights give individual a platform to venue. Technical aspect the way we recognize and understand rights claims because we have some compassion for rights. Always seen as one or the other. Exhausting of concerns becoming detent to them because they say that its been heard before. What else is embedded in here? What is meant by result oriented? Easier to take an entire group and get results. Group standing behind one idea, lose the individual rights in this aspect. Once group loses they lose where individuals taking a case to court is not losing for the whole group rights. Hutcheson- equality of results for ethnic groups- we have diversity in work place we must have solved racism, sexism etc. that all these form of xenophobia are still alive. Equality for ethnic groups is not going to address cultural and religious specifies. Results based solutions are a favourite of gov’t and politicians if there are still problem after they put money it’s not their faults. Affirmative action many ppl from an identified group will choose not to check box on application on job, another point Hutcheson is also addressing in a rush to address results that the individual are working against the odds are sacrificing their rights. They are to be recognized as a special group, which is not recognized within society and the law etc. Necessary evil? 3. Hutcheon has observed that, historically, although multiculturalism was originally proposed in the form of an enhancement of biculturalism as a means of unifying Canada, it rapidly became a movement proposing a contrasting vision of the country, an alternative to biculturalism rather than a complementary political objective. She sums up the evolution of multiculturalism as a political ideology as “the transformation of an idea for social reform based on the premise of equality of opportunity for individuals regardless of biological inheritance or ancestral history into its precise opposite: the idea of equality of results for ethnic groups, at the precise opposite: the idea of equality of results for ethnic groups, at the price of sacrificing hard-won individual rights.” The various critiques of multiculturalism constructs a view of multiculturalism that is effectively ethnically essentialist and ultimately rooted in ideologies of cultural relativism. Kymilicka, on the other hand, has defended Canadian multiculturalism as being closer to what Hollinger has termed the current American “cosmopolitan” model of multiculturalism, which accepts “shifting group boundaries, multiple affiliations and hybrid identities and which is based on individual rights.” Cosmopolitanism- hybrid theories are interchangeable. City is cosmopolitan. Theory suggest individuals in a globalized society are a makeup of their ancestry but also what happens when we come into a university, travel, cultivated interest in music, fashion for a certain part of the world have access to a globalized word. Acknowledging we have these multiple differences at time and that are individual identity is not simple but complex and that
More Less

Related notes for SOSC 3391

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