4130 Final Questions Challenging The Charter Law Coursework

Challenging the Charter
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Challenging the Charter
Question One
The court case of Charkaoui vs. Canada mainly highlighted the problems concerning the security certificates that are issued on a person, and Charkaoui challenged disclosure on new evidence that was out to justify his detention as per the jurisdictions of the court. The other competing social objectives were he raised issues on alleged destruction of the evidence offered fully by the Intelligence service of Canada. When presiding the evidence to the judges, they found out the evidence was not meeting the requirements of section seven of the Charter (Duffy & Provosi, 2008).
The individual rights reviewed by the judges include the constitutional laws of section seven of the lawful Act (Qweri, n.d). Other sections included section ten, "the guarantee of prompt review," and section twelve, "the prohibition on cruel and unusual treatment" (Duffy and Provost, 2008). Therefore, section seven limits the detainee information about their court case, and they only get to know bits of the information during court trials, which were presided to be unfair to detainees.
Question Two
The two cases of Hassan Almrei and Mohamed Harkat versus Canada were educational. The common aspect of the two cases is that both men are of Islam decent, international citizens, issued with security certificates, denied permission to get strong supporting evidence and were linked in being part of a terrorism group. Both the appellants got security certificates that had secretive proof that they were guilty of the crime even when the evidence summaries were kept as secrets, which gave them limited information on how to prove their innocence.
The evidence that was presented in court had incomplete information, like the court case of Almrei, where the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration presented partially strong evidence adduced in camera and ex parte. In Harkat's case, he was issued two security certificates, and the court refused to permit him to get supporting evidence from various legit sources to prove he was innocent. The two cases showed how the detained persons were not granted permission to seek evidence from other sources so that they can prove their innocence. Yet, section seven of the Charter which enables one to experience different rights such as security, life and liberty.
Question Three
I find the cases simple to understand and easy to analyze due to the provisions of the common law of sections seven, ten, eleven, and twelve. The Charter explains in simple and understandable language the clear rights one has when detained. For example, the Charkaoui case, the court accepted the unfairness that came with the case of denying Charkaoui and his team liberty to know what the case at hand was and the ways in which he was to respond, and this had violated section seven (Stribopoulos, 2007). According to an article by Stribopoulos, he stated that the court could not turn a blind eye due to the existence of section seven of the Charter that gave the Charkaoui case an obedient path. Hence, the cases were not hard since all the rights the defendants had to be provided and protect with to prove their claims were supported by sections seven, ten, eleven, and twelve, which authorities had violated, making the case not hard to crack.
The Oakes test is in two steps. The first, the government reviewed that the instances of the three men were pressing and substantial since they were alleging that they were involved in planning terrorism acts, which put Canadian citizens at risk, making it necessary for the cases to be significant. The second step is the proportionality analysis; the Canadian government established a rationally connected law to the case, which was to issue out security certificates to the detainees before their court trails. The second sub-test under the second stage is minimal impair where the court saw that the government had defied the seventh section of the Charter rights, especially in the Charkaoui case. Lastly, the sub-test of the proportionate effects of the law was examined by the court, which later led to Charkaoui given bail in 2007 after he was detained in 2005.
Question Four
I believe the court acted appropriately since it is in the modern days where everything has to be based on extrinsic evidence. Laws and policies are drafted and implemented by humans who do make mistakes. For any law to be revised or reviewed all evidence, both inte...