In R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine, the court held that the terms doctrine is not a normal of fundamental justice for the purposes of Section 7 of the Charter. develop the stultification prescript and the courts reasons for rejecting it. Did the court reach the right decision in holding that the dominance of the Canadian state is not peculiar(a) by the maltreat linguistic rule? Why or why not?In his essay ?On Liberty?, sewer Stuart Mill explains the importance of one?s liberty and gives his fantasy on how society and soulfulnesss should be governed. According to Mills ideas, the case-by-case is responsible for his or her own actions and the government has no right to interpose unless the individuals actions threaten to damage others. This concept is known as the revile ruler. The cases of R. v. Malmo-Levine and R. v. Caine deal with the possession of marihuana and the appellants argue that criminalisation and punishment of possession of marihuana goes against their rights as stated by section 7 in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The appellants deliberate on the harm principle as a principle of fundamental justice and suggest that such criminalization is a violation towards that fundamental principle.
The court reached a decision that the self-confidence of the Canadian state is not limited by the harm principle which is not found to be a principle of fundamental justice. This paper will examine in friendship the two cases, as well as the different positions that were see and will also present my argumentation as to why the court reached the right decision in reje cting the appellant?s claims. Mill begins hi! s essay by expressing a concern with the make up of control that society can exert over an individual?s liberty. Mill is afraid of the the tyranny of the majority1... If you emergency to get a full essay, order it on our website:
OrderCustomPaper.comIf you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment