Instructions
This worksheet compares how fundamental human rights were systematically removed in 1930s Europe with how rights are protected and 'entrenched' in modern Canada through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (CCRF). Read each section carefully and answer the questions.
- Complete the historical analysis section by matching the systematic steps of rights removal.
- Analyze the concept of 'entrenchment' by filling out the comparison table.
- Apply your knowledge to a modern civic scenario.
- Attempt the Challenge Question for advanced reflection.
Section 1: The Systematic Removal of Rights (1930s Historical Context)
In Nazi Germany, rights were not taken away all at once; they were removed systematically through legislation and decrees. Match the historical step (A-D) with its primary legal function (1-4).
| Historical Step | Legal Function | Match (A-D) | Explanation of Function |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Nuremberg Laws (1935) | 1. Immediate Legal Crackdown: Suspended basic rights like freedom of assembly and press, allowing unlimited arrests. | ||
| B. Boycotts of Jewish Businesses (1933) | 2. Economic Exclusion: Began separating a minority group from the national economy. | ||
| C. Decree for the Protection of People and State (1933) | 3. Biological/Racial Separation: Defined citizenship based on blood, criminalizing marriage and relationships. | ||
| D. Requirement to Wear the Yellow Star | 4. Physical Identification/Isolation: Made victims publicly visible, preparing the population for further removal of rights. |
Short Answer
- Based on the matches above, which historical step demonstrates how a government can use emergency powers to legally destroy basic individual freedoms (like free speech)?
Section 2: Entrenched Rights – The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Unlike ordinary laws (which can be changed easily by a simple majority vote in Parliament), the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is entrenched in the Constitution. This means it is much harder to change or override, providing greater protection against government overreach.
Complete the table below by contrasting the nature of an Ordinary Law versus an Entrenched Constitutional Right. An example is provided.
| Feature | Ordinary Law (e.g., Traffic Law, Tax Rate) | Entrenched Constitutional Right (e.g., CCRF) |
|---|---|---|
| Example | The speed limit on Highway 401 is 100 km/h. | Section 2(b): Freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression. |
| Difficulty of Change | Can be changed by a simple majority vote in Parliament/Legislature. | Requires agreement from Parliament and 2/3 of the provinces representing 50% of the population (Section 38). |
| Protection Against Government | The government creates the law; the law is the rule. | Limits the power of the government; the citizen can sue the government if their right is infringed. |
| Vulnerability to Crisis | ||
| Focus of the Law |
Section 3: Scenario Application
Case Study: The Curfew Bylaw
The City Council of Maplewood passes a new bylaw stating that, due to security concerns, all residents must be inside their homes between 11:00 PM and 5:00 AM. Failure to comply results in a fine or 24 hours of detention. A student, Alex, believes this violates fundamental freedoms.
-
Which section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would Alex most likely use to challenge the Curfew Bylaw? (Circle the best option)
A. Mobility Rights (Section 6) B. Legal Rights (Section 7) C. Democratic Rights (Section 3)
-
Explain why the selected Charter section (A, B, or C) provides strong protection against the government creating the Curfew Bylaw.
- If this were simply an ordinary law (not protected by a Charter), how would the process of fighting this bylaw be different? (Hint: Consider who has the power.)
Section 4: Challenge and Extension
The Notwithstanding Clause (Section 33)
Canada's Charter is highly protective, but Section 33 (the 'notwithstanding' or 'override' clause) allows Parliament or a provincial legislature to temporarily declare that a new law will operate notwithstanding (in spite of) certain sections of the Charter (like Fundamental Freedoms or Legal Rights). This override lasts for five years but can be renewed.
Question: Why do constitutional scholars argue that the existence of the Notwithstanding Clause, while controversial, proves that the Charter itself is truly entrenched?
Answer Key
Section 1: The Systematic Removal of Rights (1930s Historical Context)
| Historical Step | Legal Function | Match (A-D) | Explanation of Function |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Nuremberg Laws (1935) | 3. Biological/Racial Separation: Defined citizenship based on blood, criminalizing marriage and relationships. | C | |
| B. Boycotts of Jewish Businesses (1933) | 2. Economic Exclusion: Began separating a minority group from the national economy. | B | |
| C. Decree for the Protection of People and State (1933) | 1. Immediate Legal Crackdown: Suspended basic rights like freedom of assembly and press, allowing unlimited arrests. | A | |
| D. Requirement to Wear the Yellow Star | 4. Physical Identification/Isolation: Made victims publicly visible, preparing the population for further removal of rights. | D |
- Answer: The Decree for the Protection of People and State (1933). This decree suspended crucial fundamental freedoms, allowing the government to act without legal checks, similar to declaring a state of emergency.
Section 2: Entrenched Rights – The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
| Feature | Ordinary Law (e.g., Traffic Law, Tax Rate) | Entrenched Constitutional Right (e.g., CCRF) |
|---|---|---|
| Example | The speed limit on Highway 401 is 100 km/h. | Section 2(b): Freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression. |
| Difficulty of Change | Can be changed by a simple majority vote in Parliament/Legislature. | Requires agreement from Parliament and 2/3 of the provinces representing 50% of the population (Section 38). |
| Protection Against Government | The government creates the law; the law is the rule. | Limits the power of the government; the citizen can sue the government if their right is infringed. |
| Vulnerability to Crisis | Easily suspended or changed by Parliament during a declared crisis. | Requires significant political consensus or the use of Section 33 (Notwithstanding Clause) to override. |
| Focus of the Law | Regulates public behavior and sets government policy goals (e.g., funding, infrastructure). | Protects individual liberties and minority interests from the power of the majority government. |
Section 3: Scenario Application
-
Answer: B. Legal Rights (Section 7)
-
Explanation: Section 7 guarantees the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Being forced to stay inside and face detention/fines infringes on the right to liberty and security of the person. The government would have to prove the bylaw meets the principles of fundamental justice—a very high legal bar.
-
Difference: If it were just an ordinary law, the public would have to convince City Council to repeal it. If the Council refused, citizens would have few legal options. Because it is protected by the Charter, citizens can go to court, and a judge has the authority to strike down the law as unconstitutional, regardless of what the City Council wants.
Section 4: Challenge and Extension
Answer: The Notwithstanding Clause proves the Charter is entrenched because the government must explicitly and publicly invoke a seldom-used, controversial constitutional mechanism (Section 33) to temporarily avoid the Charter's protections. If the Charter were merely an ordinary law, the government could simply pass the conflicting law without needing a special override clause or public scrutiny.