HISTORY OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN CANADA

WHAT ARE HUMAN RIGHTS?human rights a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person

• Basic Rights and Freedoms• Everyone is entitled• Universal• Inalienable• Indivisible• Interdependent

equality the state of being equal in status, rights and opportunities

KEY TERMS: HUMAN RIGHTS

Human Rights:• Include right to fair and equitable treatment in society• Ensure everyone has access to basic needs

• Violations against human Rights are perpetuated by:

• Stereotypes• Prejudice• Discrimination

HISTORICAL INFLUENCES ON HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION IN CANADA

History of Human Rights Clip:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh3BbLk5UIQ

Noteworthy Documents: • 1215 – Magna Carta (England)• 1689 – English Bill of Rights (England)• 1776 – Declaration of Independence (U.S.)• 1789 – Declaration of Rights of Man (France)• 1833 – Emancipation Act (Britain)

IMPACT OF WWII

• 60 million people killed between 1939-45

• major human rights violations against Jewish people, minorities, people with disabilities, and dissenters of the government

• Resulted in the creation of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

• By signing Declaration – country commits itself to protecting the rights of its citizens and ALL human beings globally

UDHR

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes protection of:• Legal rights• Equality rights• Economic rights• Social rights• Cultural rights• Fundamental Freedoms

• Clip ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36CUlaqmFi4

YOUR UNIVERSAL RIGHTS

Marry

Nationality

EducationSocial Order

Have KidsInnocenceWork

Food

Think

Speech

Religion

Property

MovementPress

InvolvementJustice

Freedom

Law

A TIMELINE OF CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS

• 1960: Canada’s Bill of Rights, introduced by John• Diefenbaker, was passed in Canada’s Parliament.• 1962: Ontario's Human Rights Code was enacted

by the Ontario Legislative Assembly.• 1978: The Canadian Human Rights Act was

passed in Canadian Parliament.• 1982: Pierre Elliot Trudeau entrenched the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms into the Constitution Act.

BEFORE 1960, HUMAN RIGHTS WERE DEFENDED ONLY BY CASE

LAW!

THE CASE OF FRED CHRISTIE

• Montreal, Québec• July 11th, 1936• Christie v. York [1940] S.C.R. 139 (Note: York

Corp. owned the Montreal Forum)• Home of “Les Canadiens” and a shrine in the

world• of hockey, the Montreal forum has stood witness

to• many momentous events. If its hallowed halls

could• speak, they would tell stories of great victories,• fierce pride, and… blatant discrimination!

THE STORY BEGINS WITH FRED CHRISTIE…

• A Canadiens fan for years, Fred worked hard as a private chauffeur to be able to afford his season tickets.

• Like many fans, he liked to watch Maurice “The Rocket” Richard play and then go to a tavern with some friends to dissect the game.

THE FACTS…

• On the evening of July 11th, 1936, Fred and some friends visited the Forum’s tavern.

• Fred put 50 cents on the table and ordered 3 steins of beer.

• The barman refused to serve him.

• The barman and the assistant manager explained that the “house rules” prohibited serving a “negro” (Fred's preferred identifier).

FRED’S ARGUMENTS…

• Fred argued that the “house rules” were not fair and that he and his friends expected to be served like everyone else.

• His pleas fell on deaf ears and so Fred called the police - without avail.

• Humiliated and defeated, Fred and his friends went home.

• Unable to stomach discrimination, Fred Christie sued the tavern for $200 in damages for the pain and suffering of being humiliated in front of so many people.

CAN YOU GUESS WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

FRED WON HIS CASE!

• The judge awarded him $25 and ordered the tavern to pay his court costs.

• As part of his decision, the judge referred to s. 33 of the Québec Licence Act, which stipulates: “No licensee for a restaurant may refuse without reasonable cause, to give food to travellers.”

• The judge deemed that the law had indeed been broken and gave Fred his due.

HOWEVER, THE TAVERN APPEALED!

• The tavern argued that as a private business it could do what it pleased in order to protect its commercial interests.

• The Court of King's Bench agreed and dismissed Fred's action.

• Undaunted, Fred took his case to the Supreme Court of Canada.

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECEMBER 9, 1939

• The Supreme Court ruled that the general principle of the law in Québec is complete freedom of business.

• As long as a merchant did not break the law, he or she was free to refuse any member of the public on any grounds.

• Only 1 judge out of the 5 dissented.

WHAT ABOUT S. 33 OF THEQUÉBEC LICENCE ACT?

• The Supreme Court ruled that S. 33 did not apply because Fred, being from Montreal and looking only to have a beer, was neither “traveller” nor was he “seeking food.”

• The Court was unapologetic.• Shockingly, it added that businesses could set

rules unless they violated laws or ran “contrary to good morals or public order.”

• Apparently, the Supreme Court of Canada - in 1940 - did not judge the “no service for coloreds” rule to be “contrary to good morals or public order.”

DISSENTING OPINION…

• It is interesting to note that the dissenting judge, Justice Davis, argued that the tavern has a public license to serve liquor therefore, it cannot refuse to serve a member of the public strictly because of the colour of his skin. (Isn’t it sad how the courts can focus on commerce and licensing technicalities but avoid questions of right or wrong?)

• In short, Fred Christie never got his beer and the Supreme Court of Canada made it clear that, in 1940, discrimination and racism were not contrary to “good morals.”

QUOTABLE QUOTE…

“It appears from the evidence that, in refusing to sell beer to the appellant, the respondent's employees did so quietly, politely and without causing any scene or commotion whatever. If any notice was attracted to the appellant on the occasion in question, it arose out of the fact that the appellant persisted in demanding beer after he had been so refused and went to the length of calling the police, which was entirely unwarranted by the circumstances.”

Justice Rinfret Supreme Court of Canada

CASE LAW

• Case law is sometimes described as “Driving by looking in the rearview mirror.”

• Case law only provides precedents that were established in the past – based on historical or traditional values.

• Precedents do not necessarily reflect current social attitudes.

THE CASE OF WILBERT COFFIN

Bordeaux Jail; Montreal, QuébecFebruary 10, 1956R. v. Coffin, 114 C.C.C. 1, [1956] S.C.R. 191

• February 10th, 1956 was a cold day in Montreal.

• At the Bordeau Jail, a death flag flew and a chime sounded seven times announcing that a man was about to die. That man was Wilbert Coffin.

BACKGROUND• Wilbert Coffin was a mining prospector and experienced

woodsman from York Centre, in the County of Gaspé, Québec.

• The unspoiled wilderness of the Gaspé region made it a popular spot for American outdoorsmen.

• Three such outdoorsmen arrived from Pennsylvania in 1953. They never returned home.

• Their bodies were found in a forest. They had been murdered.

• The last person to have seen any of them alive was Wilbert Coffin.

THE FACTS…• Wilbert Coffin had been seen with the youngest of the three

Americans at a gas station.

• He had purchased a pump to repair the pickup truck the Americans were driving.

• The case proved to be complicated without an eye witness, the prosecution had to rely heavily on circumstantial evidence.

• After much deliberation, the jury found Wilbert Coffin guilty of murdering one of the hunters.

• The mandatory sentence was death by hanging.

APPEALS FAILED…

• The sentence was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

• There, a majority of justices affirmed the judgments of the lower courts.

• Wilbert Coffin was again found guilty, and returned to Bordeaux Jail in Montreal to await his execution.

MANY WERE UPSET BY THE RULING

• Increasingly, Canadians questioned the death penalty. One of the best arguments against the death penalty has always been the possibility of error. (For example, Canadians such as Donald Marshall, David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin were all found guilty of charges whose penalties would have been death. They were all later proven innocent and released.)

• The argument against the death penalty eventually won Canadians over and the practice was abolished in 1976.

• Sadly, this came to late for Wilbert Coffin.

THE UNFORTUNATE END…

• Despite his appeals for clemency and his claims of innocence, Wilbert Coffin was executed on February 10, 1956.

• If Wilbert Coffin was innocent, it is a mistake that can never be corrected.

iMAGINE

LENNON’S IMAGINE

• Lennon was asking us to imagine a place where things that divide people (religion, possessions, cultures, countries etc.) did not exist.

• Aim for peace, its easy if you try.• It isn’t equal if its sometimes

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwUGSYDKUxU#aid=P-RzTTklFbk

HOMEWORK

• Read pages 158-67 of your textbook and answer the following questions:

• Q`s 1, 2, and 5 on top of page 159• Q`s 1-5 on page 167