Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

Voting for prisoners

http://www.cbc.ca/player/Digital%2BArchives/Politics/Rights%2Band%2BFreedoms/ID/1634524983/

http://www.cbc.ca/player/Digital%2BArchives/Politics/Rights%2Band%2BFreedoms/ID/1634329173/

Canadian charter of rights and freedom

To vote in provincial and federal elections was determined by provincial legislatures and Parliament, respectively. Quebec was the first province to recognize the right of inmates to vote when in the 1979 Quebec Elections Act, voting was permitted by all inmates with the exception of those serving time for violations of the Elections Act. Within three years of this act, Canada adopted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 3 of the Charter states: “every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.” Based on this section, several groups sought the right to vote.

Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General)

Justice Doherty, for the court, held that the sections in the Act providing that only registered parties may have party affiliation listed on the ballot violate the right to vote in s. 3 and are not

justifiable limits to that right under s. 1. The right to vote contains an informational component, and the listing of party affiliation on the ballot is an important piece of information for voters.

The provisions in the Act seek to avoid voters being confused or misled, but it did not follow that

because a political party nominates 49 or fewer candidates that the listing of the party affiliation

on the ballot will mislead or confuse voters.

Canadian charter rights and freedom

Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General)

This right was soon extended to federal judges, and the mentally disabled. After a decision of the Supreme Court that found the total ban on prisoners voting to be unconstitutional, in 1993, the Federal Government passed an amendment to the Canada Elections Act that permitted all inmates serving less than two years to vote.

Justice Doherty, writing for the unanimous court, held that the purpose underlying the right to stand for election in s.3 of the Charter was effective representation. Political parties enhance

effective representation by structuring voter choice, by providing a vehicle for public participation in politics and by giving the voter an opportunity to be involved in the process of choosing the government of the country.

Reasonable people may differ

on the specific measure or number, but the 50-candidate requirement is within the bounds of reasonableness. The court also rejected Mr. Figueroa's argument that the 50-candidate

requirement infringed s. 15 and s. 2(d) of the Charter.

Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General)

Miguel Figueroa is the leader of the Communist Party of Canada ("CPC"). The CPC was a registered party under the Act in the election of 1974, and maintained that status in the elections of 1984 and 1988. The CPC lost its registered party status in the 1993general election because it failed to nominate at least 50 candidates, and it again failed to do so in 1997. Mr. Figueroa commenced an action against the Attorney General of Canada seeking a declaration that several provisions of the Act infringed various sections of the Charter and were therefore of no force and effect.

To be eligible for registration under the Act, a political party must comply with various

requirements, most of which are administrative. The Act also requires that a party must nominate at least 50 candidates in the election to qualify for registration. Benefits available to registered parties include the ability to issue income tax receipts for contributions made to the party at any time; candidates nominated by non-registered political parties can only issue tax receipts for contributions made to the candidate during an election campaign. In addition, the Act provides that only candidates endorsed by registered parties may have their party affiliation listed on the ballot.

Democratic rights

Democratic right: Democratic rights is basically freedom to everything but to follow the rules and regulations of the land, and every institutions and to respect one another.

Democratic Right is important because it defines our basic principles of freedom and justice It basically supports the philosophical idea that everyone is created equal.

Richard sauve.v. Canada and Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General)

Case Analysis

Richard sauve v.canada case

To sum, allowing inmates to vote includes them in responsible law-making processes rather than leaving them having no stake in it thereby extending the separation from society that the offender might already feel.

Richard sauve. v canada case

In the case of Sauvé v The Attorney General of Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and the Solicitor General of Canada, Richard Sauvé, an ex-inmate, challenged the section of the Canada Elections Act that prohibited voting by inmates serving a sentence of two years or more. In this case, the Attorney General of Canada did not dispute that the law infringed upon the right of inmates to vote.

However, the government did argued that denying this right was justifiable under the Charter as it served several purposes best determined by Parliament. Those purposes included the goal of promoting civic responsibility and respect for the law and that denial of the vote was a reasonable punishment in addition to that specified by the court. However, the Supreme Court ruled against the government.

Richard sauve. v canada case

Richard sauve v.canada case

The Supreme Court found that denying a fundamental right is arbitrary because it is applied to all offenders regardless of the circumstances relating to the offender or his/her offense. By definition, blanket punitive measures are arbitrary. Finally, the court said that the negative aspects outweigh the positive benefits that may come from denying this right. According to the court: "Denying inmates the right to vote imposes negative costs on inmates and on the penal system." Denying the right to vote is a blanket punishment. As such, s.51(e) of the Canada Elections Act was not a "proportional response"; therefore, section 1 of the charter would not allow it to discriminate against prisoners.

In sum, Canada’s highest court found that the federal government did not have sufficient reason to deny inmates the right to vote. Voting, like other rights, is not a privilege which government grants to citizens. It is something that citizens agree are fundamental to a democratic society and place substantially beyond the reach of politicians to modify. Accordingly, to limit this right, the government must show that allowing prisoners to exercise this right infringes on the rights of others.

First, the Court found that as voting was a fundamental right in a democracy, any attempt made to restrict that right had to be made on the basis of a compelling reason that met specific legal tests. In particular the restriction had to be justified on the basis of necessity, could not be arbitrary.In dismissing the arguments put forward by the Government, they rejected the argument that denying the vote will help reach the objective of “promoting civic responsibility and respect for the law.” In fact, the Supreme Court found that: ”Denying penitentiary inmates the right to vote is more likely to send messages that undermine respect for the law and democracy than messages that enhance those values. The legitimacy of the law and the obligation to obey the law flow directly from the right of every citizen to vote."

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi