Freedom Ride

What new laws or rights of Canadian people were added to the NEW Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom? I am talking about the one that was created with the Constitution Act of 1982.
I read somewhere that when the Constitution Act of 1982 was created, it came with the Amending Formula and a NEW Charter of rights and freedom.
so i want to know what did the new Canadian charter of rights and freedom include that the old one didnt?

The "old" Charter was actually known as the "Canadian Bill of Rights".

Now I’m not 100% certain on this, but I’m fairly sure the subsection 2 in what is now known as Section 15 of the Charter was added…

"(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

Did God think that civil rights and freedom were not important?

Actually there is mention of both in the Bible if you know where to look.

Romans 8:21 – "That nature (creation) itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and corruption [and gain an entrance ] into the glorious freedom of God’s children"

Galatians 5:1 – "In [this] freedom Christ has made us free [ and completely liberated us ] stand fast then, and do not be hampered and ensnared and submit again to a yoke of slavery [ which you have once put off ]

Galatians 5:13 – "For you bretheren, were [ indeed ] called to freedom; only [ do not let ] your freedom be an incentive to flesh and and an opportunity or excuse [ for selfishness ], but through love you should serve one another"

Also: regarding "civil rights": Romans chapter 13 I won’t quote the whole chapter but just give it a read. Christ also said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar and to God’s that is God’s" in all four Gospels.

True freedom is not being able to do totally "as you please". That’s why our society has the problems it does

God clearly favored the Hebrews in their flight from Egyptian slavery. Does he similarly take sides in battles for oppressed peoples denied freedom and human rights when they rise up against oppressive regimes?

Yes. God designed us to be free and endowed us with inalienable rights. Faced with theocratic tyranny or totalitarian communism, people must work for freedom, and sometimes fight for freedom.

Freedom isn’t free. Theocratic tyrants and totalitarian communists are not reasonable people troubled by conscience. They prosper by keeping a foot firmly planted on their victims’ heads.

See Luke’s Parable of the Tenants for an example of how Jesus commended war against a vicious and implacable enemy.

Also: How are the market decisions(production and purchasing of goods) made in this economic system? How would individual rights and freedom be affected if the governmant made all the market decisions?

Please, do your own homework.

Market decisions are based on value. Value is based on choice. Choice is based on freedom.

The 7th amendment,all i know is that it guarantees an accused person of the right to have the trail of jury. I need to know more about this cause i have to present tomorrow as a class project so i need to know five Sentences that explain the freedom or rights protected by this amendment?

The first link gives you some detailed background to how the Amendment has been used, and how it has evolved.

The second link shows how various requirements are met under the Amendment.

And there are a couple of key items in the second law. First, judges cannot overturn the verdict of a jury in the absence of common law provisions. And that, I assume would include jury tampering. And juries are supposed to be impartial.

And when one sees the terms common law, one of the most important ones comes from English common law: innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And affirmed by the US Supreme Court "The law presumes that persons charged with crime are innocent until they are proven by competent evidence to be guilty" in 1895. Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895), was an appellate case before the United States Supreme Court in 1895 which established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes.

But is it directly applicable to the 7th amendment? It has roots in what the jury can be told about regarding their deliberations.

I need a good online record store with decent prices.

I was looking on ebay and they have new limited edition release of that album on red and orange vinyl. the prices are from 35$ and up. there are only like 1000 made so id jump on it or you would have to buy an original and that’s probably harder to find and really really expensive.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/71eef532-bcf6-11e0-bdb1-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1TunOBlFQ
they know the plans for the freedom tower, they are going to break ground in the coming months, will americas tallest building play 2nd or third to the towing monuments in the middle east?

Sorry, I don’t know what a towing monument is.

How is fighting in Vietnam and Iraq protecting Americans back home? There were no Iraqis involved in 9/11 and there are no Vietnamese Islamic terrorist. Also, how is killing innocent people defending freedom? So that’s what Americans mean by freedom, killing innocents? Freedom to kill anyone you want anytime?

That is the line that politicians like Bush used to fool americans into believing they were fighting wars for a valid purpose. If Bush had told the truth he would not have have american support.
Some people will believe anything.

I’ve been having a debate with my friend over this topic, and I was wondering if someone could shed some light on it from a legal perspective.

For example, if you are an online blogger and you post a critical, negative view of a company or brand, is this considered defamation of the company’s character? What if someone writes a blog post about, say, an ex? Where is the line drawn between freedom of speech and defamation of character?

There are several lines. The major one between blogging about a corporation and about an ex is that only one is a "public figure". There is a much greater threshold for public criticism if the entity can count as a public figure, meaning they kind of put themselves in the spotlight. Another line is whether you represent your statements as fact or opinion. An opinion is less likely to be considered defamatory. Also, if it was meant as a joke, then this also goes against being defamatory. Also, if the statements are true then it can’t be defamation.

And to correct one of the other answers, blogging would be considered libel, not slander.

Marketing