Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Wednesday, March 23, 2011 - R. v. Malow Levine, R. v. Cane...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
R. v. Malow Levine, R. v. Cane - do you have the right to have personal amounts of marijuana - violates liberty rights under section 7 of the charter - Cane said that it was the possibility of imprisonment that violates his section 7 rights - ML argued that the criminalization that was central to his chosen lifestyle was against his liberty Background and Case Facts: - section 7: everyone has 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 - limitations built into it: whatever principles that courts recognize as the principles of fundamental justice - the rights are not violated if they are in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice ... - what this means is that a right like section 7, is also limited by reasonable limits that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society - the rights in section 7 are never absolute - Cane wanted to show this - since posessing marijuana for personal use does not harm others, attatching imprisonment to this offence inteferes my liberty which is not accordance with the PFJ - is the harm principle recognized as PFJ or not? - while Levine was trying to use Mills appeals to positive liberty, this is the kind of liberty interest that s.7 protects - he tries to argue that smoking weed wasn’t crazy, but it was a way he lived his life and was central to his lifestyle - what does it mean to be an individual person? what choices go into the core of what it means to be an individual - smoking weed however was not protected as one of these choices because they seem to characterize the smoking of marijuana in a certain way, likening it to golf, gambling, fatty foods - in a trivial recreational way - however, its not something that is trivial to a marijuana freedom fighter and is important to him in living an individual life - individuals are the only arbiters to what constitutes their own lifestyle - is this deprivation of your liberty (imprisonment) in accordance with the PFJ or not? with this, we need to
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 11/18/2011 for the course PHL 271H1 taught by Professor Professormoreau during the Spring '11 term at University of Toronto.

Page1 / 3

Wednesday, March 23, 2011 - R. v. Malow Levine, R. v. Cane...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online