Focus Question #2: How does the charter affect lawmaking in Canada? Consider one issue that impacts human rights in Canada. Should the Canadian government: - restrict certain people from travelling by air for security reasons? (p 107-8) ban junk food ads that are directed towards children? (p. 109) do something that is currently an issue that you have seen in the media? Should the Canadian government __ square Yes: facts, views perspectives square disappointed decision? What people/groups might be My Position

Focus Question #2: How does the Charter affect lawmaking in Canada?<br /><br />The Charter significantly affects lawmaking in Canada by acting as a benchmark against which all laws are measured. Any new law or amendment to an existing law must be consistent with the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter. If a law infringes upon a Charter right, it can be challenged in court and potentially struck down as unconstitutional. This process of judicial review ensures that Parliament and provincial legislatures respect the Charter's principles. The Charter also influences the drafting of legislation, as lawmakers must anticipate potential Charter challenges and ensure their proposals comply with its provisions.<br /><br />Consider one issue that impacts human rights in Canada: **Should the Canadian government ban junk food ads that are directed towards children?**<br /><br />**Should the Canadian government ban junk food ads directed at children?**<br /><br />**Yes:**<br /><br />* **Facts:** Childhood obesity rates are a significant health concern in Canada. Studies have shown a correlation between exposure to junk food advertising and unhealthy eating habits in children. Children are a particularly vulnerable demographic, as they are less equipped to critically evaluate advertising messages and understand the long-term health implications of consuming junk food. Restricting advertising aimed at this group could contribute to healthier eating habits and reduce the prevalence of obesity and related health problems.<br />* **Views/Perspectives:** Health advocates and organizations argue that a ban is necessary to protect children's health. They emphasize the manipulative nature of advertising targeted at young audiences and the negative impact on their dietary choices. Some parents also support a ban, believing it would make it easier to promote healthy eating within their families.<br />* **My Position:** I believe the Canadian government should ban junk food ads directed at children. The potential benefits to children's health and well-being outweigh the arguments against such a ban. While freedom of expression is important, it should not come at the expense of children's health.<br /><br />**No:**<br /><br />* **Facts:** Some argue that a ban would infringe on freedom of expression and the right of businesses to advertise their products. They may also argue that parents have the primary responsibility for their children's diets and that a ban would be an overreach of government authority. Furthermore, the effectiveness of such a ban in reducing childhood obesity is debatable, as children are exposed to junk food through various channels beyond advertising.<br />* **Views/Perspectives:** Businesses in the food and advertising industries may oppose a ban, arguing it would negatively impact their profits and limit their ability to reach consumers. Some individuals may also argue that a ban is unnecessary and that education and parental guidance are more effective solutions.<br />* **What people/groups might be disappointed with this decision?** Food and advertising industries would likely be disappointed, as would those who believe in minimal government intervention.<br /><br />**How does the Charter affect this decision?**<br /><br />The Charter guarantees freedom of expression, which protects commercial speech like advertising. However, this right is not absolute and can be limited if the government can demonstrate that the limitation is justified in a free and democratic society. A ban on junk food advertising directed at children could be challenged under the Charter's freedom of expression guarantee. The government would need to demonstrate that the ban is a reasonable and demonstrably justified measure to protect children's health. The courts would then weigh the competing interests of freedom of expression and public health to determine whether the ban is constitutional.<br />