Limiting rights, Canadian style : the Supreme Court of Canada, American jurisprudence and section 1 of the Charter /

The addition of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms represented a fundamental shift in Canadian governance. Many saw the tabling of such a document as a further, even fmal, step towards the Americanization of the Canadian polity. While the Charter's presence has significantly altered the relationship between citizens, government and the courts, it has done so by maintaining the traditional values and experiences that has been the hallmarks of Canadian constitutionalism. This is in contrast to the fears harboured by critics suggesting that the Charter was a further Americanization of the Canadian Polity, notwithstanding the very different natures of the American Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter. Analyzing American Supreme Court precedent use by the Canadian Supreme Court has demonstrated that such an Americanization has not, in fact, occurred. In the present analysis of American precedent use in section 1 limitation of rights cases, the citation of these precedents are at best episodic, at least on the quantitative level. Qualitatively, the Canadian Supreme Court generally uses American jurisprudence to further support broad definitions of 'great rights' . As for the more intricate details of rights limitations and the process involved in detennining how Charter rights are limited, one would be hard pressed to find even cursory references to American case law.

Naval Occurrences of the Late War Between Great Britain and the United States of America- 1817

Full title is "A Full and Correct Account of the Chief Naval Occurrences of the Late War Between Great Britain and the United States of America; preceded by a Cursory Examination of the American Accounts of their Naval Actions Fought Previous to that Period: to Which is Added an Appendix; with Plates" This is an expanded version of author William James' pamphlet "An Inquiry into the Merits of the Principal Naval Actions between Great Britain and the United States." (Halifax, Nova Scotia, 1816) In this work he discussed how American ships, during the War of 1812, were larger and more heavily armed and manned than those of the British. He therefore, stated that American victories were due only to their greater numerical force and not their superior seamanship. Naval Occurrences is a thorough documentation of the naval operations from the British perspective that addresses contradictions and inconsistencies within the American official documents as well as political and media accounts. This is perhaps his motivation for the words "Corrected Account" within the title. James' sentiments towards the US most likely sprouted from being held prisoner while visiting in 1812. (He was falsely accused of being a renegade seeking revenge on the US.) In 1813, he escaped to Halifax where he began writing on various naval topics. James became one of the leading authorities on British Naval History.

Broadside reporting the Fenian Invasion of Canada, June 2, 1866

The Fenians were a group intent on securing Irish independence from England. The movement had its origins in Ireland in1857, under the leadership of James Stephens, with the assistance of John O'Mahony, an American who had raised funds for the cause. The American branch of this movement was especially successful, having raised $500 000 and enlisting about 10 000 American Civil War veterans. The group split into two separate factions, one desiring an invasion of Canada and the other preferring an uprising in Ireland. It soon became apparent that an uprising in Ireland was not imminent, and a decision was made to invade Canada. In April, 1866, a raid was launched against New Brunswick. It proved unsuccessful, and another raid was attempted on June 1, 1866, this time in Ridgeway, near Fort Erie, Ontario. The Canadian militiamen were defeated, but the Fenians subsequently withdrew. A third incident occurred on June 7, this time at Missisquoi Bay in Quebec, when the Fenians crossed the border, remained there for 2 days, and withdrew. A failed uprising in Ireland in 1867 signaled the demise of the movement. The Fenian threat helped to promote a sense of union among Canadians and provided an incentive for Confederation.

Broadside reporting the Fenian Invasion of Canada, June 2, 1866

The Fenians were a group intent on securing Irish independence from England. The movement had its origins in Ireland in1857, under the leadership of James Stephens, with the assistance of John O'Mahony, an American who had raised funds for the cause. The American branch of this movement was especially successful, having raised $500 000 and enlisting about 10 000 American Civil War veterans. The group split into two separate factions, one desiring an invasion of Canada and the other preferring an uprising in Ireland. It soon became apparent that an uprising in Ireland was not imminent, and a decision was made to invade Canada. In April, 1866, a raid was launched against New Brunswick. It proved unsuccessful, and another raid was attempted on June 1, 1866, this time in Ridgeway, near Fort Erie, Ontario. The Canadian militiamen were defeated, but the Fenians subsequently withdrew. A third incident occurred on June 7, this time at Missisquoi Bay in Quebec, when the Fenians crossed the border, remained there for 2 days, and withdrew. A failed uprising in Ireland in 1867 signaled the demise of the movement. The Fenian threat helped to promote a sense of union among Canadians and provided an incentive for Confederation.

Ethics, tourists and the environmental practices of the North American cruise ship industry: a comparison study of the ethical standards of Alaskan and Caribbean cruise ship tourists

Please consult the paper edition of this thesis to read. It is available on the 5th Floor of the Library at Call Number: Z 9999 R43 S54 2005

Heidegger on the way of thinking

This thesis attempts to clarify what Heidegger meant by the term "thinking" (Denken), where this ^'meanr is submitted in the double sense: firstly, in the sense of what Heidegger intended by the use and exposition of this term that we find in his lecture series. Was Heisst Denken?, where Heidegger quickly makes it clear that this intention is to actually bring thinking on the way, viz. making provision for the leap into thinking, and where this intention was carried out with the employment of a specific guiding phrase. In the second sense, it is an attempt at clarifying the meaning of the term. But this is not to say that we are here simply out to see how Heidegger defines the word '*thinking." It is in fact precisely within such definitive discourse that thought dies out. It is not merely be a case of defining a word, because this enterprise would be just as shallow as much as it would be unworkable. It is for this reason that Heidegger decided to establish for himself the task, not merely of explaining thinking as something to be beheld at a distance, but rather of bringing thinking underway by means of his lecture, proclaiming that, "Only the leap into the river tells us what is swimming. The question 'What is called thinking?' can never be answered by proposing a definition of the concept thinking, and then diligently explaining what is contained in that definition." (WCT, 21) This being Heidegger's intention, in order to understand Heidegger in his treatment of the term thinking, it is clear that we must also undergo an experience with thinking. It is in this spirit that the present work was written so as to collaborate the two senses of what Heidegger meant by "thinking."

Correspondence between the American and British Plentipotentiaries relative to the commercial convention concluded on the 3rd of July, 1815.--

January 16, 1816.

Message from the President of the United States, transmitting of a report of the Secretary of State, in relation to individuals selected from American prisoners of war, and sent to Great Britain for trial, and also in relation to any orders for retaliation, &c., &c.--

April 16, 1814. Printed by order of the Senate of the United States.

Why are we still at war? : or, The American question considered ; in a series of essays rejected by the journalists as unpopular ; recommended to a candid perusal /

In the Pamphleteer, vol. 4, p. 551-576. London, 1814.

Correspondence between the American and British Plentipotentiaries relative to the commercial convention concluded on the 3rd of July, 1815

January 16, 1816. Printed by order of the House of Representatives. 14th Congress, 1st Session, 1815-1816. House. At head of title: [27].

A report of the Secretary of State, in relation to individuals selected from American prisoners of war, and sent to Great Britain for trial, and also in relation to any orders for retaliation

Printed by Roger C. Weightman