Right to privacy, search for terroirsts or breach of charter rights?

Question

The story goes: The Toronto Subway receives intelligence fr. Canada's spy agency that some terrorist dudes are planning to explode a bomb during rush hr. the agency gives specific time and says that the info is "reliable" but declines to provide more info. So the subway ppl and the police pick subjects @ random at every train station and expose them to bag and body searchese. a disproportionate # of young Muslim men and women are targeted. some are forced into a specialized search rooms while others are patted won alongside the track. in teh sosck of one of the search target the police finds a cellophone bag containing crack cocaine.

So, does the police violate the right to privacy of these targeted people?
p.s. it is a law homework and concerns about right to privacy and breach of charter. these are serious stuff and i am on the fence right now. man, i need help!

Answer 1

First, look at the possible sections that of the Charter that this could violate:
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. (muslims being detained is cruel and unusual as it is racial discrimination)

15. (a) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (discriminated based on race)

There are four clear Charter violations in this scenario, however there is one clause that could make all of this irrelevant. That is section one of the Charter; reasonable limits clause:
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

What has to be determined is whether a potential "threat" is a reasonable limit on the rights listed above. The problem in this case however is that there is no clear person, and searches are random which means it DOES violate every single person's rights who was detained. This means that even if the case with the cocaine goes to court, it will be dismissed because proper protocol was not followed, meaning constitutional rights were violated, which overrules common or case law, which the man would be charged under.

Answer 2

I cannot understand this at all, how did the human rights act be allowed to protect the criminal but let innocent people suffer. I don;t believe in the death penalty but he should stay locked up for good, he murdered 13 women, and harmed countless more, what does that say about the justice system in this country is he is ever allowed out. If he was i hope that he goes out and gets killed by the families of those he so disgustingly killed. A lowlife and using the system for his own ends. As to the person who says yes he has human rights, bo llocks, he lost those the moment he took the first woman's life.

Answer 3

I could answer using US law -- but that doesn't help.

The basic issue is when the govt may violate its own laws -- and what threshold of necessity must be proven. In the US, the analysis is how important is the govt goal/interests and how closely the law/policy (violation) is matched to achieving that goal -- and whether it is over inclusive (affects too many innocents) or under-inclusive (doesn't catch enough guilty).

The analysis would be the same --- though I don't know the terms your legal system uses.

Answer 4

There were actual cases in the U.S. involving searches at airports of airline passengers in which some of the same issues arose. The search and seizure laws of the U.S. and Canada are both based on English common law, so you might find some useful precedents from the U.S.

Answer 5

The only violation here I can find is your use of English grammar.

I'll try to ignore it.

If the police picked people "at random" then how could it be ""disproportionate"?