Introduction
I will present how the Supreme Court of Canada handles the competition between normative orders. This paper will consist of a brief summary of the case, the decisions of the judges and what drove them to this decision alongside a mixture of Brian Tamanaha’s (author of Understanding Legal Pluralism: Past to Present, Local to Global) point of view concerning this case in an indirect manner. I will also answer three complicated questions concerning this case.
First of all, in order to better understand this case, we will have to have basic knowledge concerning this case. Starting with the appellants, which are the Sikh boy (Gurbaj Singh Multani, in this text will referred to as G) and his father (Balvir Singh Multani, will be refer …show more content…
In this particular situation, LeBel found no evidence that anyone’s safety is at risk, then disregarded the objective for violations of the right since the statues were not required.
Legal pluralism
According to Tamanaha, legal pluralism is a situation where “different bodies of law … operate or overlap within the same social field.” There’s ways to better understand the system of legal pluralism:
Law characteristically claims to rule whatever it addresses, but the fact of legal pluralism challenges this claim.”
From the standpoint of a legal authority trying to consolidate its rule, legal pluralism is a flaw to be rectified. From the standpoint of individuals or groups subject to legal pluralism, it can be a source of uncertainty, but it also creates the possibility of resort to alternative legal regimes.”
“Consolidation of law in the hands of the state was an essential aspect of the state-building process. … Sovereigns and city merchants shared an affinity for the revived Roman law, which envisioned a powerful law-making role for rulers and was more amenable to the needs of commerce than canon [church] law and the uncertain mix of customary
I will present how the Supreme Court of Canada handles the competition between normative orders. This paper will consist of a brief summary of the case, the decisions of the judges and what drove them to this decision alongside a mixture of Brian Tamanaha’s (author of Understanding Legal Pluralism: Past to Present, Local to Global) point of view concerning this case in an indirect manner. I will also answer three complicated questions concerning this case.
First of all, in order to better understand this case, we will have to have basic knowledge concerning this case. Starting with the appellants, which are the Sikh boy (Gurbaj Singh Multani, in this text will referred to as G) and his father (Balvir Singh Multani, will be refer …show more content…
In this particular situation, LeBel found no evidence that anyone’s safety is at risk, then disregarded the objective for violations of the right since the statues were not required.
Legal pluralism
According to Tamanaha, legal pluralism is a situation where “different bodies of law … operate or overlap within the same social field.” There’s ways to better understand the system of legal pluralism:
Law characteristically claims to rule whatever it addresses, but the fact of legal pluralism challenges this claim.”
From the standpoint of a legal authority trying to consolidate its rule, legal pluralism is a flaw to be rectified. From the standpoint of individuals or groups subject to legal pluralism, it can be a source of uncertainty, but it also creates the possibility of resort to alternative legal regimes.”
“Consolidation of law in the hands of the state was an essential aspect of the state-building process. … Sovereigns and city merchants shared an affinity for the revived Roman law, which envisioned a powerful law-making role for rulers and was more amenable to the needs of commerce than canon [church] law and the uncertain mix of customary