In this case (Gosselin vs Quebec) we witness one of the first poverty cases under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to reach the Supreme Court of Canada. Gosselin not only representing herself in this case, but also representing a class of social assistance recipients. Those social assistance recipients below the age of 30 are heavily misunderstood and the majority, stipulates a negative stigma toward those within that class. It is through this evident stereotype we see unpersuasive evidence supporting the majority’s decision, as well as an embracing of this negative stereotype by the majority of the Court. Firstly, we must strongly acknowledge the appeal(s) in question throughout this case; Ms. Gosselin, representing herself and
…show more content…
The first appeal in question here is Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This specific section prohibits certain forms of discrimination perpetrated by governments of Canada with the exception of ameliorative program. After examination of the specific factors the Court found that this did not support a finding of discrimination and/or denial of human dignity. Having to evaluate this case from a “young person” perspective it is quite appalling, as the court says it doesn’t impact human dignity (Brodsky 2004). Receiving social assistance as a young person is not the “young person dream” to say the least, not nowadays , nor back in the 80’s , oftentimes this assistance allows young people to live somewhat sustainably and enable them with enough income to work towards attaining a job , or an education/program that will attain them a job in the future. In the 1980’s the Canadian Economy was going through a deep …show more content…
Therefore, we can examine the deprivation of social assistance to those under 30, not only where they deprived of financial stability , but they were also deprived of economic opportunity as those programs in question were incapable of equally providing all members of that specific class with opportunity for advancement. The court in this case refused to protect this right through inactively securing some 750,000 the right to security. Simply denying the basic means of subsistence based solely on age classification is appalling. It creates a subliminal hierarchy, where the older you are the higher you rank on in regards to social assistance pay scale (Brodsky 2004). This is not a simple means of gaining “seniority” as per described in the workplace, where your dedication to an organization can be recognized through extra-curricular benefits; but instead relies on your years living to determine eligibility. Leaving the question what differentiates the able bodies of a 29
The first appeal in question here is Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This specific section prohibits certain forms of discrimination perpetrated by governments of Canada with the exception of ameliorative program. After examination of the specific factors the Court found that this did not support a finding of discrimination and/or denial of human dignity. Having to evaluate this case from a “young person” perspective it is quite appalling, as the court says it doesn’t impact human dignity (Brodsky 2004). Receiving social assistance as a young person is not the “young person dream” to say the least, not nowadays , nor back in the 80’s , oftentimes this assistance allows young people to live somewhat sustainably and enable them with enough income to work towards attaining a job , or an education/program that will attain them a job in the future. In the 1980’s the Canadian Economy was going through a deep …show more content…
Therefore, we can examine the deprivation of social assistance to those under 30, not only where they deprived of financial stability , but they were also deprived of economic opportunity as those programs in question were incapable of equally providing all members of that specific class with opportunity for advancement. The court in this case refused to protect this right through inactively securing some 750,000 the right to security. Simply denying the basic means of subsistence based solely on age classification is appalling. It creates a subliminal hierarchy, where the older you are the higher you rank on in regards to social assistance pay scale (Brodsky 2004). This is not a simple means of gaining “seniority” as per described in the workplace, where your dedication to an organization can be recognized through extra-curricular benefits; but instead relies on your years living to determine eligibility. Leaving the question what differentiates the able bodies of a 29