Thursday, December 5, 2019

International Law Alleged Apartment

Question: Discuss about the International Law for Alleged Apartment. Answer: Facts and Proceeding: Ms. Smith Ms. Smith is a senior who has lived in her apartment for the past 30 years. Her lease also includes a locker and a parking spot. Once a pipe burst in her apartment which cause flood in her apartment later on the manager has shifted the Materials and the luggages of Ms Smith to the another locker. He has not informed her about the stealing activities which has happened earlier. As the time passes the luggage and materials of Ms. Smith is got stolen from the locker. As after some months the Insurance Company has provided the compensation money to Ms. Smith for the stolen goods but she estimated that there are missing materials worth $ 30,000. In this case Ms Smith is considering claiming about the stolen Goods so that she can get the estimated amount of money. As per the law Ms. Smith can claim against the theft of the goods from the locker. As this is under the constitution law as per the Canadian constitution and this provides her legal right for the claiming compensation against any kind of theft. If the case goes into trial there might be chances that the court may make a observing committee who will look into the case. As per the law everyone has right to protect and claim of any loss which are under the legal terms. Court after hearing the claim may charge the police to investigate and make assured arrangement for the safety of the properties and catch the thieves. In a latest case a thief has been arrested by the Toronto police who is charged for 56 locker theft cases, in which most of them occurred in residential apartments. One more situation which may arise is the suing the Manager of the Apartment who has not taken enough security measures for the security of the locker room (Constitutional act, 1982) . Ms Smith can file a case on the apartment manager for the miss management and negligence in the security of the good stored in the locker. Every person has right to secure his own property as per the Canadian Civil right. Property is anything that can be owned by a person such as materials and Goods as well. The property damage and thefts carries penalties such as imprisonment or fines and in some cases its both fine and imprisonment. The court generally measures the charges for these acts. As per my view Ms Smith is applicable to claim against the stolen Goods and Court might give a verdict in her favors. Fact and Proceedings: In August, 2015, Jerry Garcia opened, Jolly, Jolly, a video store in Toronto, Ontario. The shop sells and rents hard core" videotapes and magazines as well as sexual paraphernalia. In early September, 2015, Toronto Police entered Jolly Jolly with a search warrant and seized all the inventory. Mr. Garcia was charged with three counts of selling obscene material contrary to s. 163(2)(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, 41 counts of possessing obscene material for the purpose of distribution contrary to s. 163(1)(a) of the Criminal Code , 128 counts of possessing obscene material for the purpose of sale contrary to s. 163(2) (a) of the Criminal Code and one count of exposing obscene material to public view contrary to s. 163(2) (a) of the Criminal Code . Law: The criminal code did not provide a definition of any of the operative terms, Obscene, Indecent, or disgusting. As stated by Charon, the focus on the Corruption of morals was grew up from the English obscenity law which has made the courts as the Guardian of the public law. There are different form of pornography which are considered as Obscene. The subject matter in this case is clearly physical, the films, magazines, written matters which were sexual in nature.. As we know there is nothing bad in vehicle of expression and it also does not fall outside the protected activities by the law. As per the s. 163, it violets the s. 2(b)n of the charter. In he case of Garcia and Jolly Jolly video Gallery. As per the reference of the re: ss.193 and 195.1(1)(c)of criminal code (1990), 56 C.C.C (3d) 66, (1990) S.C.R 1123, 77 C.R. (3d) 1 the prostitution Reference that activities which were observed in the case of Garcia and Jolly Jolly Video Gallery cannot be excluded from the Scope of Guaran teed autonomy on the basis of content and meaning being conveyed. (Martin, 1994) As a judge of the court recognize that the harm which can be caused by the proliferation of the materials which can seriously offend the fundamental values of the society. These materials which is considered as the offended material for the values of the societies moral values. This is considered as a substantial concern for the society and law and it justifies the restricting the otherwise full exercise of the freedom of expression (Adam, 1994). In my view the harm which could happen in the society by the access of the films, magazines and written adult materials can be avoided by proper restriction over these explicit materials. According the view of Anderson, these adult materials generally portrays women as an object of exploitation and submissive which have a negative impact over the society. As a Judge of the Court I conclude that legislation proscribing obscenity is a valid objective which justifies the full expression of freedom, things and materials which can cause harm to t he society as well as to the women and childrens whether from the Films and Magazines should be restricted. Reference: Man facing 56 charges for alleged apartment storage locker thefts; From Martin Adam, 1994, A Sourcebook of Canadian Media Law, Pg- 514-530 Constitution Act, 1982 Waters, .C, 2006, British and Canadian Perspectives on International Law, pg- 90

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.