This is the minds on icon.

Look at the images below and read the captions below each.

This is an image of a woman wearing a bikini. She is getting a ticket from a police officer because she is wearing clothing that is immodest.

This Italian police officer is giving the woman a ticket for dressing immodestly. The photo was taken in 1957.

ullstien bild, via akg-images in “From Bikinis to Burkinis: regulating what women wear”, The New York Times

This is an image of a woman on a beach in France being asked to take off her tunic by French police officers. There are other citizens in the background.

A woman is asked to remove her tunic and head covering because her dress is considered disruptive to the public order and in conflict with the public morality of France. She was fined and asked to leave the beach.

BestImage in “From Bikinis to Burkinis: regulating what women wear”, The New York Times

What do you think?

People around the world had much to say when these photos hit the media in the summer of 2016. They wondered:

  • “How have things changed so much?”
  • “Is this about politics, morality, religion or gender?”
  • “Why is one country reacting in this particular way, while others are approaching the presence of diverse populations differently?”
  • “If this were a nun, a skin cancer sufferer, a man or a student in a school uniform, would the same rule apply?”
  • “What were the other people on the beach thinking? What is not in the picture?”

Long Description

This is the discussion icon. What Women Wear 3-2-1

Choose one of the articles below: Read your article. 

Think: Identify three things that you learned, two questions that you have and one opinion about the material presented. Be sure to keep a legal focus. Use supporting points and specific reference to the texts in your discussion. Remember to take the initiative to check the meaning of any unfamiliar words. Please feel free to read more than one article. They are quite interesting and present distinct ideas.

Article 1

Article 2

Article 3

This is a screen capture of the link.

Article 4

This is the action icon.

The burkini debate illustrates the different values and perspectives that shape laws in different countries. Each country is sovereign; they have the right to make laws and apply them within their jurisdiction. When travelling or working in a country, it is your responsibility to abide by their laws. A state can hold you accountable by law even if you are a national of another country. You can see that this might cause conflict.

Ask yourself: What measures are in place to promote cooperation and reduce conflict?

One way to promote cooperation are bilateral agreements between countries known as extradition treaties. Each state must enter into separate agreements with other states to establish rules. Imagine a person commits a crime in country A, then flees to country B. Country A will want to hold the individual accountable in a court. If the two nations have an agreement then country B can extradite; or send back, the individual to country A to stand trial. In many cases, this makes sense as the state with jurisdiction has a clear interest in the case and the case evidence is easily available. There are some exceptions however. Click on each of the boxes below to learn more.

This means involving two parties, usually countries.

Some countries refuse to send back an accused and prosecute on their own. Sometimes it is to protect the individual accused or because there is political tension between the nations.
This is challenging because political offences are not defined in law. In Canada, as in many countries, it is a fundamental freedom to express your opinion, even if that opinion criticizes the government. One country may have concerns about the fairness and independence of the court in the other country.
A country will likely refuse to extradite an individual if he or she has already been prosecuted, imprisoned or sentenced by the requesting state.
The offence must be defined by law in each of the countries. Though the language does not have to be identical, the crime itself must be similar. The act for which the person is accused must be illegal in both countries.

Many countries refuse to extradite to countries that may use capital punishment if the verdict is guilty. An agreement between the nations can be made to omit the death penalty from sentencing options. Canada does not extradite people to countries with the death penalty. Torture cannot be used by the requesting state.

Extradition explained is a quick video that might help you to understand the principle of extradition.

Let’s look at two cases:

A recent Canadian case garnered the attention of the media. A young British Columbia teen named Amanda Todd was the victim of an online predator. He exploited and blackmailed her until she felt compelled to take her own life. She faced terrible harassment. This pertains to extradition because the man was a citizen of another nation. He had harmed girls in other countries also. In this case, he is charged with crimes in his own nation and then he is supposed to be extradited to Canada. Watch this news clip about how a Man accused of cyberbullying Amanda Todd can be extradited.

This is a screen capture of the link.

Another important case was United States v Burns.

Please read the article Whatever Happened To…U.S. v. Burns: Extradition and the Death Penalty by Peter Bowal and Preet Saini.

Diplomatic immunity is another old custom under international law. In 1961 the law was codified in a formal agreement known as the Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations, 1961. Under diplomatic immunity, a foreign national is protected from criminal and civil liability.

This quick video "Diplomatic Immunity Explained" helps to explain the history and principles of diplomatic immunity.

In most cases, diplomatic immunity is a practice that works effectively; it promotes cooperation among states and can avoid or resolve disputes. There are criticisms of the practice however. Please read the following article:

This is the consolidation icon.

Take some time to look at the map and the infographic below. The map illustrates the legal status of the death penalties in various countries around the world. The infographic uses data in a different way. What do you notice?

This is a screen capture of the link.

Ask yourself:

  • What reasons can you suggest for the different use of capital punishment among countries?
  • What can I learn about the issue of the death penalty from these sources?
  • Who is the intended audience for each of the visuals? How do you know?
  • Can you draw any conclusions? Do any questions come to mind?

test text.