# data[].attributes.body
No I do not believe it is ever possible for law to guarantee human rights for everyone simply because law contains bias. Law is chosen and created by people of higher power which is why all laws mainly favour people of high power. For example if 2 people go to court to fight a case and one person has a lot of wealth, the judge and court will favour them because they are most likely to have a stronger support system which puts pressure on the judges and power to make a decision which will make the people happy. Rather than having the people turn on the law. This goes to show how it is impossible for law to guarantee human rights because of minor bias in every law and court room.

-A.B

# data[].attributes.headline
It is not possible to have an unbiased international body to enforce human rights.  This is because every person has their own morals and views on a certain issue.  Due to this, it is impossible for an international body to enforce unbiased human rights laws.  Human rights also differ between multiple countries.  This causes each person to have their own views on what rights people should have.  In conclusion, it is impossible to have an unbiased international body to enforce human rights due to each individual having their own beliefs and each country having different laws regarding human rights.

# data[].attributes.subject
It is not possible to have an unbiased international body to enforce human rights.  This is because every person has their own morals and views on a certain issue.  Due to this, it is impossible for an international body to enforce unbiased human rights laws.  Human rights also differ between multiple countries.  This causes each person to have their own views on what rights people should have.  In conclusion, it is impossible to have an unbiased international body to enforce human rights due to each individual having their own beliefs and each country having different laws regarding human rights.

# data[].attributes.body
-ES

# data[].attributes.headline
It is not possible to have an unbiased international body to enforce human rights.  This is because every person has their own morals and views on a certain issue.  Due to this it is impossible for an international body to enforce unbiased human rights laws.  

# data[].attributes.subject
It is not possible to have an unbiased international body to enforce human rights.  This is because every person has their own morals and views on a certain issue.  Due to this it is impossible for an international body to enforce unbiased human rights laws.  

# data[].attributes.body
It honestly depends on the country and the relation Canada has with that country. Looking at a power point of view, Canada can be seen to be one of the stronger countries and having many allies. If Canada were to intervene with another countries human rights violations that is considered not to have a lot of power, they would have no worries. whereas if it were a stronger country that had military power Canada would have to consider how they would act accordingly without starting disputes that can lead into wars. Now looking at it with a business point of view, it depends on what Canada trades with them, if they could get it from another country, the value of the product and price compared to other countries.

-P.H

# data[].attributes.body
With certainty I can say it is not possible for human rights to be truly met for everyone as it is close to impossible of ever happening. The problems I see start with human nature in my perspective it is inherently mean and selfish so true human freedom and rights are not always given to citizens in order for a government to have more control of them. Another factor to consider is everyone is different and has their own beliefs of what they define as a human right. An example is Canadians believe health care is a right while in the USA healthcare is not widely perceived as being a guaranteed human right. Or in a national emergency a person's human rights can be violated for instance by the War Measures Act or the government using the notwithstanding clause. Since people have different ideas of what their human rights are, people do not want to give others total freedom and the government occasionally needs to restrict or prohibit our human rights therefore, they truly can never be met. -JJ

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that law can never guarantee human rights for everyone because there are many factors to consider while distributing rights. Fulfilling one right may take away another, such as anti-discrimination laws may violate freedom of speech rights. It’s necessary to prioritise and protect the overall good of society in deciding which rights must be given up. The government always have safeguards in place that allows them to overwrite the rights of the people in the cases of an emergency. For instance, in our charter of rights and freedoms, Section 33 allows them to override certain Charter rights. This has been used by the Quebec government to require all commercial signs to be in French only. While this may be a violation of our freedom of expression, some may argue that it was a necessary precaution to protect their culture. As well, the War Measures Act allows the Canadian government to strip us of our rights in times of emergencies such as war, invasion, or insurrection. While the debate for whether these provisions are right or not, the rights of society always trump those of an individual, therefore laws cannot guarantee rights for all.
R.Y.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, sometimes. Canada should not intervene in human rights violations in other countries because questioning their beliefs and values can bring upon bad relationships and have negative affects on Canadian society. An example is getting involved with Saudi Arabia and the way they treat their citizens. Making an enemy out of them could affect relations with the US and Saudi Arabia, affecting our biggest ally and sources of oil.
-M.L

# data[].attributes.body
It is not possible for laws to ever truly guarantee human rights for everyone for numerous reasons. Firstly, who decides who gets the power to create and adjust laws? Every human being has their own biases, and it is nearly impossible to make decisions without such bias playing a role. If the creation of laws is based on a democratic approach, that means that the minority may not always be accounted for. Secondly, laws can be interpreted in many ways, and many laws often contradict one another. The values and beliefs that many individuals posses is a huge factor in how laws a interpreted. Finally, how does a society separate, and communicate, the differences between equity and equality? If laws are made on a completely equal playing field, many needs of the minority groups will not be met. If laws are made on a completely equitable bases,  the government will have to explain that to their citizens (which could potentially lead to some backlash).
-CJ

# data[].attributes.body
No we should not, why should we as Canadians have relations with corrupts countries and societies that completely contradict what us as Canadians stand for? We  might as well drop the relations with the evil corrupt countries and continue to make good peaceful relations with nations that practices good ethical laws. The countries practicing laws that violate human rights would see that they are at a loss for losing a good country on their side and will eventually want to revert their corrupt laws.
-J.C

# data[].attributes.body
Yes because one could argue that Canada getting involved into other countries political situations can be seen as Canada putting their western ideology onto the country and force them to adopt to new chance which in turn could make Canada look like the enemy. The fact of the matter is that our generation weighs the political and economic implications more than human rights. For example, the political situation in Saudi Arabia involving a Saudi journalist is a major human crisis as he was gruesomely murdered. Yet, Canada continued to ignore this and delayed making a response to the situation because of their economic multi million dollar deal with military vehicles.
- K.S

# data[].attributes.body
No it is not possible to guarantee human rights to everyone. It could work, but everyone has their own beliefs and ideas and laws are not always going to guaranteed everyone’s needs. There will always be individuals to have a problem with such laws - R.W

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, In order for positive gains in human rights law, struggle is required for us as humans to evolve or for their to be change. As people, we tend to become better people from learning from our past mistakes and the same goes for humanity. We learn right from wrong as well as what is morally right and wrong. For there to be a drastic change or a positive gain for human rights, humanity must be faced with a significant threat enough to challenge our very existence. With this threat, struggle occurs, and without struggle, there would not be any positive gains in human right laws therefore people would not see a point in human right laws altogether.

-A.G

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, because without struggle, people would see no purpose for the human right to be established in the first place. Countries would dispute the validity of the claim, because it would cost them money to stop the injustice happening inside their country, or to send aid to the country. Human beings are slow to learn and change, but one of the more effective ways to make change happen quickly is for tragedy or struggle to shock a nation or the world.
E. P.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes to on extent, we need to maintain good relationships with other countries for certain resources we don’t have like oil or certain metals. We should mind our own business until the issue gets to big and it needs to be publicly addressed. It is more important to make sure that your country has what it needs rather than making sure a different country is being ran the way you want it to be ran. -JJ

# data[].attributes.headline
Yes, maintaining peaceful relations is more important than getting involved in human rights violations occurring in other countries. As a powerful world leader, we have a lot of influence in international affairs, we are able to speak and negotiate with other world leaders and influence their decisions. If getting involved in one country’s human rights violations could jeopardize our foreign relations, it is not worth it as we could lose our ability to change things on a global scale. It is more important for Canada to have the opportunity to further the world through discussions and meetings with other foreign powers than to try to solve the human rights violations in a singular country.

# data[].attributes.subject
Yes, maintaining peaceful relations is more important than getting involved in human rights violations occurring in other countries. As a powerful world leader, we have a lot of influence in international affairs, we are able to speak and negotiate with other world leaders and influence their decisions. If getting involved in one country’s human rights violations could jeopardize our foreign relations, it is not worth it as we could lose our ability to change things on a global scale. It is more important for Canada to have the opportunity to further the world through discussions and meetings with other foreign powers than to try to solve the human rights violations in a singular country.

# data[].attributes.body
- Shannon

# data[].attributes.body
No. Peaceful relations with corrupt countries should not take precedence to countries where the population is suffering and we can help. Canada and it's people are incredibly fortunate in comparison to other countries with unstable governments and poor living conditions. It is important for us to maintain our empathy and compassion for countries who need our assistance in order to stay aligned with our values. Furthermore, we must stand united in the case of damaged relations with powerful countries who do not share our values.
- Alexi Pariag

# data[].attributes.headline
It is not possible for law to guarantee human rights for everyone as everyone has different needs. In every situation there is a winner and a loser, and in most cases the majority rules. We like to believe we are free, but are we really if others in power are making decisions for us? Yes, we do vote and are able to give our opinion but who decides what the final decision is? Thomas Hobbes' theory suggests that as humans we are content with giving some freedom away in exchange for security, and in a society where rulers have immense power, his theory is pretty spot on. 

# data[].attributes.subject
It is not possible for law to guarantee human rights for everyone as everyone has different needs. In every situation there is a winner and a loser, and in most cases the majority rules. We like to believe we are free, but are we really if others in power are making decisions for us? Yes, we do vote and are able to give our opinion but who decides what the final decision is? Thomas Hobbes' theory suggests that as humans we are content with giving some freedom away in exchange for security, and in a society where rulers have immense power, his theory is pretty spot on. 

# data[].attributes.body
-AA

# data[].attributes.body
No, as Canadians it should be seen as our duty to work to ensure the rights of people everywhere, not just in Canada. It is remarkably sad when a country chooses to put diplomatic relations and/or financial gain over the core rights of human beings. In my opinion, the equal treatment and well being of humanity should be our first priority, and though we may suffer financial losses due to upsetting powerful nations, that is something we must be prepared to endure for the overall interest of humanity.

-Rida

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, in order for us to take action, struggle is necessary. Without a problem to find a solution for, the establishment of laws would be pointless. Laws are put in place to protect people, therefore the threat needs to be known, and as a result lawmakers attempt to avoid future struggles and the repetition of history.

-Sarah

# data[].attributes.body
No.  Even now, the countries seen as "peacekeepers" show bias and refuse to acknowledge their own violations (eg. Canada and its treatment of Natives, Americans... about everything, Britsh colonialism).  In order to create an unbiased enforcing body one would need to create a nation with no self interest or bias and the resources to force human rights regulations on major world superpowers like America, Russia and China.  In conclusion, to make a truly unbiased enforcing body, one would need a nation with no self interest, no reliance on other nations and one of the largest military and economic forces in the world.
-Daniel Lee