大家
[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    郭国汀律师专栏
[主页]->[大家]->[郭国汀律师专栏]->[The Arguments For and Against the Notwithstanding Clause]
郭国汀律师专栏
·《我的二十年律师生涯》(5):山重水复
·《我的二十年律师生涯》(6):我的中国心
·郭国汀坎坷律师路(8):不得不说的故事──精神病患者
·郭国汀坎坷律师路(7):知青岁月
·郭国汀坎坷律师路(9):孤独的长跑者
·郭国汀坎坷律师路(10):为法治而战
·郭国汀坎坷律师路(11):冤杀的「恶霸」
·郭国汀坎坷律师路(12):哲思飞天
·郭国汀坎坷律师路(13):我的精神病院生涯真相
·《我的二十年律师生涯》—与《中国律师网》网友们的对话
·New York Time A Mild Shanghai Lawyer and His Accidental Crusade
·Guoting(Thomas) Guo's Resume
·A Chinese Human Right lawyer’s story by Guo Guoting
·My life mission , to help my country to set up the true rule of law. By Guo Guoting
·New York Judge interview with Thomas G.Guo( Guo Guoting)
·China Human Right report 2005
·Is there human rights in China?
·Thomasguo 's speech on the searching Justice conference
·My Human Rights Lawyer’s Career (Profile)
·Index of Guo’s on Articles and Activity of Human Rights
·rticles written by and about Guo Guoting and International Report links
·Index of Guo’s works and articles on advocating freedom, human rights, democracy
·A Mild Shanghai Lawyer and His Accidental Crusade
·郭国汀从最佳海事律师到人权律师 【人物】
***政治学研究
·政治的基本概念
·正义的学说
·正义的第一原则:政治权力的合法性
·正义概念的进化与发展
·人民反抗暴政的革命权利
·当代世界政治现状
·独裁专权(即威权)与独裁统治及极权暴政
·政治权力的限制与平衡原理
·政治文化与政治
·什么是政治形态
·民主法治及权力
·True meaning of the Republicanism
·Judicial Independence and Canadian Judges
·如何制约流氓暴君下屠杀令扑灭宪政民主大革命?
·关于成立临时或流亡政府我的原则与立场
·公平游戏规则公平竞争是第一价值原则
·中国民主运动要不要遵守公平游戏规则?
·中国民运长期四分五裂的根源何在?
·郭国汀:唯有程序正义才能根治中国民运四分五裂顽症
·民运内部必须是平等尊重基础上充分争论协商妥协式的真诚合作
·自私是否人的本性?
·暴君与暴政
·暴力革命与和平演变的前提与条件
·关于暴力革命答深山质疑
·勇敢地参政议政吧!中国律师们!/郭国汀
·语言风格——关于袁红冰改良还是革命的争论
·就袁红冰之《改良还是革命》与申先生的论战/郭国汀
·英雄人格哲学—袁红冰《自由在落日中》读后
·划时代的政论——简评袁红冰《改良,还是革命?》
·为什么袁红冰之《改良,还是革命?》是划时代的政论?
·再论政治案低调消音妥协辩护论的严重危害性
·再论政治案件低调消音妥协辩护论的危害性引起争论
·政治案辩护律师的最佳策略
·驳政治肮脏论
·文字狱与极权专制体制
·暴政与人种的优劣/新南郭
·虚伪是极权专制的必然付产品
·极权专制政体与思想家
·最暴虐无道的政府!/南郭
·郭国汀:歌功颂德或批评批判?
·判断一个政权合法性的公认标准
·判断政府合法性的普世公认标准 郭国汀
·中国律师理所应当关心政治 郭国汀
·政治体制的根本问题
·中国的前途在于专制改良还是政治民主革命?
·西方现代政治民主的基本要件
·郭国汀: 政府无权杀人!
·政府绝对无权武力镇压(屠杀)和平集会示威游行或罢工的公民
·国民有权推翻暴力镇压(屠杀)和平抗议民众的任何政府
·中国历史上不存在极权
·民主政治的终极目标是自由——答尼采黄昏君的质疑/南郭
·极权专制独裁者与知识分子
·与网友谈论民主政治与政权合法性
·政府不得滥杀和平请愿公民的最新国际公约
·中共极权专制暴政祸国殃民绝对乏善可陈
·郭律师评价中国律师诉讼及司法体制现状
***(40)宪政研究
·什么是宪政?
·什么是共和?
·宪政的实质
·分權制衡理論的历史淵源
·中国自由文化运动与宪政研究
·The Arguments For and Against the Notwithstanding Clause
·Freedom is not free but it is costly
·宪法改革的设想 南郭提要
·联邦共和民主宪政体制是美国经久强盛不衰的原因
·党化党控教育是中共祸国殃民的一大罪恶
·立宪时代的法政哲学思考提要
·有限政府与法治宪政
·联邦主义要旨
·It’s Not Patriotic to Violate the Constitution
·An Imperial Presidency Based on Constitutional Quicksand
·US Constitution revolution for real democracy
·One of the major writer whose legal thought Influence the Americas Founding Fathers
·Beyond the Constitution
·Philosophy Constitutionalism
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
The Arguments For and Against the Notwithstanding Clause

The Arguments For and Against the Notwithstanding Clause
   Thomas (Guoting)Guo
   The notwithstanding clause is a unique and famous clause of the Canadian Constitution. Since 1982, when it was adopted, arguments about it have never stopped(CTV.ca newsstaff. 2006).[1]Recently, the same sex marriage issue ignited arguments again(Charlie 2006)[2]. This essay reviews and comments on arguments for and against the clause.

   I. What is the Notwithstanding clause?
   Section 33(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows both federal and provincial legislatures to adopt legislation to override Section 2 (involving freedom of expression, conscience, association and assembly); plus sections 7-15 [(a.) the right to life, liberty and security, (b.) freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, (c.) freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention, (d.) a number of other legal rights, and (e.) the right to equality]. All rights and freedoms stipulated in the Charter are guaranteed and subject to the above limitations. Consequently, the Charter is a unique combination of rights and freedoms; some are fully protected and others are entrenched unless overridden by legislatures.
   Until now, the notwithstanding clause has been used approximately 18 times, mainly in Quebec. Recently, research showed 68% of people strongly or somewhat support the notwithstanding clause(author unknown.2006.)[3] . After the Supreme Court of Canada ordered Alberta to write protection for homosexuals into its human rights legislation, thousands of citizens clamoured for the government to use the notwithstanding clause to override the court(Steel 11)[4] Thus, the majority supported the clause; however, a lot of people also demanded it be repealed.
   II . Argument For and Against the Notwithstanding Clause
   Since the notwithstanding clause was written into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, the legislative override clause of Section 33 has been a highly contested provision. Most of the controversy focuses on issues concerning the scope of power and core democratic concepts such as democracy, majority tyranny, legislative supremacy, judicial review, and judicial activism. The following are the main arguments for and against the notwithstanding clause.
   A. Arguments For Section 33
    1. To ensure the democratic ideal of government the notwithstanding clause mentions the fundamental purpose of parliamentary bodies is to facilitate the democratic ideal of government by discussion. Parliamentary bodies are important means of bringing democratic discussion of important public policy. If judges are given the last word on Charter questions, then Parliament can do nothing, and the process of democratic discussion becomes impossible. Courts and parliament have a role to play in deciding Charter issues. Further, the notwithstanding clause is crucial to this participation of parliament and processes of public discussions that democratic institutions bring with them(Jay 2007)[5].
   2. Elected legislatives, rather than un-elected judges, are best to make important policy decisions. Claims the notwithstanding clause threat individual rights are not substantial because there is a five-year limit on any use of the notwithstanding power. Any such legislative override will be subject to public debate at the time of its first enactment and at the moment of any subsequent re-enactment(David 2005)[6].
   3. Judges should not act as legislators. Judges may remain in office for many years after their appointment. If they had a greater "political" role, their non-responsibility to the electorate might well be a source of controversy because a policy-making role would compromise the independence and impartiality of the courts, and would hasten their politicization(David 2005)[7].
    4. Elected legislatives make the final political decisions and can mitigate politicization of courts. Accordingly, there is little evidence to prove Canadian Supreme Court Judges are selected according to how they would rule in various cases. Without the notwithstanding clause and courts as final arbiters of social values, society would be vulnerable to change(David 2005)[8].
   5. Legislators should have the final word on public policy matters as the "safety valve" or "unintended consequences" arguments. This suggests the notwithstanding clause is needed where a judicial decision based on Charter guarantees might result in a threat to important social values or goals. Because such rights and freedoms are generally stated, and are susceptible to varying constructions and interpretations, courts may render judgments that drafters did not anticipate(David 2005)[9].
   6. There is parliamentary sovereignty. The notwithstanding clause says legislators, unlike judges, are electorally responsible. The clause makes it possible for legislatures to correct any unfortunate judicial interpretation of the Charter.
   7. There is constitutional authority support:
    i. Professor Wayne MacKay of Dalhousie University spoke in favour of retaining the section by stating “The notwithstanding clause permits debate about which rights are fundamental in Canadian society and which should prevail when rights are in conflict. In a democratic society steeped in the tradition of parliamentary supremacy, it is proper to give our elected legislators the final word” ( A Reader's Digest June 1989. 103)[10]
    ii. Professor François Chevrette of the Université de Montréal was also in favour of retaining the clause. He pointed out that political power can override a judicial decision on an important or sensitive issue, and then there is an opportunity for national debate (A Reader's Digest June 1989.104). [11]
   B. Arguments Against Section 33
   1. Section 33 is inconsistent with entrenchment of human rights and freedoms. The notwithstanding clause says rights and freedoms are subject to judicial interpretation but must be protected against legislative transgression. When the majority of the public is in favour of limitation or elimination of rights of a minority constitutional restrictions are needed. Moreover, the Charter does not create absolute rights and freedoms, which are subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law, as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. This should permit the courts enough flexibility to adjust legislative goals that infringe a guaranteed right or freedom.(Philip 18)[12]
   2. A hierarchy of rights is created. Legislative override is applicable to only fundamental freedoms, legal rights, and equality rights; therefore, other rights such as democratic, mobility, language, minority language education, and the guaranteed equality of gender are not subject to the override. (Philip 19)[13]
   3. There is demeaning of the nature of freedoms and rights. Manning states " Rights and freedoms that can be overridden are so significant as to raise questions about the nature of the freedom that remains. If our freedom of conscience or religion can be taken away by a law, which operates notwithstanding the Charter; if our right to life or liberty can be taken not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, what freedom do we have?" (Morris 55). [14]
   4. There is majority tyranny. In a democracy, public policy is generally orientated towards opinions of the majority of citizens. As a result, democratic laws can often be unfair to minority groups (such as minority religious, ethnic, racial, or cultural groups) or other individuals outside the majority opinion. In extreme situations the majority may prosecute or force these minorities to conform to the majority view. The charter is used as a means of protecting minorities( Jay 2007)[15].
   5. Legislative supremacy broke the balance of three powers in a democratic government. Democratic governments include different branches – such as legislatures, executives, and judiciaries. Legislative supremacy in a democracy means destroying the balance, which is the core value of most democratic governments.(Jay 2007)[16] The mere existence of the override power can entice governments to use it.

[下一页]

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场