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
·联合国反腐败公约
·联合国发展权利宣言
·促进和保护普遍公认的人权和基本自由的权利和义务宣言
·中国已签国际人权公约联合国人员和有关人权安全公约
·联合国律师职责的基本原则
·联合国司法独立的基本原则(1985年)
·联合国检察官的职责准则
·世界人权公约英文版Universal Declaration of Human Rights
·犯罪及权力滥用受害者恢复正义基本原则
·国际刑事法院规约(1998)
·国际刑事法庭(芦旺达)程序与证据规则(1995)
·国际刑事法庭(芦旺达)规约
·起诉严重侵犯国际人道法责任人的国际(前南斯拉夫)法庭规约(1991)
·消除一切形式歧视妇女的国际公约1981
·国际人权法律资料 取缔教育歧视公约
·关于就业及职业歧视的公约
·消除一切形式歧视妇女的国际公约选择性议定书2000
·联合国防止和惩罚种族灭绝罪的公约(1951)
·联合国有关难民身份的国际公约1954
·儿童权利国际公约1990
·起诉和惩罚欧洲轴心国主要战争罪犯的国际军事法庭协议(纽伦堡宪章)
***区域性国际人权法律文件
·1996年欧洲反破坏性异端决议及其邪教定义
·非洲人权和人民权利公约(1981)
·美洲人的权利与义务宣言(1948)
·美洲人权公约(1969)
·美洲防止和禁罚酷刑的公约
·防止酷刑和其他残忍不人道或有辱人格待遇或处罚的欧洲公约1989
·欧洲保护人权和基本自由公约(1950)
·欧洲社会宪章1961
·建设新欧洲的巴黎宪章1990
(B)***美国人权法律文件
·美国1620年“五月花号”公约(The Mayflower Compact)
·美国1786年弗吉尼亚宗教自由法令
·美国1776年弗吉尼亚权利法案
·美国1862年解放黑奴宣言
·美国1777年邦联条款
·美国1776年维吉尼亚权利法案
(C)***英国人权法律文件
·英国1998年人权法案
·英国1676年人身保护令
·英国1689年权利法案
·英国1628年权利请愿书
·英国1215年自由大宪章
***(52)郭国汀论法官与律师
·悼念前最高法院大法官冯立奇教授逝世四周年
·法官律师与政党 郭国汀
·尊敬的法官大人你值得尊敬吗?!
·郭国汀与中国律师网友论法官
·法官的良心与良知/南郭
·法官!这是我法律生涯的终极目标! 郭国汀
·律师与法官之间究竟应如何摆正关系?
·从 “中国律师人”说开去
·唯有科班出身者才能当律师?!答王靓华高论/南郭
·律师的责任——再答李洪东/南郭
·中国律师朋友们幸福不会从天降!/南郭
·我为北京16位律师喝彩!郭国汀
·郭国汀律师与网上警官的交锋
·我是中国律师我怕谁?!
·郭国汀 好律师与称职的律师
·温柔抗议对郭律师的ID第二次查封
·第五次强烈抗议中国律师网无理非法封杀郭律师的IP
·中国律师网为何封杀中国律师?
·中律网封杀删除最受网友们欢迎的郭国汀律师
·最受欢迎的写手却被中共彻底封杀
·我为何暂时告别中国律师网?
·南郭:律师的文学功底
·中国最需要什么样的律师?
·勇敢地参政议政吧!中国律师们!
·将律师协会办成真正的民间自治组织
·强烈挽留郭国汀律师/小C
·the open letter to Mr.Hu Jintao from Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada for Gao Zhisheng
·自宫与被阉割的中国律师网 /南郭
·做律师首先应当做个堂堂正正的人——南郭与王靓华的论战/南郭
·呵!吉大,我心中永远的痛!
·再答小C君/南郭
·凡跟郭国汀贴者一律入选黑名单!
·历史不容患改!历史专家不敢当,吾喜读中国历史是实
·思想自由的益处答迷风先生
·答迷风先生
·答经纬仪之民族败类之指责,汝不妨教教吾辈汝之哲学呀?
·南郭曾是"天才"但一夜之间被厄杀成蠢才,如今不过是个笨蛋耳!
·答时代精英,
·长歌独行至郭国汀律师公开函
***(53)大学生\知识分子与爱国愤青研究
·春寒料峭,公民兀立(南郭强烈推荐大中学生及留学生和所有关心中国前途的国人精读)
·大中学生及留学生必读:胡锦涛崇尚的古巴政治是什么玩意?!
·是否应彻底否定中华传统文
·向留学生及大中学生推荐一篇好文
·向留学生大学生强烈推荐杰作驳中共政权威权化的谬论
·强烈谴责中共党控教育祸国殃民的罪孽!--闻贺卫方教授失业有感
·學術腐敗是一個國家腐敗病入膏肓的明證
·中共专制暴政长期推行党化奴化教育罪孽深重
·教育国民化、私有化而非政治化党化是改革教育最佳途径之一
·论当代中国大学生和爱国愤青的未来
·给中国大学生留学生及爱国愤青们开书单
[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