5 ms·

Actually they can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Thirty-three_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Thirty-

by patmcc 13y ago

Actually they can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Thirty-three_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Thirty-three_of_the_Can... Parliament can specifically say "we know this law is unconstitutional, but we like it anyway, so it's staying for 5 years. And then we can renew it if we want." They may not want to do that, as it's a pretty strong thing to do, but they are absolutely able to.

corresation 13y ago
Use of the incredibly contentious notwithstanding clause is in no way moving some punctuation marks: It is an extraordinary action, having never been used by the federal government. So no, in the context of what I said they can't.
- patmcc 13y ago
  From a political standpoint, absolutely it's extraordinary; from a legal standpoint it's relatively simple, just needing a majority vote. I'd be very surprised if they did invoke it, but prostitution is something a lot of Canadians (especially conservatives) feel pretty strongly about. (And mainly, I was just trying to bring up an interesting legal quirk of our constitution, since it's fairly unusual and most of HN's audience might not be aware of it).
jrockway 13y ago
And the Queen of England can dissolve the parliament. It's a pretty strong thing to do, but she is absolutely able to.
- beedogs 13y ago
  The precedent for this was set in Australia in 1975, and certainly other places before that.
  - redcap 13y ago
    The dismissal of parliament in 1975 Australia was done by the Governor-General, who is the Queen's representative in Australia. The Queen herself did nothing.
    - mseebach 13y ago
      That's a semantic difference. The Governor-General acts on behalf of the Queen, and holds the perogative of the monarch in the dominion.
      - jacques_chester 13y ago
        > That's a semantic difference. It certainly is. The syntax of the Australian Constitution sits firmly within British conventions of monarchical behaviour, buttressed by the Acts of Westminster and the Australia Acts. We are an independent nation in custom and law. If Her Majesty tried to do anything, she would be ignored. If she sued, the High Court would politely explain that her role is entirely ceremonial and that Parliament is the supreme source of executive and legal power in Australia. The principle that Parliament is supreme over Crown was established in British law before Australia was colonised. It's pretty well-accepted at this point that the royals have no power.
        mseebach 13y ago
        Not sure where you're going with this? The Queen did dissolve parliament and wasn't ignored?
        jacques_chester 13y ago
        The Queen did not dissolve Parliament. (Neither did the Governor-General during the Whitlam dismissal.) The Queen has never, and cannot, do so in right of Australia, because her powers are irrevocably and excludably delegated to the Australian Governor-General. In terms of dissolving any Parliament nominally under her sovereignty, it can only be done by the Queen or a Governor-General upon advice. The Queen can't do it of her own initiative. Neither can the Governor-General. They have to be told to do it by the Government of the day.
- fleitz 13y ago
  Technically she can't, she'd have to do it as the Queen of Canada :)
  - rmc 13y ago
    Good point. She's also not the Queen of England any more anyway.
throwaway2048 13y ago
I must say its rather amusing to see the very American style hyper legalistic logic applied to most parliamentary democracies. According to the very letter of the law, the queen could become absolute ruler over Canada aswell :). All hail Empress Elizabeth II, terror of all the known world? Laws and customs only mean as much as a government willing to be responsible to the people, as the NSA has shown everyone.
- yareally 13y ago
  > I must say its rather amusing to see the very American style hyper legalistic logic applied to most parliamentary democracies You would be quite mistaken to believe such hyper-legalistic logic only came into existence with The United States. The US only built on the myriad of legalese already put in place by the British, Byzantines[1], Romans, and Greeks, <insert dominate culture/country of the era>. How do you think Julius Caesar came to power? He abused the laws put in place by the Roman Republic by refusing to step down at the end of his term. [1] The Byzantines themselves[2] have become synonymous with "complex political system" [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantinism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantinism
- aclevernickname 13y ago
  > According to the very letter of the law, the queen could become absolute ruler over Canada aswell :). All hail Empress Elizabeth II, terror of all the known world? You are more correct than you could ever possibly imagine.

by patmcc 13y ago

corresation 13y ago

Use of the incredibly contentious notwithstanding clause is in no way moving some punctuation marks: It is an extraordinary action, having never been used by the federal government. So no, in the context of what I said they can't.

patmcc 13y ago
From a political standpoint, absolutely it's extraordinary; from a legal standpoint it's relatively simple, just needing a majority vote. I'd be very surprised if they did invoke it, but prostitution is something a lot of Canadians (especially conservatives) feel pretty strongly about. (And mainly, I was just trying to bring up an interesting legal quirk of our constitution, since it's fairly unusual and most of HN's audience might not be aware of it).

jrockway 13y ago

And the Queen of England can dissolve the parliament. It's a pretty strong thing to do, but she is absolutely able to.

beedogs 13y ago
The precedent for this was set in Australia in 1975, and certainly other places before that.
- redcap 13y ago
  The dismissal of parliament in 1975 Australia was done by the Governor-General, who is the Queen's representative in Australia. The Queen herself did nothing.
  - mseebach 13y ago
    That's a semantic difference. The Governor-General acts on behalf of the Queen, and holds the perogative of the monarch in the dominion.
    - jacques_chester 13y ago
      > That's a semantic difference. It certainly is. The syntax of the Australian Constitution sits firmly within British conventions of monarchical behaviour, buttressed by the Acts of Westminster and the Australia Acts. We are an independent nation in custom and law. If Her Majesty tried to do anything, she would be ignored. If she sued, the High Court would politely explain that her role is entirely ceremonial and that Parliament is the supreme source of executive and legal power in Australia. The principle that Parliament is supreme over Crown was established in British law before Australia was colonised. It's pretty well-accepted at this point that the royals have no power.
      - mseebach 13y ago
        Not sure where you're going with this? The Queen did dissolve parliament and wasn't ignored?
        jacques_chester 13y ago
        The Queen did not dissolve Parliament. (Neither did the Governor-General during the Whitlam dismissal.) The Queen has never, and cannot, do so in right of Australia, because her powers are irrevocably and excludably delegated to the Australian Governor-General. In terms of dissolving any Parliament nominally under her sovereignty, it can only be done by the Queen or a Governor-General upon advice. The Queen can't do it of her own initiative. Neither can the Governor-General. They have to be told to do it by the Government of the day.
fleitz 13y ago
Technically she can't, she'd have to do it as the Queen of Canada :)
- rmc 13y ago
  Good point. She's also not the Queen of England any more anyway.

throwaway2048 13y ago

I must say its rather amusing to see the very American style hyper legalistic logic applied to most parliamentary democracies. According to the very letter of the law, the queen could become absolute ruler over Canada aswell :). All hail Empress Elizabeth II, terror of all the known world? Laws and customs only mean as much as a government willing to be responsible to the people, as the NSA has shown everyone.

yareally 13y ago
> I must say its rather amusing to see the very American style hyper legalistic logic applied to most parliamentary democracies You would be quite mistaken to believe such hyper-legalistic logic only came into existence with The United States. The US only built on the myriad of legalese already put in place by the British, Byzantines[1], Romans, and Greeks, <insert dominate culture/country of the era>. How do you think Julius Caesar came to power? He abused the laws put in place by the Roman Republic by refusing to step down at the end of his term. [1] The Byzantines themselves[2] have become synonymous with "complex political system" [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantinism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantinism
aclevernickname 13y ago
> According to the very letter of the law, the queen could become absolute ruler over Canada aswell :). All hail Empress Elizabeth II, terror of all the known world? You are more correct than you could ever possibly imagine.