Fandom

VroniPlag Wiki

Quelle:Wy/Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege - Freedom of Speech 1999

< Quelle:Wy

31.364Seiten in
diesem Wiki
Seite hinzufügen
Diskussion0

Störung durch Adblocker erkannt!


Wikia ist eine gebührenfreie Seite, die sich durch Werbung finanziert. Benutzer, die Adblocker einsetzen, haben eine modifizierte Ansicht der Seite.

Wikia ist nicht verfügbar, wenn du weitere Modifikationen in dem Adblocker-Programm gemacht hast. Wenn du sie entfernst, dann wird die Seite ohne Probleme geladen.

Angaben zur Quelle [Bearbeiten]

Titel    Chapter 2: freedom of Speech and Article 9 of the Bill of Rights
Sammlung    Parliamentary Privilege First Report
Herausgeber    UK Parliament, House of Lords and House of Commons: Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege
Datum    30. März 1999
Anmerkung    Session 1998-99, Datum der Drucklegung: 30.3.1999
ISBN    0 10 432799 5
URL    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt199899/jtselect/jtpriv/43/4306.htm; erster archivalishcer Nachweis 2000: http://web.archive.org/web/20001001093910/http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt199899/jtselect/jtpriv/43/4306.htm

Literaturverz.   

ja
Fußnoten    ja
Fragmente    3


Fragmente der Quelle:
[1.] Wy/Fragment 098 06 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-15 22:07:09 WiseWoman
BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gesichtet, Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege - Freedom of Speech 1999, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wy

Typus
BauernOpfer
Bearbeiter
Graf Isolan
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 98, Zeilen: 6-21
Quelle: Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege - Freedom of Speech 1999
Seite(n): 1 (Internetquelle), Zeilen: -
No comprehensive definition has been determined either by Parliament or by judicial decision.300 In 1689, when parliamentary proceedings were much simpler, a definition may have been thought unnecessary. But this is not so when the phrase is applied to present day parliamentary activities and members’ activities. In several respects the scope of this expression is not clear today.

The broad description in Erskine May is a useful starting place: “The primary meaning of proceedings, as a technical parliamentary term … is some formal action, usually a decision, taken by the House in its collective capacity. This is naturally extended to the forms of business in which the House takes action, and the whole process, the principal part of which is debate, by which it reaches a decision. An individual member takes part in a proceeding usually by speech, but also by various recognized forms of formal action, such as voting, giving notice of a motion, or presenting a petition or report from a committee, most of such actions being time-saving substitutes for speaking. Officers of the House take part in its proceedings principally by carrying out its orders, general or particular. Strangers [also may take part in the proceedings of a House, for example by giving evidence before it or one of its committees, or by securing presentation of a petition.”301]


300 See, Gareth Griffith, Parliamentary Privilege: Use, Misuse and Proposals for Reform, http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/key/ParliamentaryPrivelige:MajorDevelopmentsandCurrentIssues.

[301 May, 22nd ed., 1997, p.95. While referring to this definition, J P Joseph Maingot, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada(2nd ed), McGill-Queen’s University press, 1997, p.80 gives this supplementary definition: “As a technical parliamentary term, ‘proceedings’are the events and the steps leading up to some formal action, including a decision, taken by the House in its collective capacity. All of these steps and events, the whole process by which the House reaches a decision (the principal part of which is called debate), are “proceedings”.]

97. [...] No comprehensive definition has been determined either by Parliament or by judicial decision. In 1689, when parliamentary proceedings were much simpler, a definition may have been thought unnecessary. But this is not so when the phrase is applied to present day parliamentary activities and members' activities. In several respects the scope of this expression is not clear today. [...] [151]

98. The broad description in Erskine May is a useful starting place:

`The primary meaning of proceedings, as a technical parliamentary term, . . . is some formal action, usually a decision, taken by the House in its collective capacity. This is naturally extended to the forms of business in which the House takes action, and the whole process, the principal part of which is debate, by which it reaches a decision. An individual member takes part in a proceeding usually by speech, but also by various recognised forms of formal action, such as voting, giving notice of a motion, or presenting a petition or report from a committee, most of such actions being time-saving substitutes for speaking. Officers of the House take part in its proceedings principally by carrying out its orders, general or particular. Strangers also may take part in the proceedings of a House, for example by giving evidence before it or one of its committees, or by securing presentation of a petition.'[152]


151 For references see footnote 18 above.

152 22nd ed (1997), p 95. While referring to this definition, J P Joseph Maingot QC, in Parliamentary Privilege in Canada (1997), p 80 gives this supplementary definition: `As a technical parliamentary term, `proceedings' are the events and the steps leading up to some formal action, including a decision, taken by the House in its collective capacity. All of these steps and events, the whole process by which the House reaches a decision (the principal part of which is called debate), are `proceedings.

Anmerkungen

Art und Umfang der Übernahme bleiben ungekennzeichnet.

Sichter
(Graf Isolan), WiseWoman

[2.] Wy/Fragment 099 101 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-15 22:08:30 WiseWoman
Fragment, Gesichtet, Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege - Freedom of Speech 1999, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wy

Typus
KomplettPlagiat
Bearbeiter
Graf Isolan
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 99, Zeilen: (1-2), 101-103, (103-106)
Quelle: Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege - Freedom of Speech 1999
Seite(n): 1 (Internetquelle), Zeilen: -
[Strangers] also may take part in the proceedings of a House, for example by giving evidence before it or one of its committees, or by securing presentation of a petition.”301

301 May, 22nd ed., 1997, p.95. While referring to this definition, J P Joseph Maingot, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada(2nd ed), McGill-Queen’s University press, 1997, p.80 gives this supplementary definition: “As a technical parliamentary term, ‘proceedings’ are the events and the steps leading up to some formal action, including a decision, taken by the House in its collective capacity. All of these steps and events, the whole process by which the House reaches a decision (the principal part of which is called debate), are “proceedings”.

98. [...] Strangers also may take part in the proceedings of a House, for example by giving evidence before it or one of its committees, or by securing presentation of a petition.'[152]

152 22nd ed (1997), p 95. While referring to this definition, J P Joseph Maingot QC, in Parliamentary Privilege in Canada (1997), p 80 gives this supplementary definition: `As a technical parliamentary term, `proceedings' are the events and the steps leading up to some formal action, including a decision, taken by the House in its collective capacity. All of these steps and events, the whole process by which the House reaches a decision (the principal part of which is called debate), are `proceedings.

Anmerkungen

Kein Hinweis auf eine Übernahme. Auch wenn hier Zitate wie im Original deutlich als solche erkennbar sind, ist hier doch die gesamte Verweisstruktur in toto übernommen worden.

Sichter
(Graf Isolan), WiseWoman

[3.] Wy/Fragment 167 14b - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-16 12:10:00 WiseWoman
Fragment, Gesichtet, Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege - Freedom of Speech 1999, KeineWertung, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wy

Typus
KeineWertung
Bearbeiter
Graf Isolan
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 167, Zeilen: 14-22
Quelle: Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege - Freedom of Speech 1999
Seite(n): 1 (Internetquelle), Zeilen: -
For the Joint Committee, the cure was worse than the disease:

A fundamental flaw is that it undermines the basis of privileges: Freedom of speech is the privilege of the House as a whole and not of the individual member in his own right, although an individual member can assert and rely on it. Application of the new provision could also be impracticable in complicated cases; for example, where two members, or a member and a non-member, are closely involved in the same action and one waives privilege and the other does not. Section 13 is also anomalous: it is available only in defamation proceedings. No similar waiver is available for any criminal action, or any other form of civil action.513


513 UK Parliament, Reports of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/jt199899/jtselect/jtpriv/43/4302.htm.

68. Unfortunately the cure that section 13 seeks to achieve has severe problems of its own and has attracted widespread criticism, not least from our witnesses.[130] A fundamental flaw is that it undermines the basis of privilege: freedom of speech is the privilege of the House as a whole and not of the individual member in his own right, although an individual member can assert and rely on it. Application of the new provision could also be impracticable in complicated cases; for example, where two members, or a member and a non-member, are closely involved in the same action and one waives privilege and the other does not. Section 13 is also anomalous: it is available only in defamation proceedings. No similar waiver is available for any criminal action, or any other form of civil action.

130 e.g. QQ 376-381, 498-502, 577, 785; and memoranda by The Lord Chief Justice of England, vol 2, p 110; the former Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, vol 2, p 219; Dr Geoffrey Marshall, vol 2, p 204; the Guild of Editors, vol 3, p 16; the Newspaper Society, vol 3, p 18; and The News of the World, vol 3, p 45. See too `A Question of Privilege: The crisis of the Bill of Rights', by Lord Simon of Glaisdale in The Parliamentarian, April 1997.

Anmerkungen

Art und Umfang der Übernahme bleiben ungekennzeichnet. Wird aber von Wy/Fragment_167_01 überdeckt.

Sichter
(Graf Isolan), WiseWoman

Auch bei Fandom

Zufälliges Wiki