Fandom

VroniPlag Wiki

Wy/155

< Wy

31.388Seiten in
diesem Wiki
Seite hinzufügen
Diskussion0 Teilen

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.

Research on Parliamentary Privilege Concurrently Discuss Chinese National People's Congressional Privilege

von Weizhong Yi

vorherige Seite | zur Übersichtsseite | folgende Seite
Statistik und Sichtungsnachweis dieser Seite findet sich am Artikelende
[1.] Wy/Fragment 155 01 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-12 19:17:21 WiseWoman
BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wright 2007, Wy

Typus
BauernOpfer
Bearbeiter
SleepyHollow02
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 155, Zeilen: 01-03, 05 ff.
Quelle: Wright 2007
Seite(n): 24 bzw. 9, Zeilen: Rz. 8.3
[Internal parliamentary processes, such as practices for the protection of witnesses before] the Privileges Committee, take account of these requirements.481 Such issues have been given considerable attention in Canada since enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. The result has been that parliamentary privilege has been like other areas of the law in being subject to the provisions of the charter. 482 A point of broader significance, noted by Professor Lindell in respect of the Vaid case, is the tendency of the court to define the content of parliamentary privilege by reference to the degree of autonomy necessary for the performance of the functions entrusted to the Canadian Parliament as finally determined by the court and not just the Parliament. A scholarly discussion of the position in Canada, and one which takes account of international developments, has been published in The Table for 2007. In Australia to date only the ACT and Victoria have enacted human rights laws. Technically legislation in this area may or may not be drafted with reference to parliamentary activities. It would seem however that, as a minimum, a parliament which enacted such a law would feel some obligation to ensure that its own operations were at least consistent with any general standards that it established for the wider community.483

The development of the law in respect of the implied constitutional guarantee of freedom of political communication will be of interest, for example, in Australia including in respect of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. Subsection 16(3),484 it has been argued, is in conflict with this freedom in so far as [it prevents the analysis of the conduct of elected politicians in the courts or impedes the discussion of the same matters by non-parliamentarians given the legal consequences that may result in defamation.485]


481 Id., pp.611, 667.

482 Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, pp.112 -13; See, Joseph Maingot, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, 2nd ed, 1997, ch 14.

483 Bernard Wright, Patterns of Change-Parliamentary Privilege, http://www.aph.gov.au/HOUSE/ PUBS/occpub/privileges.pd. [sic]

484 Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, Section16(3), [sic] In proceedings in any court or tribunal, it is not lawful for evidence to be tendered or received, questions asked or statements, submissions or comments made, concerning proceedings in Parliament, by way of, or for the purpose of: (a) questioning or relying on the truth, motive, intention or good faith of anything forming part of those proceedings in Parliament; (b) otherwise questioning or establishing the credibility, motive, intention or good faith of any person; or (c) drawing, or inviting the drawing of, inferences or conclusions wholly or partly from anything forming part of those proceedings in Parliament.

Internal parliamentary processes, such as practices for the protection of witnesses before the Privileges Committee, take account of these requirements93. Such issues have been given considerable attention in Canada since enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. The result has been that parliamentary privilege has been like other areas of the law in being subject to the provisions of the charter.94. A point of broader significance, noted by Professor Lindell in respect of the Vaid case, is the tendency of the court to define the content of parliamentary privilege by reference to the degree of autonomy necessary for the performance of the functions entrusted to the Canadian Parliament as finally determined by the court and not just the Parliament. A scholarly discussion of the position in Canada, and one which takes account of international developments, has been published in The Table for 200795. In Australia to date only the ACT and Victoria have enacted human rights laws. Technically legislation in this area may or may not be drafted with reference to parliamentary activities. It would seem however that, as a minimum, a parliament which enacted such a law would feel some obligation to ensure that its own operations were at least consistent with any general standards that it established for the wider community. The development of the law in respect of the implied constitutional guarantee of freedom of political communication will be of interest, including in respect of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. Subsection 16(3), it has been argued, is in conflict with this freedom in so far as it prevents the analysis of the conduct of elected politicians in the courts or impedes the discussion of the same matters by non-parliamentarians given the legal consequences that may result in defamation96.

89 May, op cit, p 199; M Jack A. v the UK ‘The Table’ (2003), pp 35-40; ASGP, op cit, p 66.

90 ASGP, op cit, p 66.

91 See, for example Canada (House of Commons) v Vaid (2005) SCC 30 (Supreme Court of Canada, 20 May 2005).

92 McGee op cit, p 611.

93 Ibid, pp 611, 667.

94 Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit House of Commons Procedure and Practice, pp 112 -13; Joseph Maingot, QC, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada (2nd ed), ch 14; and see Robert and Macneil, op cit.

95 Robert and Macneil, op cit. And see forthcoming paper by Nicholas MacDonald ‘Parliamentarians and National Security’, Canadian Parliamentary Review, Fall 2011. Mr MacDonald has made helpful comments on this paper.

96 Enid Campbell ‘Contempt of Parliament and the Implied Freedom of Political Communication’ (1999) 10 Public Law Review 196 and Parliamentary Privilege (2003), at 7, 64-5, and evidence by Professor Lindell to the UK Joint Committee HL 43 III, HC 214— 111 (1998-99) at 168-9 paras 21(ii) and 19.

Anmerkungen

Ein Satz wurde eingefügt, sonst praktisch wörtlich übernommen. Die Quelle ist, etwas misslungen angegeben, unter 483 genannt. Es gibt zwei Versionen von Wright online, bei der zweiten (Hochglanzbroschure) fehlen 95 und 96, aber der Fließtext enthält einen Satz mehr, der sich auch in der Dissertation findet. Daher ist dies wohl die vom Autor verwendete Quelle.

Sichter
(SleepyHollow02), (Hindemith), WiseWoman


vorherige Seite | zur Übersichtsseite | folgende Seite
Letzte Bearbeitung dieser Seite: durch Benutzer:WiseWoman, Zeitstempel: 20130912054314

Auch bei Fandom

Zufälliges Wiki