[Note: An earlier version of this post clumsily suggested the Supreme Court determined that parliamentary privilege was part of the “written” constitution - this is not the case. What the Court determined was that it is part of the definition of “Constitution of Canada” under s.52. The passage has been edited to convey this distinction more accurately]
Many thanks for the info on the limits of the HRT hmmmm, that sounds too much like hormone replacement therapy...the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
I'd scoured their website and others' definitions and couldn't find the answer that you have produced. And the pertaining case law!
[Whether exercise of privileges by members of a legislative assembly subject to Charter review -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 32(1)(b).]
I still question whether provincial jurisdiction my pertain via the HRT over the Legislature, and if found to permit the wearing of a Keffiyeh, Headscarf, or whatever, it could/would have recourse to be tested federally?
In the event, I think the Speaker's ruling will be overturned by a majority vote motion, but the vexing question is still open to debate . Before I type any more, best I thoroughly digest the ruling, which will take some time.
I'm seeing snippets as such:
[This preamble constitutionally guarantees the continuance of Parliamentary governance and, given Canadian federalism, this guarantee extends to the provincial legislatures in the same manner as to the federal Parliament. ]
Which *could* be interpreted that the same customs of Parliament also apply provincially.
"Indeed, the idea that the floor of a legislative assembly is somehow not the place for politics is simply incomprehensible." 🔥
Many thanks for the info on the limits of the HRT hmmmm, that sounds too much like hormone replacement therapy...the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
I'd scoured their website and others' definitions and couldn't find the answer that you have produced. And the pertaining case law!
[Whether exercise of privileges by members of a legislative assembly subject to Charter review -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 32(1)(b).]
I still question whether provincial jurisdiction my pertain via the HRT over the Legislature, and if found to permit the wearing of a Keffiyeh, Headscarf, or whatever, it could/would have recourse to be tested federally?
In the event, I think the Speaker's ruling will be overturned by a majority vote motion, but the vexing question is still open to debate . Before I type any more, best I thoroughly digest the ruling, which will take some time.
I'm seeing snippets as such:
[This preamble constitutionally guarantees the continuance of Parliamentary governance and, given Canadian federalism, this guarantee extends to the provincial legislatures in the same manner as to the federal Parliament. ]
Which *could* be interpreted that the same customs of Parliament also apply provincially.
Keffiyehs are not banned in Parliament.
This is fascinating....back later.
You need to start these screeds with “dear diary”.