![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Speeking of Australia (the only country listed - the U.K. would probably be more approriate), they have only had one " trial at bar" in 100 years. - Matthew238 04:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring over whether contempt of Parliament is a crime. If the claim that it is a crime has been challenged, the claim should be removed from the article until a reliable source can be introduced backing it up.-- Trystan ( talk) 16:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. This is my first Wiki dispute, and I hope I am replying correctly in this format.
My definition of "crime" comes from the Collins dicitonary:
crime [kraɪm] n 1. (Law) an act or omission prohibited and punished by law 2. (Law) a. unlawful acts in general a wave of crime b. (as modifier) crime wave 3. an evil act 4. Informal something to be regretted it is a crime that he died young [from Old French, from Latin crīmen verdict, accusation, crime]
Contempt satisfies these requirements. Firstly, it is found in law. See the Parliament of Canada Act s.4, the Constitution Act s. 18. Secondly, conviction for CoP carries with it punishment, up to and including jail time at the discretion of Parliament.
I too am tired of the ping-pong editing, but since i see no reasons or references to convince me otherwise, I must insist that parliamentary contempt is a criminal law, enforced by the state, carrying with it the punishment of imprisonment.
Please, if anyone is to respond to this discussion, provide an alternative and recognized definition of "criminal law" that would exclusde contempt.
KBillie ( talk) 17:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I fear, however, that your own definition will defeat you.
I have two points. FIrstly, that the contempt power falls within the scope of the Margarine reference you have provided. Secondly, the reference you have provided should be distinguished from the present case, since we are not discussing the power of the federal parliament to legislate a new criminal law. Rather, we are disputing a privision of the constitution which prohibits certain conduct, and has no bearing on the Constitution Act s. 91
Firstly, the prohibited conduct, for the purposes of satisfying the first part of Margarine, is interference with the privileges of Members of Parliament. Also, punishment for contempt brings with it a penal sanciton, imprisonment.
To address the second aspect of Margarine, the public purpose of the criminal law provision of contempt is to allow for the operation of Parliament by its members, and to compel the production of documents and witnesses for instance. Without the contempt provision, Parliament could become a merely cooperative rather than sovereign body.
My submission, therefore, remains that the Margarine test reaffirms the nature of the contempt law as criminal law. It is not, however, the appropriate test to use, since it only purports to deal with the constitutional sphere of teh federal power. It does not seek to redress the constitutional powers, which are described in s. 18 of the Constitution Act and in S.4 of the Parliament of Canada Act.
KBillie ( talk) 18:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Having read the Ned Franks interview, it is clear that the Professor makes no finding whatsoever as to whether CoP qualifies as criminal law. What is says is that Forgery is a criminal offence, and that Parliament has discretion to enforce CoP or not.
If Contempt of Parliament is not a criminal law, then what kind of law is it? It certainly isn't civil law. It certainly isn't administrative law, since it is not subject to judical review. It is not any kind of private law. In addition to what I have submitted, It is clear by elimination that it must be criminal law.
KBillie ( talk) 19:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by KBillie ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
For copyright license purposes I am noting here that in this edit I copied three paragraphs of text from Contempt of Parliament to Canadian federal election, 2011. — Mathew5000 ( talk) 12:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Speeking of Australia (the only country listed - the U.K. would probably be more approriate), they have only had one " trial at bar" in 100 years. - Matthew238 04:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring over whether contempt of Parliament is a crime. If the claim that it is a crime has been challenged, the claim should be removed from the article until a reliable source can be introduced backing it up.-- Trystan ( talk) 16:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. This is my first Wiki dispute, and I hope I am replying correctly in this format.
My definition of "crime" comes from the Collins dicitonary:
crime [kraɪm] n 1. (Law) an act or omission prohibited and punished by law 2. (Law) a. unlawful acts in general a wave of crime b. (as modifier) crime wave 3. an evil act 4. Informal something to be regretted it is a crime that he died young [from Old French, from Latin crīmen verdict, accusation, crime]
Contempt satisfies these requirements. Firstly, it is found in law. See the Parliament of Canada Act s.4, the Constitution Act s. 18. Secondly, conviction for CoP carries with it punishment, up to and including jail time at the discretion of Parliament.
I too am tired of the ping-pong editing, but since i see no reasons or references to convince me otherwise, I must insist that parliamentary contempt is a criminal law, enforced by the state, carrying with it the punishment of imprisonment.
Please, if anyone is to respond to this discussion, provide an alternative and recognized definition of "criminal law" that would exclusde contempt.
KBillie ( talk) 17:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I fear, however, that your own definition will defeat you.
I have two points. FIrstly, that the contempt power falls within the scope of the Margarine reference you have provided. Secondly, the reference you have provided should be distinguished from the present case, since we are not discussing the power of the federal parliament to legislate a new criminal law. Rather, we are disputing a privision of the constitution which prohibits certain conduct, and has no bearing on the Constitution Act s. 91
Firstly, the prohibited conduct, for the purposes of satisfying the first part of Margarine, is interference with the privileges of Members of Parliament. Also, punishment for contempt brings with it a penal sanciton, imprisonment.
To address the second aspect of Margarine, the public purpose of the criminal law provision of contempt is to allow for the operation of Parliament by its members, and to compel the production of documents and witnesses for instance. Without the contempt provision, Parliament could become a merely cooperative rather than sovereign body.
My submission, therefore, remains that the Margarine test reaffirms the nature of the contempt law as criminal law. It is not, however, the appropriate test to use, since it only purports to deal with the constitutional sphere of teh federal power. It does not seek to redress the constitutional powers, which are described in s. 18 of the Constitution Act and in S.4 of the Parliament of Canada Act.
KBillie ( talk) 18:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Having read the Ned Franks interview, it is clear that the Professor makes no finding whatsoever as to whether CoP qualifies as criminal law. What is says is that Forgery is a criminal offence, and that Parliament has discretion to enforce CoP or not.
If Contempt of Parliament is not a criminal law, then what kind of law is it? It certainly isn't civil law. It certainly isn't administrative law, since it is not subject to judical review. It is not any kind of private law. In addition to what I have submitted, It is clear by elimination that it must be criminal law.
KBillie ( talk) 19:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by KBillie ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
For copyright license purposes I am noting here that in this edit I copied three paragraphs of text from Contempt of Parliament to Canadian federal election, 2011. — Mathew5000 ( talk) 12:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)