I recently had occasion to read Canada’s Constitution Act of 1982.. Charter of Rights .Frustration, thy name is Constitution Act. There have been numerous amendments to the constitution since the British North America Act of 1867 and all the amendments are included in the current document, so reading it is like playing 'Snakes and Ladders.' At any point in the document, you may hit a ladder and move forward or, more likely, you will hit a snake, find out that the section has been amended, and must start again..Try and find out how many words are in Canada’s constitution. No one knows because there is no universal agreement about which documents are to be included in the constitution. No wonder Canadians don’t know their own constitution..Compare this to a pocket-sized brochure containing the US Constitution and its amendments. In more cynical moments, I might be persuaded to believe the profession that writes legislation recognizes they have zero incentive to make what they write understandable, without their help..But it has not always been so..The original version of Magna Carta (translated to English) has 63 articles and 4,700 words. Magna Carta, signed in 1215 between very unhappy Norman barons and their authoritarian liege lord King John I, is the foundational document for English common law and parliamentary democracy..If the clauses dealing with the personal issues between particular barons and the king are removed (eg “don’t let anyone from that family of bums, the Giscards, have any official post now or in the future,”) the document is smaller still. It is remarkable for the precision of its language..In 1763, King George III of England signed the Royal Proclamation that officially laid claim to lands in North America following the Seven Years War — possibly history’s real first world war. It allocated land to the soldiers who fought in North America and laid down conditions for the humane treatment of the Indian tribes who lived within the boundaries described in the document. We might find much about which to disagree with King George but, at least, he had the good sense to confine himself to two thousand words.. RunnymedeCanada's constitutional history runs all the way back to 1215, via the British tradition that it inherited. That was when here at Runnymede, the powers of the monarchy were first limited by some of the king's subjects. By comparison with Canada's constitution, the 13th century document is clear in its intentions. .One last example..First Nations folks hold firmly to the terms and conditions of the numbered treaties that define their relationship with Canada, and more importantly, the Crown. They have no interest in opening these treaties to renegotiation. Their perspective becomes understandable upon reading the terms and conditions of the eleven numbered treaties. Not only are they short and to the point (Treaty 7 is about 2,300 words) but they demonstrate the sagacity of the Indian chiefs and the reasonableness of the Crown negotiators. We can certainly question the ethics of some of those sent to administer the treaties, but the fault doesn’t lie with the documents themselves..The point of this is not to identify the ethical and legal wrinkles in any given piece of legislation or agreement that is binding on the Crown in Canada. Rather it is to point out that our forefathers were able to put their ideas into an agreement without resorting to tens of thousands of words of spaghetti logic that are open to legal challenge because the result is often completely irrational. If one were to closely examine the various statutes and bills that are passed in Canadian legislatures, one might be appalled at the errors in logic buried in steaming mounds of words..When our parliamentarians are historically unaware that during World War II Canadians fought in alliance with the Soviet Union (Russia) against “Ukrainians who fought against Russians” we must surely conclude that we have had enough of ignorance, sloppiness and incompetence among those who bind us with their ideologies and laws. We, as voters, are due better than this. Perhaps it is time to start demanding real as opposed to silly performances.
I recently had occasion to read Canada’s Constitution Act of 1982.. Charter of Rights .Frustration, thy name is Constitution Act. There have been numerous amendments to the constitution since the British North America Act of 1867 and all the amendments are included in the current document, so reading it is like playing 'Snakes and Ladders.' At any point in the document, you may hit a ladder and move forward or, more likely, you will hit a snake, find out that the section has been amended, and must start again..Try and find out how many words are in Canada’s constitution. No one knows because there is no universal agreement about which documents are to be included in the constitution. No wonder Canadians don’t know their own constitution..Compare this to a pocket-sized brochure containing the US Constitution and its amendments. In more cynical moments, I might be persuaded to believe the profession that writes legislation recognizes they have zero incentive to make what they write understandable, without their help..But it has not always been so..The original version of Magna Carta (translated to English) has 63 articles and 4,700 words. Magna Carta, signed in 1215 between very unhappy Norman barons and their authoritarian liege lord King John I, is the foundational document for English common law and parliamentary democracy..If the clauses dealing with the personal issues between particular barons and the king are removed (eg “don’t let anyone from that family of bums, the Giscards, have any official post now or in the future,”) the document is smaller still. It is remarkable for the precision of its language..In 1763, King George III of England signed the Royal Proclamation that officially laid claim to lands in North America following the Seven Years War — possibly history’s real first world war. It allocated land to the soldiers who fought in North America and laid down conditions for the humane treatment of the Indian tribes who lived within the boundaries described in the document. We might find much about which to disagree with King George but, at least, he had the good sense to confine himself to two thousand words.. RunnymedeCanada's constitutional history runs all the way back to 1215, via the British tradition that it inherited. That was when here at Runnymede, the powers of the monarchy were first limited by some of the king's subjects. By comparison with Canada's constitution, the 13th century document is clear in its intentions. .One last example..First Nations folks hold firmly to the terms and conditions of the numbered treaties that define their relationship with Canada, and more importantly, the Crown. They have no interest in opening these treaties to renegotiation. Their perspective becomes understandable upon reading the terms and conditions of the eleven numbered treaties. Not only are they short and to the point (Treaty 7 is about 2,300 words) but they demonstrate the sagacity of the Indian chiefs and the reasonableness of the Crown negotiators. We can certainly question the ethics of some of those sent to administer the treaties, but the fault doesn’t lie with the documents themselves..The point of this is not to identify the ethical and legal wrinkles in any given piece of legislation or agreement that is binding on the Crown in Canada. Rather it is to point out that our forefathers were able to put their ideas into an agreement without resorting to tens of thousands of words of spaghetti logic that are open to legal challenge because the result is often completely irrational. If one were to closely examine the various statutes and bills that are passed in Canadian legislatures, one might be appalled at the errors in logic buried in steaming mounds of words..When our parliamentarians are historically unaware that during World War II Canadians fought in alliance with the Soviet Union (Russia) against “Ukrainians who fought against Russians” we must surely conclude that we have had enough of ignorance, sloppiness and incompetence among those who bind us with their ideologies and laws. We, as voters, are due better than this. Perhaps it is time to start demanding real as opposed to silly performances.
