Inspired by this and this thread, I got to thinking. The US is somewhat notorious for enshrining the right to possess weapons in its most fundamental law, the Constitution. What interesting constitutional protections do other countries have? For example, is there a country where there is not only fully government funded healthcare, but where that health care is guaranteed by their constitution? Are there any countries that have constitutional (not just statutory, administrative, or de facto) guarantees on the right to operate a motor vehicle, take drugs without a doctor’s supervision, possess pornographic materials, or use corporal punishment against children?
The South African constitution includes the rights to adequate housing, healthcare, food and water, and social security. However, given that the government doesn’t have the resources to provide all of this immediately, it’s qualified by the provision that “The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation” of those rights. There’s also a constitutional right to basic education which is not so limited.
The SA constitution also enshrines freedom of information as a constitutional right - not only the right of access to all information held by the government, but also the right to information held by private parties when required to protect other rights. It also states that everyone has the right “to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations”, which is quite an unusual provision for a bill of rights.
My understanding is that most other countries have constitutions that read much like the US one, although the tendency is to be much longer. The one thing they all have, in one form or another, which the US Constitution does not, is a “gotcha” or escape clause that lets the government easily suspend all those rights at a whim.
Something that’s important to take into account when comparing legal systems, specially when one of the legal systems being compared is that of the US, is that some are exclusive and some are inclusive.
An example: in the US, there is a list of personal characteristics called “protected groups”. Discriminating someone for belonging to one of those protected groups is illegal; discriminating for any other reason is not. In most countries, any such list is considered a series of examples, and discriminating for any reason not directly related to the situation is illegal, whether the reason is in the list or not. Discrimination for reason of sexual orientation is not listed in the Spanish Constitution, but as stated by those Constitutional Fathers still living when some asshole tried to claim our list was “American style”, “it’s not a fucking laundry list and we didn’t include that because we didn’t think of it, we also didn’t include discrimination by reason of soccer club affiliation and it would be equally stupid” - one of the main reasons given to include SSM in the books is that not having it was discriminating people by reason of sexual orientation.
Comparing two Constitutions (or the equivalent thereof) may require more than one document on one of the parts and it needs to include comprehension of how the two systems work.
I know Sweden, and I believe the other Nordic countries, recognizes allemansratten, which is the right of people to peaceably pass through, camp, and forage on private property, as long as you don’t bother the landowners and generally stay away from their house and such.
It’s amusing to me, because I think most Americans who own a decent amount of land would be very, very unhappy if they learned that someone could legally camp on their land without having to ask permission first.
Really? Is that why backpack trecking is so popular in Europe?
I knew it was allowed in Iceland, it was mentioned in an article on Icelandic elves.
Now, is the foraging on wild foods or stuff like farmed gardens and orchards? I wouldn’t mind people berrying or mushrooming, but I would get tweaked off at people harvesting my garden and trees, those are what we eat…
In Montana, where hunting and fishing groups are a political force to be reckoned with, there are some pretty crazy land-access laws too. Everyone is guaranteed access to any navigable waterway, and the courts have held virtually any body of water to be navigable. What’s more, those rights extend from high water mark to high water mark, so many streams have quite a lot of dry land that’s usable most of the year. So if you want to go camp out, have a fire and kick back a few beers on the sandbar in front of one of Ted Turner’s zillion dollar ranch houses, that’s your right. It’s also depending on local circumstances either very difficult or impossible to block anglers from crossing your land to access a waterway or hunters from crossing your land to get to public land open to hunting.
Oregon and Texas (of all places) also have similar rules with regards to ocean beaches.
I’ve always been proud of the British constitution, which on the face of it gives people no rights but to elect a Parliament which has all the powers and prerogatives of an absolute tyrant.
However in reality it’s held in check by a thousand years of precedent and convention, and the fact that an unwritten constitution means that drastic innovations will impact on everything else, making change necessarily rather cautious to avoid unintended consequences.
I have a buddy with some bulls I would not want to try crossing the pasture of no matter how damned good the fishing was. :eek:
It is not a law as much as the absence of laws prohibiting people and, as far as I know, you can find similar rights in Scotland and Germany. Finland, I understand, is much stricter about private property.
I don’t think that’s right. Sweden has the “allemansrätten” in the Constitution, specifically stating that everyone has the right to access nature. That’s a specific law saying you have that right, rather than the absence of laws.
There used to be no laws that explicitly stated what you are allowed to do or not, but you got me wondering, gracer, and when I checked I found that Sweden has recently (long after I learned about it) regulated it.
Our Cayman Constitution has a few rights that I would not necessarily expect to be in a constitution.
Every child has a right to a name from birth.
Environmental protections: (a) limit pollution and ecological degradation;
(b) promote conservation and biodiversity; and
© secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources
All of these are a bit weaselly as the constitutional instruction is for the legislature to enact laws promoting these rights.
Less ambiguously, parents also have a constitutional right to send their kids to private school at the parent’s expense.
I believe it only covers mushrooms and berries. I don’t think hunting is protected, and I’m sure you can’t take food growing on a farm.
We in Finland have the same thing, “jokamiehenoikeus” or “every man’s right”. You can’t trespass on fields, orchards or yards or forage anything in those place, but berries and mushrooms in forests and swamps are fair game. Campfires, operating a motor vehicle and cutting trees or taking lichen or moss are not allowed without a landowner’s permit on the other hand.
It was a shock to me when as a kid I traveled to Scotland and saw all the “no trespassing” signs when I wanted to leave the road. Not sure how their actual rights are, but they sure do love putting fences and signs all over the place.
Is guaranteeing a child’s right to a name from birth mostly a statement of ideals and principles, or does it actually get litigated? E.g. is there a big problem with nameless people where neither parents nor local authorities want to give the person a name and the person ends up having to sue in court and claim that their constitutional rights have been violated and please may I be called James?
I believe China (and maybe some other Communist nations) has a fundamental civil right clause entitling any citizen to free, full university level education, presumably if they want it, and are capable of it. I don’t know if its constitutionally protected, but China does mention it annually in their civil rights violation report, specifically mentioning how the United States violates that fundamental civil right to US citizens.
That doesn’t chime with my experience at all, and I’ve lived there for more than forty years*. Scotland has an ancient “right to roam”, and it was finally codified in law in 2003, but the law just reflected accepted practice.
- Edited: the “no trespassing” signs part anyway. The fences and dykes (where there are any, there’s vast tracts of land that are unfenced) are mostly to keep sheep from straying too far.
Canada has a few interesting clauses that were left in as hang-overs from the 1867 British North America Act (of the British Parliament).
Some provinces have the right to Catholic School systems as well as the public school boards - this goes back to the good old days, when the Catholic system was there so those pesky Irish and French-Canadians wuldn’t pollute the public school system, which of course would be fine British Protestant. (Presumably with a strong Anglican/Church of England tendency).
Also, like the USA, Natives have special rights. The original right in the BNA was that they were exemt from border duties; this went back to when the border was fairly amorphous and natives habitually crossed it - in the days of strict protectionist duties, they would not be dinged for whatever goods they carried with them. This was later interpreted to include freedom from sales taxes and income tax, for natives living on reserves or those (usually the priviliged elite) who worked for “native organizations” even if they had to live off a reserve. So the native executives of the native organizations pull down typical government executive salaries living in Ottawa, but pay no income tax on it.
However, property rights for regular Canadian citizens were specifically excluded as a right, in order to get the cooperation of the socialist party in Canada in approving the new constitution.
Unfortunately, in Texas, that right doesn’t also grant you the right to a trash-free beach :eek: