The highlighted part wouldn’t be regarded as wild food, as the landowner has specifically cultivated it.
Usually the difference is one of exclusive or inclusive language. If you read the US Constitution, it’s a combination of statements describing the shape of the Federal and State government system, and then a series of statements (inc. the Bill of Rights) that proclaim limits on what the governments cannot do.
Other constitutions like the proposed EU Constitution of some years ago, took an opposite tack and tried to enumerate everything the governments must do or can do, and the thing ballooned to some absurd size as a result.
IIRC, doesn’t California have a rule that land between low and high tide is public land - but many places try to limit access by not providing a public right of way from the road through to the water.
The German constitution specifically mentions children born out of wedlock as a protected group. Makes sense from a historical perspective, but I always thought this is kind of weird in this day and age.
Dude. The population of QC was about the same as that of ON in 1867. The desire to protect the religious minority (or to not taint the religious majority) went both ways.
Of course. With the big hoohah about French vs. English that floats around Canada today, it’s instructive to see that the 19th-century obsession was about religion, they couldn’t care that much about language; they lumped the Irish and French together as needing to be separated from the God-fearing fine upstanding protestant Englishmen.
It makes me wonder what people will think of the quirky Canadian language obsession 100 years from now?
Well, the US constitution does allow the suspension of Habeas Corpus, but only if required for the “public safety” in case of rebellion or invasion. If the government can incarcerate you without telling you what you did wrong (effectively allowing them to incarcerate people who have done nothing wrong), then I’d say that your rights have effectively been suspended.
[hijack]
Apologies for hijacking the thread - you’re missing my point. You’re making it sound like the Anglo/Protestants conspired in the BNA Act to subjugate the French/Irish/Catholics.
Lower Canada/Canada East/Quebec (I forget what it was called at the time of Confederation) was an enthusiastic participant in creating the Dominion of Canada and there, obviously, Catholics were in the majority.
So no, the protection of religious schooling in the BNA act was not, as you put it, an attempt by the Anglos to protect themselves from the taint of the Catholics. Whatever the underlying motivations, it was something that was mutually agreed to by both Upper Canada/Canada West/ON and LC/CE/QC in entering into confederation. So whatever charitable/uncharitable feelings existed at the time in these respective territories, they were as liable to apply to one side of the Ottawa River as the other!*
(Now maybe the point of confusion here is that QC no longer has a religious-based system, but is more sensibly (sort of) based on language, as of 1999.)
Whether or not religious schooling was protected in NS and NB, I don’t know and don’t have the time to look up. [/hijack]
*Yes, I know that QC does have some territory West of the Ottawa River
Not so; language was always an issue. That’s why there are language provisions in the Constitution Act, 1867 - s. s 133.
The difference between then and now is that then, religion and language were intertwined, and a protection for relgion also served as a protection for languge.
The guarantee of minority schools on religious lines was also seen as a guarantee for minority language education. The Protestants in Quebec were almost entirely English speaking; many of the Catholics in Ontario were French-speaking. It was assumed that each school would not only teach from their own religious perspective, but in the language of the students.
That approach fell apart in World War I, when the government of Ontario required the Catholic schools to teach in English only, and the courts held that the right to a Catholic school did not carry a legal right to teach in French. That Ontario policy was one of the flashpoints leading to the tensions over the Conscription issue, as many Quebecers saw it as an assault on their language rights.
The idea of a completely secular, language based school system had not arrived; schooling and religion went together. We now have that secular language based system, guaranteed by s. 23 of the Charter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_v._Town_Council_of_Portland
[QUOTE=D18]
Whether or not religious schooling was protected in NS and NB, I don’t know and don’t have the time to look up.
[/QUOTE]
They had schools at Confederation that were under the de facto control of different religious groups, but ultimately in New Brunswick the courts ruled that religious control over those schools had not been a matter of law, just practice, and therefore did not come within the protection of s. 93. However, there were riots on the issue, including two fatalities.
See:
The language issue was also one of the main reasons Canada is a federation, not a legislative union, which was Macdonald’s preference. Quebec MPs would only support a federation, in which Quebec had a guaranteed status, giving it control over its own cultural and educational institutions. Language was always a driving force in Canada.
As someone who’s seen THX-1138, actually, I kind of appreciate the sentiment there. “We won’t just number people, people have names.” It’s not something that’s likely to ever come up in practice, but the sentiment is nice.
Yeah, I went to school when Ontario Separate Schools only went to Grade 10 (then you transferred to the Public system) because a court case in the 30’s said Grade 10 was more than enough education for a Catholic. (OK, that’s not the exact wording…)
But there’s the point - the Ontario separate schools were converted to English, but nobody thought to eliminate separate schools for the catholic minority.
I don’t mean that language was irrelevant then, just as you point out, it was intertwined; and that religion is mentioned and guaranteed shows that it was considered as important or more important than language, it was the defining element of the relative cultures.
I figure 100 years from now, Canadians will read about the language argument and think incredulously “they argued so heatedly over that???”
Nice to know 
Hm … my farm is multilevel, rocky, patchy clay and oddly arable so things are not always planted in nice rows, my grapes are arbored on trees, my blueberry bushes and apple trees are planted wherever they can get the rootspace without having to dynamite through bedrock, so it may look like they are feral or self planted. Welcome to New England, state bird is the black fly and the state plant is granite. sigh
Although back when I had sheep, my rambouillet ram Rambeau kept random people out, he had horns and quite the attitude over mine vs yours when it came to paddock space. He sent more than a few kids scrambling out of his yard.
That’s because the all-English policy for Ontario separate schools could be done by ordinary provincial legislation; to eliminate the separate schools would have required a constitutional amendment. I don’t think you can assume that no-one thought of it, and that the English-only was non-controversial. It was intensely controversial to eliminate French language schooling in the Ontario separate schools.
[QUOTE=md2000]
I don’t mean that language was irrelevant then, just as you point out, it was intertwined; and that religion is mentioned and guaranteed shows that it was considered as important or more important than language, it was the defining element of the relative cultures.
[/QUOTE]
Except language is also expressly mentioned in the Constitution Act, 1867: see s. 133, which guarantees the right to use either English or French in Parliament, the federal courts, the Legislature of Quebec, and the courts of Quebec. Both language and religion got constitutional protection, so it’s hard to say that one was more important than the other.
Also, as mentioned earlier, the single biggest guarantee for the French language in Canada was and is the existence of the province of Quebec, a constitutionally entrenched jurisdiction under the control of a francophone majority.
[QUOTE=md2000]
With the big hoohah about French vs. English that floats around Canada today, it’s instructive to see that the 19th-century obsession was about religion, they couldn’t care that much about language;
[/QUOTE]
This simply isn’t correct. The Lord Durham Report, following the 1837 rebellions, makes it abundantly clear that the language issue was a burning one that created extreme tensions in Lower Canada:
[QUOTE=Lord Durham]
. . . I expected to find a contest between a government and a people: I found two nations warring in the bosom of a single state: I found a struggle, not of principles, but of races; and I perceived that it would be idle to attempt any amelioration of laws or institutions until we could first succeed in terminating the deadly animosity that now separates the inhabitants of Lower Canada into the hostile divisions of French and English.
. . . The national feud forces itself on the very senses, irresistibly and palpably, as the origin or the essence of every dispute which divides the community; we discover that dissensions, which appear to have another origin, are but forms of this constant and all-pervading quarrel; and that every contest is one of French and English in the outset, or becomes so ere it has run its course.
…
A jealousy between two races, so long habituated to regard each other with hereditary enmity, and so differing in habits, in language and in laws, would have been inevitable under any form of government.
[/QUOTE]
The subsequent political history of the Province of Canada (1841-1867) also demonstrates that the relations between the two language groups was the pre-dominant political issue. In particular, the Reformers under George Brown were determined to end French-Canadian influence over the English-speaking majority in Canada West (now Ontario).
Australia is conspicuous by absence: there is no bill of rights at all. The constitution protects the right to trial by jury, and that’s about it.
I think technically Australia shares/inherits the English Bill of Rights of 1689. But then that document doesn’t really concern itself with individual liberties and is more to do with limiting the power of the Crown.
In Norway it’s a specific law (but not part of the constitution), Lov om friluftsliv (Law of outdoors recreation).
It pretty much sets out what you’re allowed to, not just what isn’t allowed. For instance:
"§ 2. (Ferdsel i utmark.)
I utmark kan enhver ferdes til fots hele året, når det skjer hensynsfullt og med tilbørlig varsomhet."
Ҥ 2. (Travel on uncultivated land)
On uncultivated land anyone may travel at foot at any time during the year, as long as it’s done considerately and with appropriate care.”
If we’re talking about mere laws, coasts in France belong to the public domain (up to the high tide line +some distance, can’t remember how much). Occasionnally, a wall build around a beachfront property is demolished for this reason. It’s one of the oldest laws still in force in France, dating back to the early 16th century.
There aren’t any peculiar constitutional protection in the French constitution I can think of, although the fact that the preamble of the previous 1946 constitution has constitutional value too implies a number of social rights, like a right to work, but those are interpreted restrictively by courts. However, something like suppressing unemployment benefits could be unconstitutional for this reason, for instance.
On the opposite side of unusual protections, the French constitution allows the president to take what are essentially dictatorial powers (in specified circumstances and to fulfill specified goals, but there are no check on whether or not those conditions/goals are fulfilled and the highest court ruled that it had no competence for such a check the one time it has been implemented, in 1962 when some generals in Algeria attempted a coup).
A friend had her baby a few weeks early and the name was not yet chosen. My friend was adamantly told that the birth would not be registered without a name - no Baby Boy Smith registrations. That may be the only point at which the issue would be raised.
However, that was a before our Bill of Rights came into force. Our constitution is new and the Bill of Rights only came into effect a couple months ago.
Constitution approved June 10, 2009
Constitution came into force Nov 6, 2009
Bill of Rights came into force* Nov 6, 2012
*except for a few provisions regarding housing of prisoners which come into effect in 2013.