What kind of interesting constitutional protections do other countries have?

[amanset]

@Baron_Greenback

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.

My understanding is that “No Trespassing” signs in Scotland are near buildings. I’ve never seen one out “in the wild”. Not that I’ve really seen them often around buildings either, but still. Anyway, that’s not too dissimilar to Allmansrättens stipulation about not going near homes.

Amusingly (to me), Allmansrätten is another of those “uniquely” Swedish things that aren’t actually unique at all but they like to say they are anyway.

http://www.naturvardsverket.se/en/In-English/Start/Enjoying-nature/The-right-of-public-access/The-Right-of-Public-Access--the-freedom-to-roam/

[robert_columbia]

@Northern_Piper

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.

Which is interesting from a US perspective because language issues are one of the major things keeping Puerto Rico from wanting to become a US state. Right now, it is an Unincorporated Territory subject more or less to the whims of Congress, whom they have no say in electing. If PR became a state, they would have sovereignty over public education, administrative agencies, the state legislature, and state courts and could secure Spanish’s position with laws that could not be struck down. Right now, the officialness of the Spanish language is at the mercy of Congress because even though Congress pretty much lets PR do what it wants right now, it could sweep in anytime and say no.

[Little_Nemo]

I believe Israel grants the right of claiming citizenship to anyone who’s Jewish.

[md2000]

Ys, IIRC Lord Durham specifically recommended that the French be forced to switch to English as a means to reduce tensions in the long run. The British government charitably (if not wisely for them historically) chose to respect the rights of their French subjects. the British were not unaware that a separate ethnic group existed that spoke a different language as well as having a different religion.

My point is this - again - if we were writing the constitution from scratch today, we would not give religion a second thought, except some bland “freedom of religion” pablum. The last 50 years at least, language more than anything else has been the defining cultural difference. In the 1800’s religion was as important or more important than language.

From such heritage details of history are odd constitutional provisons made…

[Muffin]

@GreasyJack

Everyone is guaranteed access to any navigable waterway, and the courts have held virtually any body of water to be navigable.

You’d be amazed at what is navigable.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@md2000

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.

Access to dry sand areas is a right at common law (and by statute in some cases), rather than a constitutional one.

@NitroPress

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.

This being GQ, you’re supposed to cite assertions like this.

[md2000]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

This being GQ, you’re supposed to cite assertions like this.

Canada, for example, has the “not withstanding” clause, that allows the government to pass laws that violate

some

constitutional rights, but must be renewed every 5 years IIRC. basically, if they though the courts were being silly (male and female bathrooms are discrimnatory, for example) or if the government desperately needed to enact its own patriot act, it could do so.

IIRC, the Quebec government thought about using the nothwthstanding clause to exempt itself from the need to give English language rights. IIRC it chose not to.

Basically, the government has to pass a law that says “we know this violates constitutional rights but we’re going to do it anyway for 5 years”. Just invoking that can be prtty contentious. I can’t think off hand that it’s actually been used, although it’s been contemplated a few times.

[flodnak]

It’s a very, very long leap from “one country has a clause that under some circumstances allows some constitutional rights to be temporarily suspended” to “all countries except the US have a a “gotcha” or escape clause in their constitution that lets the government easily suspend all those rights at a whim”.

[ctnguy]

Yeah, the Canadian “notwithstanding clause” is quite unusual. Many constitutions do have provisions relating to derogation from some rights during a state of emergency; and they are not all “escape clauses”, though no doubt some of them are. After all, even the US constitution has an emergency provision: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

[ekedolphin]

The 21st Amendment to Ireland’s constitution bans the death penalty.

Article 5 of the Mexican Constitutionstates that all Mexican citizens are free to work in the profession of their choosing, as long as it does not attack the rights of others. Article 16 guarantees the right of citizen’s arrest to anyone who catches someone in the act of committing a crime. Article 22 includes the death penalty among the forms of “cruel and unusual punishment” that are unconstitutional.

[ruadh]

Ireland’s constitution provides that women shall not be forced by economic necessity to work outside the home. The courts have never enforced this.

[ekedolphin]

@ruadh

Ireland’s constitution provides that women shall not be forced by economic necessity to work outside the home. The courts have never enforced this.

That’d be pretty hard to enforce!

[ruadh]

@ekedolphin

That’d be pretty hard to enforce!

Well it would be now that the state is broke, but there was a time when it could have afforded a social welfare benefit to those women who would otherwise be genuinely compelled to work outside the home (as opposed to working outside the home because they wanted to). I’m only aware of one case in which that Article was actually even interpreted by the Supreme Court, and it basically said it was a statement of principle that doesn’t confer any entitlements. Which I don’t think is really justifiable in a broader Irish constitutional context, but I see why they thought they had to say that.

[psychonaut]

The 1936 Soviet constitution enshrined the following rights:

ARTICLE 119. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to rest and leisure. The right to rest and leisure is ensured by the reduction of the working day to seven hours for the overwhelming majority of the workers, the institution of annual vacations with full pay for workers and employees and the provision of a wide network of sanatoria, rest homes and clubs for the accommodation of the working people.

ARTICLE 120. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to maintenance in old age and also in case of sickness or loss of capacity to work. This right is ensured by the extensive development of social insurance of workers and employees at state expense, free medical service for the working people and the provision of a wide network of health resorts for the use of the working people.