Canada sets an example
Ian Bushfield of the BC Humanists Association writes:
Section 296 of Canada’s Criminal Code said:
Offence
296 (1) Every one who publishes a blasphemous libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
Question of fact
(2) It is a question of fact whether or not any matter that is published is a blasphemous libel.
Saving
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject.
As Jeremy Patrick wrote in his PhD dissertation, the provision has been part of the Code since 1892 and the last conviction was in 1927. Nevertheless, private prosecutions occurred throughout the 1920s and and 30s, with some happening into the 1970s. The most recent effort to invoke the law was in 1979 when an Anglican clergyman tried unsuccessfully to use it to censor a screening of Monty Python’s The Life of Brian.
Humanist and freethinking groups got together in 2016 to send a petition to parliament to get rid of the blasphemy law, aka section 296 of the Criminal Code.
Over 7400 Canadians signed that petition. As part of her response to the petition, Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould confirmed the blasphemy law was being considered as part of a broader effort of justice reform.
Almost a year after the launch of the petition, the Government included the repeal of section 296 in its bill to modernize the criminal code. Bill C-51 repeals a number of archaic and unconstitutional provisions of the Code and make a couple other amendments.
Well done Canada!
The Governor General still has to bestow or pronounce something called Royal Assent, but it looks as if that’s a (quite literal) formality.
H/t Kausik Datta
Yeah, Royal Assent is a formality, like the president signing a bill into law in the US, except although technically the Queen (or in this case, her proxy) has the power to withhold that assent, it hasn’t been used in a very long time.
The prez signing a bill into law in the US though isn’t a formality, it’s a necessary part of the process. Presidents can and do veto bills. And then, remember that thing about Bush 2 and “signing statements”? If he didn’t like a bill that was veto-proof he would just add “signing statements” basically meaning “I’m going to ignore this part and this one and this this and this,” in a way and to an extent that no one had done before.
Two countries separated by a common language! :-) I think we’re using the word formality differently. :-D
You’re using it to mean “something that is done as a matter of course and without question; an inevitability.” I am using it to mean “a thing that is done simply to comply with the requirements of etiquette, regulations, or custom.” A subtle distinction, I’ll grant you. (Definitions copypasted from the Google machine)
The point I was making is that a bill isn’t an Act of Parliament until it has Royal Assent. Just as a US bill isn’t an Act of Congress until it receives the POTUS signature. We don’t really tolerate withholding Royal Assent because the monarch isn’t democratically elected. Obviously, the US system is quite differently constructed and so your president still retains that power. Actually, I seem to remember one of the complaints that instigated the War of Independence was George III’s refusal to give Royal Assent to laws the colonists wanted passed.
Oh I see! No I intended to use it the same way – “a thing that is done simply to comply with the requirements of etiquette, regulations, or custom.” But I was unsure of my ground so that’s why I said “looks as if.” But an assent that the assenter can’t withhold seems like more of a Mere formality than a presidential veto.
If the bill passes the senate then the Governor General signs it and it becomes law. Claire is right that this is “a thing that is done simply to comply with the requirements of etiquette, regulations, or custom.” Theoretically, the GG could refuse to sign it into law but Governors General are political appointees and have absolutely no incentive to kick off the shitstorm that would ensue.
Our real check on parliamentary power is the Supreme Court of Canada, and it’s banhammer is usually our strong Charter of Rights and Freedoms: a lesson the previous government refused to learn.