※ 引述《kickTiger (老虎五)》之銘言： : 你自己不說明白魁北克獨立相關問題， 在1998以後的法律變化 : 被我抓包了， 馬上臉也不紅出來反攻我? : 麻煩你再仔細讀讀我說的話: 再不允許.這種. (單方面的.獨立公投)了 : 在修法前， 獨立公投是單方面的。 但是1998以後， 尤其是2000 6月的The Clarity Act : 之後， 單方面的獨立公投不再被允許！ 而是需要所有的省和加拿大政府一起來參與。 : 具體的說， 就是要修憲！ 反駁你的事什麼？ 是立法精神！ 既然要討論，就看加拿大最高法院的全部原文吧： http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1998/vol2/html/1998scr2_0217.html Q1:1.Under the Constitution of Canada, can the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? 最高法院對此問題回答非常長，不過其中： Quebec could not, despite a clear referendum result, purport to invoke a right of self-determination to dictate the terms of a proposed secession to the other parties to the federation. The democratic vote, by however strong a majority, would have no legal effect on its own and could not push aside the principles of federalism and the rule of law, the rights of individuals and minorities, or the operation of democracy in the other provinces or in Canada as a whole. Democratic rights under the Constitution cannot be divorced from constitutional obligations. Nor, however, can the reverse proposition be accepted: the continued existence and operation of the Canadian constitutional order could not be indifferent to a clear expression of a clear majority of Quebecers that they no longer wish to remain in Canada. The other provinces and the federal government would have no basis to deny the right of the government of Quebec to pursue secession should a clear majority of the people of Quebec choose that goal, so long as in doing so, Quebec respects the rights of others. The negotiations that followed such a vote would address the potential act of secession as well as its possible terms should in fact secession proceed. There would be no conclusions predetermined by law on any issue. Negotiations would need to address the interests of the other provinces, t he federal government and Quebec and indeed the rights of all Canadians both within and outside Quebec, and specifically the rights of minorities. The negotiation process would require the reconciliation of various rights and obligations by negotiation between two legitimate majorities, namely, the majority of the population of Quebec, and that of Canada as a whole. A political majority at either level that does not act in accordance with the underlying constitutional principles puts at risk the legitimacy of its exercise of its rights, and the ultimate acceptance of the result by the international community. 在此落落長的文件後面，加拿大最高法院針對"住民自決"有這麼一段： (b) The Right of a People to Self-determination 113 While international law generally regulates the conduct of nation states, it does, in some specific circumstances, also recognize the "rights" of entities other than nation states -- such as the right of a people to self-determination. 114 The existence of the right of a people to self-determination is now so widely recognized in international conventions that the principle has acquired a status beyond "convention" and is considered a general principle of international law. (A. Cassese, Self-determination of peoples: A legal reappraisal (1995), at pp. 171-72; K. Doehring, "Self-Determination", in B. Simma, ed., The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (1994), at p. 70.) 所以加拿大最高法院對"住民自決"的態度寫的清清楚楚， 關於住民自決加拿大最高法院的認知是： "人民自決已經變成「國際法的普遍原則」" a general principle of international law 我很遺憾的告訴你，你下面那一段還不算是原文， 我貼的那一段才是真正的原文， 標出個重點： The other provinces and the federal government would have no basis to deny the right of the government of Quebec to pursue secession should a clear majority of the people of Quebec choose that goal. 我只知道，加拿大最高法院認同住民自決這項大原則，而其他則屬於法律技術細節， 加拿大其他各省及聯邦政府無權阻止奎北克政府繼續推動讓大多數 奎北克人民認同獨立的這個目標。 所以奎北克仍能繼續推動、宣揚甚至是實踐如何脫離聯邦政府獨立。 當初我把奎北克舉出來就是做為住民自決的範例， 奎北克的確舉辦過獨立公投，而加拿大最高法院也對此做出法律判決， 但也認同住民自決精神，至於討論這種基本精神層面的東西 還要搬法律條文來咬文嚼字，而棄住民自決精神於不顧， 莫非中國網民實在對住民自決非常的畏懼而需要敬而遠之？ 以奎北克為例，加國最高法院並未棄住民自決精神於不顧，你怎麼不敢提這點？ 我不僅支持台灣住民自決，我也支持西藏人民自決， 西藏東土運動如果能通過公投贊成，我也支持， 居住在這塊土地上的人民，本來就有權利決定自己的政體、政府、獨立與否， 這是普世價值，不過看來不包括中國人民與政府， 你們真的需要提升一下想法與看法。 同樣的，台灣土地上也一堆人沒有這種胸襟與想法， 推動住民自決的觀念與想法，就是我們該做的事情， 而公投就是住民自決的直接民權的具體展現， 倒是想聽聽看你的想法，看看中國人是如何看待公投這個概念與想法。 : 你以為找來段加拿大法院判決的中文翻譯， 就了不起了？ : 我告訴你吧， 你找來的這段翻譯非常遜! 法院的精確文書， 居然在翻譯時候夾帶私貨! : 加拿大最高法院原文如下: : The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that : the National Assembly, legislature or government : of Quebec do not have, either under Canadian law : or international law, the right to effect the : secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally. : However, the court also emphasized that the rest : of Canada would have a political obligation to : negotiate Quebec's separation if a clear majority : of that province's population voted in favour of it. 你這一段真的不是原文，請詳查。 : 自己看看， 翻譯時候多夾入了什麼吧。 : 而且這個 'negotiate ' 'cledar majority‘ 都有精確冗長的定義。 : 去閱讀 the Clarity Act的原文吧。 : 多用功一點點。 感恩。 我想，我們一起用功吧，謝謝。 --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 220.135.7.165