Friday, January 28, 2011

How Napoleon Stole Canadian Freedom

 Emperor of Canada?

Let me do this in graphic form for simplicity. We start with the Napoleonic Code by which the French Emperor introduced Roman-based law in 1807.
"Napoleon set out to reform the French legal system in accordance with the ideas of the French Revolution because the old feudal and royal laws seemed confusing and contradictory to the people. Before the Code, France did not have a single set of laws: law consisted mainly of local customs."  
In other words, before the Revolution, France had its own laws based on local customs and precedents, like England. Under the pretext of tidying them up, he threw them out.

Napoleonic

Code

This became the basis of the 1866 Civil Code of Lower Canada and later the 1987Civil Code of Québec (even though Quebec had been under English rule since 1756; a curious post-invasion transmission).

Quebec Civil

Code

Now, let's take a look at the code, as amended, and see what it deals with. Here's the first section:

TITLE ONE
ENJOYMENT AND EXERCISE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

1. Every human being possesses juridical personality and has the full enjoyment of civil rights.

2. Every person has a patrimony.

The patrimony may be divided or appropriated to a purpose, but only to the extent provided by law.

3. Every person is the holder of personality rights, such as the right to life, the right to the inviolability and integrity of his person, and the right to the respect of his name, reputation and privacy.

These rights are inalienable.

4. Every person is fully able to exercise his civil rights.

In certain cases, the law provides for representation or assistance.

5. Every person exercises his civil rights under the name assigned to him and stated in his act of birth.

6. Every person is bound to exercise his civil rights in good faith.

7. No right may be exercised with the intent of injuring another or in an excessive and unreasonable manner which is contrary to the requirements of good faith.

8. No person may renounce the exercise of his civil rights, except to the extent consistent with public order.

9. In the exercise of civil rights, derogations may be made from those rules of this Code which supplement intention, but not from those of public order.

TITLE TWO
CERTAIN PERSONALITY RIGHTS

CHAPTER I
INTEGRITY OF THE PERSON

10. Every person is inviolable and is entitled to the integrity of his person.

Except in cases provided for by law, no one may interfere with his person without his free and enlightened consent.


Remind you of something?  Sound familiar? 

Canadian Constitution
Charter of Rights
and Freedoms


Here's the Legal Rights section of the Canadian Charter or Rights and Freedoms:


Life, liberty and security of person

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Well, well what a surprise. Canada's much vaunted Charter, the central pillar of our constitution, is a knock-off from the top-down administrative law dreamed up by Napoleon, and the intellectuals of the French Revolution, to sweep away French Common Law.

What Trudeau did was to introduce the same concept in Canada under the guise of 'repatriating' our constitution. Only problem was, our constitution didn't include Roman-based administrative law because British law didn't include it.

Trudeau's constitution was in effect a reverse take-over of the English legal system operating in Canada!

Nice going Pierre. Neatly done.

More
Lorne Gunter had a great piece on this same subject today in the National Post from which this post is derived.
Perhaps it was his training in civil law, whereby rights are granted by the state — unlike in the common law tradition, whereby rights are seen as something natural that pre-existed the state. If you believe the state is the original granter of rights, I suppose it also makes some sense to believe you can put the state in charge of protecting rights.
That's a big if, and so Trudeau's whole argument, his whole edifice falls down on this one point.

0 comments: