Talk:Case Briefing: Leon v. Stewart

I like this. Though I'd suggest you actually check the text of the "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" as well as all related laws and legal definitions before following the lead of my "Rights of the Transformed" essay. That essay, sadly, only covers US law and I do not have the resources to check it against the Canadian legal code for accuracy. -- ShadowWolf 04:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I had to take some assumptions with how the two codes would mix with the forming of the NAR. Mostly I assumed Canadian law would take precedence since they were the effective "conquerors" (sp) in this situation. I know that the Charter refrences were correct but since I didn't have a copy on me I can't give direct mentions. Probably something I should fix considering how anally specific law is. --Lloyd

There is a version online that I managed to find. It does not have any specific declaration of what it considers a "person" but it does reference other laws. In this case… The NAR did not specifically include TFOR sufferers when it put together its legal system because it did not foresee anyone trying to deny someone their rights just because of their TFOR status. After all, Teefers were a major part of the military battles that led to the formation of the NAR and one of the biggest celebrities and heroes of the new nation was a Teefer.

So there isn't that much to worry about and this case would have been a trigger for the PM to go to Parliament with a suggestion that they change the law to make sure that it specifically includes Teefers and defines any term that refers to people to include them. Actually… Well… I'm thinking you should use this as "extra material" and actually write a full story around the events mentioned in the story. I think it'd be rather awesome to have in the setting and it would also be early on—say 2013 or so. -- ShadowWolf 17:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I was originally going to, but writing court scenes is a pain in the butt because of all the formalities and procedures involved. I'll work on it though. And for the record, nowhere in Canadian or American law does it attempt to define what a person is, courts always just assumed it refers to humans. --Lloyd

Entirely correct. However, the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" – a part of the Canadian legal code – does specifically refer to "human". As I noted above—and in my essay "The Rights of the Transformed" (I am going to have to add that to Shifti at some point)—without a specific definition given inside the law, it defaults to a "common definition". The problem with that is that such a common definition is malleable and subject to interpretation. But while it is a problem it is also a great benefit—if only because the law can then be changed to include the specific definition needed. -- ShadowWolf 20:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the Declaration a UN document? --Lloyd

Yes, but according to several Canadians I've talked to about it, it was also made part of the Canadian Legal code. They might be wrong, though… -- ShadowWolf 20:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It has never been incorporated into Canadian law, but has been cited numerous times in various cases and a Canadian played an important role in its creation, though for the purposes of this story it isn't actually relevant as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not mention humans specifically and is the document brought up in the story. Also, the rights outlined in the Declaration are guaranteed through various other pieces of Canadian law. I guess one of the main reasons I wrote this was piece was to point out that, while hatred/fear isn't as rampant as it was in TBP, it isn't all flowers-and-sunshine-let's-hold-hands either. --Lloyd