|
|
|
|
... here goes:
Folks may recall a thread well over a year ago in which "Male Circumcision", and its' legality and morality was discussed ad nauseum. Renewing the topic is not my intention, and I do not want to open this whole can of worms all over again, so please be circumspect in any comments you may wish to make.
After exhaustive search (and research) it would appear that there is not now, nor likely was there ever, a Dominion Law respecting circumcision of males in Canada; but, this is where it gets interesting, in 10 Provinces, 1 soon to be Province and past territory, and two of four remaining Territories under the Dominion, governing Regulations have been (or are in the final stages of being) fully enacted which disavow any, or all, charges being allowed under, and made by, Provincial or Territorial Health-care programmes under the National Medicare programme for the provision of male circumcision.
In 2010, in Canada, if a family wants their male child circumcised they must pay for it out of their own pocket. Period. Unless of course your reside in one of the two Territories where the practice is still paid for by the public purse. Interestingly enough all Territories in the Dominion fall under Administrative control of their respective Territorial Councils which in turn report directly to the Dominion Parliament, this being the situation because they do not meet the minimum population requirement to be declared organized territory and thus achieve Provincial status.
So, in essence, it would appear that 10 Provincial and three Territorial Regulations are now legislating away a practice where no prior Legislative Mandate to the contrary seems to have existed in the first place. In other words Laws (in this case Regulations to Provincial and Territorial Health Acts) have been enacted which outlaw policies that had (apparently) never been enacted at all. There has to be some logic that one; but, I'm afeared that I don't see it.
If the Regulation had existed at all, or so I'm reasonably informed, it likely died in the conflagration that consumed Parliament Hill on February 3, 1916. Whilst, entirely through luck, and circumstance, the main body of the Library of Parliament survived the fire, as did the Tower, many lesser troves of documentation held elsewhere throughout the building were lost. This still doesn't explain away why the practice was "assumed" to have been policy, and therefore universally applied throughout the Dominion; nor does it explain away why it's been necessary to enact regulations to do away with the practice, if and when it would now appear that it was never policy in the first place. We Canadians have a catch phrase that explains both away, this being, LOL, "Only in Canada, you say?". Well, apparently it is so.
A side note to this conundrum, the policies, or absence of policies, respecting Male Circumcision in Canada, are not the sole victims of this rather murky culture of Legislative "greyness"; our Income Tax Act, is actually no Act at all; but, like those now governing the non-practice of circumcision in Canada, simply a series of Regulations to a Privy Council Order made during the early years of World War I, whereby the War Measures Act of Canada was empowered (the same Act Pierre Trudeau invoked to deal with Terrorism in Canada during the 1970's in the wake of the James Cross and Pierre LaPorte kidnappings and murders) to raise, and levy, charges against personal income, in the cause of our support and funding participation in that war. These provisions, enacted nearly a century ago have never been revoked, and are varied annually solely through governing Regulations to an Act that doesn't exist, and for all pretense and purpose has never existed, on paper. This perhaps explains why under our Parliamentary system, provided a majority is held by one party, Parliament does not ever need to be convened, excepting once every 5-years under a dissolution order from the Governor-General of Canada which is a requirement under our Election Act; or when a change in the previously struck Budget is required and a money Bill needs to be presented to Parliament. In essence, if the ruling party is capable of running the country according to the terms of the "last" budget struck and approved by the previous Parliament, Parliament does not need to be called to session. Aside from the Election Act or the need for more money to run the country, the only other requirement to call Parliament into session by a ruling party is to declare war. So it would appear that so long as no more money is required, that we're not going to go to war, or an election is looming, the ruling party can govern the country strictly through Orders of the Privy Council. And historically we're not likely to ever know, what some of those may have been in the past century and a half or so.
Warren C. E. Austin
The Gay Deceiver
Toronto, Canada
[Updated on: Sun, 25 April 2010 15:55]
"... comme recherché qu'un délice callipygian"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, Warren, that was a long post. Couldn't it be cut just a little?  [Ducks to avoid flying missiles]
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I am normally quite verbose, but even I found the post heavy going.
It isn't so much the length, at least not in my opinion, but rather the density.
What exactly about male circumcision in Canada is your post talking about?
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... to summarize:
1) It transpires that Canada's policy of widespread Male Circumcision, provided the birth occurred in a hospital, was a non-policy. No record of any empowering piece of legislation can be found, anywhere, going back to before Confederation in 1967, and in truth well before Responsible Government in British North America was enacted in 1837.
2) "Regulations", these being pieces of governing Statute (either Federally or Provincially) that do not require formal Legislative approval, have now, or are the process of being, enacted in 10 Provinces and three (out of five) Territories in the Dominion, respecting the empowerment of Provincial, or Territorial, Health Plans under the National Medicare mandate for the non-payment of medical fees associated with the practice of Male Circumcision under Medicare. In essence, widespread Regulations are being enacted to do away with a practice that it appears was never empowered by Regulation in the first instance.
3) This non-policy, assumed to be policy, may have actually been an Order of The Privy Council of Canada, and if it ever existed in that form, it could well have been destroyed in the fire that consumed most of Parliament Hill in 1916.
4) Law that seems to be Law, that is to say, enacted by Parliament or a Provincial Legislature, may or may not actually be a Law empowered by one or the other; but may actually be an Order in Council, a governing Regulation, or one of many other "Smoke and Mirrors" legislative tricks used by Parliament or a Legislature, provided the governing political party has a majority, and therefore no need to convene Parliament or the Legislative Assembly. The prime example of this practice, as it currently applies to the adjudication of Canadian lives, is the Canadian Income Tax Act, which it transpires in not an Act at all, but a governing Regulation of the War Measures Act, RSC, RRC, as invoked early in World War I, under a Privy Council Order, and designed to help raised the necessary funding to support Canada's contribution to the then war effort through a public levy of taxation charged against "personal" income. Unfortunately for Canadians, and for the World it now transpires, that governing Regulation and Privy Council Order was never rescinded, and the widespread practice of Income Tax became a Canadian, and then soon to be World, reality henceforth and thereafter. Annual changes to the governing Regulations, as prescribed in the Federal Budget, determine the rates and charges and so forth and have done so for almost a century. The wisdom of this practice being determined, back in the day, when it was ascertained that formal passage of any Bill respecting the levy of Income Tax in Canada would fail any attempt to enact such a Law once the War had ended.
5) There are many other examples of non-policies, that appear to be Law, and Laws that are not Law, and whatever, littered throughout the fabric of Canadian Legislative practice. The Province of Quebec's controversial Language Law, is not a Law at all, but again, a governing Regulation of one Provincial statute or another, yet Canadians are empowered by such pieces of non-legislation daily, and have been for more than two-centuries, and will likely continue to be, for centuries more in the future. It's what constitutes the framework of the "Dominion" form of Responsible Self-governance, a legal style and definition of measured governance as stipulated, and regulated, under the Statutes of Westminister; whereby Canada was the World's first "Dominion" proclaimed as such on July 1st, 1867; and, apparently the last remaining, with it having been tried as a form of governance in New Zealand, India, Pakistan, and a couple of other Territories at one time or another since its' first appearance in 1867.
I could give you other, often esoteric, examples of these practices which I uncovered researching the Male Circumcision non-policy; you only have to ask. Some of them are really quite arcane, others merely amusing, whilst more still, startling; but, I leave that for another day.
Warren C. E. Austin
The Gay Deceiver
Toronto, Canada
"... comme recherché qu'un délice callipygian"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, Warren, I gather that the Canadian equivalent of the British National Health service will no longer pay for newly-born male children to be circumcised (except in two 'territories' where it may be).
Good.
(And of course if it had been female circumcision THAT would have been mutilation!)
Come to think of it I don't know whether the British NHS pays for circumcision or not.
I must look it up.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
So public funding has stopped because it's an elective/ cosmetic surgery?
But it's still legal?
A step closer, I guess. But the rights of male children are still being violated!
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... of the topic, I ask that we simply set aside whatever personal views we may, or may not hold.
You are correct in assuming that the public purse in Canada will no long fund the practice of Male Circumcision.
What I find most querulous on one hand, and incredulous on the other, about the uniquely Canadian resolution of this issue is that Provincial and Territorial Regulations have been (or are being) enacted to do away with a practice that, while it was assumed (thought to be?) to be policy (if not Law) for more than a century, is, and was, in reality never a policy or Law in the first place. Given this why would it be at all necessary enact (or empower) any Regulations whatsoever to do dispense with it, if it were not policy? No answer is forthcoming from any quarter on that one, nor I have been informed, is there likely to ever be. As I've said in the above first post in this thread, "Only in Canada, you say?", which seems to be the best we'll ever know.
Warren C. E. Austin
The Gay Deceiver
Toronto, Canada
"... comme recherché qu'un délice callipygian"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
In Australia we've had this in place since 2007 with SA being the last state to adopt the change. I never knew until just now.
http://www.news.com.au/national/sa-to-ban-most-circumcisions-in-state-hospitals/story-e6frfkvr-1111114853797
In Tasmanian the law reform institute is going a step further and considering the legality of circumcision for non-medical purposes (its recommendations if enacted would include a ban on religious circumcision).
http://www.law.utas.edu.au/reform/malecircumcision.htm
[Updated on: Mon, 26 April 2010 00:31]
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
