SW Laws

Home » Posts tagged 'International law'

Tag Archives: International law

Duty to Protect / Correct Utilizing a Universal Standard of Principles (Part Two)

After determining which rights were violated (whether unintentional or outright fraud) utilizing a universal standard of principles and ULTRS (universal language for testimony and reports) to determine which duty was triggered, we can begin to rectify the situation.

This leads to two questions: 1. Where does this situation fall on the spectrum of fairness and, depending on where it falls, 2. What does that translate into in terms of specific procedures that must be followed?

Spectrum of Fairness

The court in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Immigration and Citizenship) listed four factors which help determine where on the spectrum of fairness a given decision lands. Note that the “legitimate expectations” of the person challenging the decision is a consideration, but it is considered before the factors listed below. The doctrine of “legitimate expectations” does not affect where the decision lands on the spectrum of fairness. Rather, it tells us some of the specific procedures that must be followed.

i. Nature of the decision being made and the process followed in making it: here, an assessment of how formal or informal the decision at hand is made. The more adjudicative the administrative decision maker’s nature and the process it follows (i.e. a formal decision), the more procedural safeguards necessary. The more operational or administrative (i.e. an informal decision), the less procedural safeguards necessary

ii. Nature of the statutory scheme and the terms of the statute pursuant to which the body operates: here, an assessment of the statutory scheme is made. If no further remedies or appeal are available under the statute, more procedural safeguards are necessary because the first level of the decision must be procedurally fair.

An assessment of the complexity of the decision being challenged is also made. If it is a relatively simple decision, it will fall at the lower end of the spectrum.

iii. Importance of the decision to the affected parties: here, an assessment of how important the outcome of the decision is to the parties affected. Where the decision is important to the affected parties, high procedural safeguards are necessary. For example, in Kane it was held that a high standard of procedural fairness is required when the right to continue in one’s profession/employment is at stake.

iv. Choices made by the decision-maker: here, an assessment of the power given to the administrative decision maker over its own procedures is made. If they have a lot of power, they are under a high procedural obligation and the decision is at the higher end of the spectrum.

Once these factors are considered, we end up with a point on the spectrum. The next question is: how does this translate into specific procedures?

Specific Procedures

The specific procedures required differs case by case. In Mavi, Justice Binnie stated that we ultimately need a fair process by considering what is relevant in the circumstances. There are general considerations that the court looks to when determining specific procedures:

  • The determination of specific procedures is a balance of fairness, efficiency and predictability of the outcome; and
  • The people affected by a decision have the opportunity to be heard and considered.

The doctrine of “legitimate expectations” can create specific procedures that must be followed where the administrative decision maker has made a certain representation or promise regarding specific procedures that will be followed.

An oral hearing is not necessarily required under the common law where a statute does not specify whether an oral hearing must be held. In Khan, the court held that, if an administrative decision maker is going to decide adversely against someone’s credibility and that person is affected by a decision of the administrative decision maker, an oral hearing must be held.

The enabling statute may state whether reasons for the decisions are required. An administrative decision maker who is subject to the SPPA must give reasons to the affected parties if they ask for them. At common law, Baker clarified that where a decision has important significance for an individual, where there is a statutory right of appeal or in other circumstances, some form of reasons should be required. In Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union, the court held that, at the procedural fairness stage, the only consideration is whether there is a duty to provide reasons. The adequacy of reasons is not a relevant consideration at this stage. In Baker, it was held that where some form of reasons are required, there is flexibility as to what those reasons generally look like. The courts are very flexible as to what counts as reasons.

Conclusion

At this stage of the analysis, there is a two step test. Determining what procedures are required after determining where on the spectrum a given decision lands is a contextual analysis.

My next blog entry will focus on procedural obligations arising under the constitution.

Anthony's Admin Law Blog

After determining that the duty is triggered, we must determine what that duty entails. That leads to two questions: where does this situation fall on the spectrum of fairness and, depending on where it falls, what does that translate into in terms of specific procedures that must be followed?

Spectrum of Fairness

The court in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Immigration and Citizenship) listed four factors which help determine where on the spectrum of fairness a given decision lands. Note that the “legitimate expectations” of the person challenging the decision is a consideration, but it is considered before the factors listed below. The doctrine of “legitimate expectations” does not affect where the decision lands on the spectrum of fairness. Rather, it tells us some of the specific procedures that must be followed.

i. Nature of the decision being made and the process followed in making it: here, an assessment of…

View original post 628 more words

Procedural Obligations: Duty to Protect via Title 17 Utilizing a Universal Standard of Principles (Part One) via Anthony’s Blog

In my last blog entry, I discussed procedural obligations arising from statute and soft law. What happens when those documents are silent or ambiguous? When a statute is silent or leaves gaps with respect to procedure, the common law steps in to fill those gaps. The other fundamental principle is that to override the rules […]

via Procedural Obligations: Common Law (Part One) — Anthony’s Admin Law Blog

Biotech corporations conduct human experimentation in Maui in violation of international law

Maui (NaturalNews) A rogue federal judge is intentionally stalling the implementation of a referendum passed last year by voters in Maui County, Hawaii, which when it finally comes into effect will bar chemical giants Monsanto and Dow from further polluting the island with experimental pesticides and genetically modified organisms (GMOs).Judge Susan Oki Mollway has taken it upon herself to interfere with the will of Maui voters by postponing a hearing that would have moved the referendum forward, her excuse being that two proposed legislative bills that were supposed to come up for consideration, but that have long since died without a hearing, might have made it possible to nullify the referendum (yeah, we can clearly see where your loyalties lie, Mollway).Except that these two bills won’t nullify anything because they’re both dead, which means that they have absolutely no chance of passing. Everyone involved with the process seems to recognize this fact except for Mollway, who is still clinging to a fantasy reality in which Monsanto and Dow are free to spread untested “Frankencrops” and random experimental crop chemicals as they please all over Maui.

Obstructing the democratic process of her state and aiding and abetting two domestic terrorist organizations, Monsanto and Dow, both of which are committing egregious crimes against humanity with their chemical experimentation, Mollway’s stalwart refusal to hold an appropriate hearing on the referendum amounts to nothing more than treason, and she should be immediately pulled from her post and jailed.

Maui residents oppose untested, illegal GM crops and crop chemicals

This is unlikely to happen, of course, but Maui voters and others can start applying much-needed pressure to get the process moving along. Despite what you may have heard in the mainstream media, the referendum in question does not even pertain to commercially approved GMOs and crop pesticides but rather to experimental, untestedGMOs and pesticides that are being planted and sprayed in the open air without approval.

The exact text of the referendum as passed by Maui voters reads as follows:

The Genetically Engineered (GE) Operations and Practices occurring in Maui County (also known as GMO) are different than GE food production farming and therefore pose different circumstances, risks, and concerns.

In Maui County, GE Operations and Practices include the cultivation of GE seed crops, experimental GE test crops, and extensive pesticide use including the testing of experimental Pesticides and their combinations in what is effectively an outdoor laboratory.

Experimental GMO, pesticide operations must be forcibly destroyed

As you can clearly see, Maui residents are rightfully concerned about the human experimentation programs taking place on their island by Monsanto and Dow without proper testing or approval. Open-air plantings of untested GM crops and sprayings of experimental crop chemicals is an irreversible ecological and human health threat that, if our own government won’t even protect us against it, must be dealt with by the people themselves.

One example of this was when activists in Hungary destroyed nearly 1,000 acres of GM maize fields owned by Monsanto back in 2011. Reports indicate that the transgenic crops were plowed under the ground before they had a chance to spread their poisonous pollen. And several years later in Oregon, activists set 40 tons of GM sugar beets ablaze in a major show of force against the government’s unconstitutional collusion with private industry.

“Allowing mass experimentation on humans, with new GMOs and new pesticides, without INFORMED consent…that is the crime. That is an obvious and undeniable crime,” wrote Jon Rappoport, investigative journalist extraordinaire, on his blog. via: 

Sources for this article include:

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com

http://planetsave.com

http://www.systemiccapital.com

Learn more: