Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 111859,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/111859/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 387,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "doing so by our laws. This now has been removed so that a citizen of this country may become a dual citizen of another country. As far as our sisters and women folk are concerned, for the first time, they will have the same ability as the men to be able to transfer their nationality to their offsprings, a right which they had been denied for too long. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I wish to go to the Bill of Rights. This has been referred to as the heart of the Constitution. Indeed, I think it is the largest chapter, going from Article 19 to Article 59. It is referred to as the peoples Chapter. This is because this really is the reason we went for constitutional reform. Indeed, if this were to go, we have a very strong heart beating in the Bill of Rights that is proposed. I wish to look at a number of the Articles with your permission, because this bill of rights chapter has generated quite a bit of debate. I wish to read one or two of those chapters. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the first is Article 24 of the Bill of Rights Chapter. Article 24 deals with limitation of rights. It says: “A right of fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights shall not be limited except by law only to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justified in an open and democratic society based on human rights, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors.” Further, despite Clause 1, a provisional legislation limiting a fundamental right and freedom: (a) In the case of provisions enacted or amended on or after the effective date is not valid unless the legislation specifically expresses the intention to limit the right of fundamental freedom and the nature and extent of the limitation. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the reason I am reading is that the current Constitution has a very old fashioned exemption clause which was used essentially to suspend the Constitution, so that when in the 1980s and 1990s people wanted to exercise their rights, that exemption clause was used because the Constitution seemed to have given them on the right hand and taken away on the left hand. This is a modern exemption clause. It understands that, indeed, times will arise when the Constitution provisions may be limited, but only in as far as the Constitution provisions say, so that the limitations are specific and for reasons that are very clear. But where, indeed, those clear reasons are, there is nothing stopping this legislature from limiting those rights."
}