How Not to Write a Constitution: Part I - Freedom of Speech

See my previous post for the full text of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. (The one that does not contain the word "separation".)

Now have a look at this from another constitution. This is not the original text, but the closest thing to an "official" translation to English (found here).

Article 7 [Expression]
(1) No one shall require prior permission to publish thoughts or opinions through the press, without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law.
(2) Rules concerning radio and television shall be laid down by Act of Parliament. There shall be no prior supervision of the content of a radio or television broadcast.
(3) No one shall be required to submit thoughts or opinions for prior approval in order to disseminate them by means other than those mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law. The holding of performances open to persons younger than sixteen years of age
may be regulated by Act of Parliament in order to protect good morals.
(4) The preceding paragraphs do not apply to commercial advertising.

See the problem?

It only protects from prior restraint. It lacks any clause about abridging the free practice.

Consequently, all that this protects is a person's right to physically speak the words without clearing it with the government first. It does not prevent the government from enacting arbitrary penalties based on content.

This is the reason why a man speaking truthfully about islam can be hauled before a tribunal in Holland. The government has made it a crime to hurt the tender-feelings of islamists. Don't call them "violent" or they'll riot.

In a similar way this doesn't cut it either:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Why not? Well, without being a lawyer and without being well-versed in the circuitous mass that is this particular constitution, I nevertheless observe that there is no text which prohibits limitation or abrogation of these rights. Now there might be text somewhere in this constitution that does that, but it is demonstrated that such a clause is regularly ignored if it does exist.

My evidence for this is that so-called "Provincial Human Rights Commissions" in the country from whose constitution that is taken have tried and condemned Christian ministers for teaching parts of the Old Testament and roundly harassed columnists and publishers for quoting muslims on the subject of muslims. Again this was done on the justification that one must not hurt the tender feelings of islamists.

The underlying point is that you can't trust governments to restrain themselves. The restraints have to be explicit and proximate to the language regarding that from which you wish to restrain them. Otherwise the the most inspiring statements about what rights citizens possess eventually become just worthless ink on worthless paper.

More Examples:

Germany

Article 5
[Freedom of expression, arts and sciences]
(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate
his opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and
to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible
sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting
by means of broadcasts and fi lms shall be guaranteed.
There shall be no censorship.

...so far so good.

(2) These rights shall fi nd their limits in the provisions of general
laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons,
and in the right to personal honour.

Doh!

I'm sure they meant well here, but the problem is that they created an ambiguity that can be, and in fact now is being abused. This is actually one of the better ones out there, but unfortunately, it was apparently not written by people who understood the how and why of governments becoming tyrannical.

Here's one of the worst:

Statutes shall guarantee the expression of diverse opinions and the equitable participation of political parties and groups in the democratic life of the Nation.

So only by statute is there any guarantee at all, and what you're guaranteed is some statutory definition of "diversity". There is no guarantee that you will get to express your opinion unless some bureaucrat decides it fits within their understanding of the statutory definition of "diversity". The very idea should make you sick to your stomach... and that my friends, is just one more reason why France is most assuredly not the pinnacle of Western Civilization.

Here are some more links for further reading:

Constitution of Spain
Constitution of Portugal
Constitution of Austria (horrible)
Austria's "Bill of Rights"
(British) Constitution Society's Webpage
European Convention on Human Rights (orig. 1950)
Constitution of the Czech Republic
Constitution of Sweden
Constitution of Norway
Constitution of Denmark
Constitution of Australia
Constitution of New Zealand
Constitution of India
Constitution of Japan
Constitution of the Philippines