DOCSLIB.ORG

Report on Defamation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report on Defamation (SCOT LAW COM No 248) Report on Defamation report Report on Defamation Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers under section 3(2) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 December 2017 SCOT LAW COM No 248 SG/2017/263 The Scottish Law Commission was set up by section 2 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 (as amended) for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law of Scotland. The Commissioners are: The Honourable Lord Pentland, Chairman Caroline Drummond David Johnston QC Professor Hector L MacQueen Dr Andrew J M Steven. The Chief Executive of the Commission is Malcolm McMillan. Its offices are at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh EH9 1PR. Tel: 0131 668 2131 Email: [email protected] Or via our website at https://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/contact-us/ NOTES 1. Please note that all hyperlinks in this document were checked for accuracy at the time of final draft. 2. If you have any difficulty in reading this document, please contact us and we will do our best to assist. You may wish to note that the pdf version of this document available on our website has been tagged for accessibility. 3. © Crown copyright 2017 You may re-use this publication (excluding logos and any photographs) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0. To view this licence visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3; or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU; or email [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available on our website at https://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected]. ISBN: 978-0-9935529-8-4 Produced for the Scottish Law Commission by APS Group Scotland, 21 Tennant Street, Edinburgh EH6 5NA. ii SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION Item No 5 of our Ninth Programme of Law Reform Report on Defamation To: Michael Matheson MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Justice We have the honour to submit to the Scottish Ministers our Report on Defamation. (Signed) PAUL B CULLEN, Chairman C S DRUMMOND D E L JOHNSTON HECTOR L MACQUEEN ANDREW J M STEVEN Malcolm McMillan, Chief Executive 7 November 2017 iii Contents Click on any of the headings below to go to the relevant page. Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... viii Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Background to this project ............................................................................................. 2 Our approach ................................................................................................................ 3 Structure of the Report .................................................................................................. 3 Legislative competence ................................................................................................. 3 Commencement and transitional provisions .................................................................. 5 Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment ............................................................... 5 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... 6 Chapter 2 Third party communication requirement and the threshold test ................ 7 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 7 Requirement of communication of a defamatory statement to a third party ................... 7 Protection from harassment ....................................................................................... 8 Offensive communications ......................................................................................... 8 Intentional infliction of mental harm ............................................................................ 9 Threshold of serious harm ............................................................................................. 9 Potential modifications required to procedural rules to fit with a statutory threshold test .......................................................................................................................... 12 Proceedings at the instance of profit-making bodies .................................................... 12 Background to the framing of the Bill provision ........................................................ 14 Prohibition of proceedings in defamation by public authorities ..................................... 15 An extension of the Derbyshire principle to private companies? .............................. 16 Chapter 3 Defences ....................................................................................................... 18 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 18 Truth............................................................................................................................ 18 Responses supporting a statutory defence of truth in principle ................................ 18 Responses opposing a statutory defence of truth .................................................... 19 Our view .................................................................................................................. 19 Fair comment .............................................................................................................. 20 Should the defence of fair comment be set out in statutory form? ............................ 21 iv Honest opinion ......................................................................................................... 21 Should it be a requirement of the defence of fair comment that comment be on a matter of public interest? ......................................................................................... 22 Honest opinion and the basis for it ........................................................................... 23 Should it be a requirement of the defence that the author of the comment honestly believed in the comment or opinion expressed? ...................................................... 24 Should the defence require that the fact or facts on which it is based provide a sufficient basis for the comment? ............................................................................. 26 Should it be necessary that the fact or facts on which the comment is based exist before or at the same time as the comment is made? .............................................. 28 Should the defence be available where the factual basis for an opinion expressed was true, privileged or reasonably believed to be true? ........................................... 29 Summary of conclusions on honest opinion and the basis for it ............................... 30 Should there be any other substantive changes to the defence of fair comment in Scots law? ............................................................................................................... 32 Publication on a matter of public interest ..................................................................... 32 Arguments in favour of a statutory public-interest defence ....................................... 33 Possible improvements to the 2013 Act model ........................................................ 33 Arguments against a statutory public-interest defence ............................................. 34 Our view .................................................................................................................. 34 Expressions of opinion ............................................................................................. 35 Reportage ................................................................................................................ 35 Chapter 4 Defamation and secondary publishers ...................................................... 38 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 38 Background to the approach of this chapter ................................................................ 38 Section 5 of the 2013 Act: a suitable model for Scots law? .......................................... 39 Concerns on matters of principle ............................................................................. 40 Complexity and timescales of the 2013 Regulations ................................................ 41 Is there a need for an equivalent of section 5 of the 2013 Act? ................................ 41 The possibility of detailed provision as to responsibility and defences for internet intermediaries .............................................................................................................. 42 The substantive approach which we recommend: exclusion of proceedings against secondary publishers .................................................................................................. 44 Chapter 5 Absolute and qualified privilege ................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Defamation and the Internet: Scoping Study
    Law Commission DEFAMATION AND THE INTERNET A Preliminary Investigation Scoping Study No 2 December 2002 The Law Commission was set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 to promote the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Toulson, Chairman Professor Hugh Beale, QC Mr Stuart Bridge Professor Martin Partington, CBE Judge Alan Wilkie, QC The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. The paper was completed on 8 November 2002. This preliminary investigation is the second of two scoping studies, carried out in response to a request from the Lord Chancellor dated 31 January 2002.1 Comments may be sent to: David Willink Civil Law Development Division Lord Chancellor’s Department Southside 105 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QT email: [email protected] It would be helpful if, where possible, comments could be sent by email or email attachment, in any commonly used format. © Crown copyright 2002 1 The first study, Aspects of Defamation Procedure, was published in May 2002, and is available on the Internet at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk. THE LAW COMMISSION DEFAMATION AND THE INTERNET: A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION CONTENTS Paragraph Page PART I: INTRODUCTION 1 The issues 1.4 1 ISP liability for other people’s material 1.5 1 The limitation period and online archives 1.6 2 Jurisdiction issues 1.8 2 Contempt of court 1.10 2 Summary of conclusions 1.11 2 Liability of internet service providers 1.12 2 Archives and
    [Show full text]
  • Marital Rape: an Evaluation of the Patriarchal Injustice in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013
    Christ University Law Journal, 3, 2 (2014), 97-112 ISSN 2278-4322|doi.org/10.12728/culj.5.6 Marital Rape: An Evaluation of the Patriarchal Injustice in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 Shivika Choudhary* Abstract The traditional belief that marriage provides a husband with sole rights over his wife, thereby exempting him from any prosecution for raping his wife, has been the justification for denying a woman the right to consent to sexual intercourse in marriage. Unfortunately, this belief has been a source of subjugation and exploitation of women at the behest of their husbands. Despite recommendations to revoke it, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 has retained the marital exception. The purpose of this article is to examine this dichotomy in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 that punishes rape as such, but does not penalise a husband raping his wife of fifteen years or above. Employing doctrinal method of research, this article analyses the various discrepancies and ambiguities in the Act of 2013 that perpetuate this culture of oppression and violence. Consent is the antithesis to rape. Thus, having examined the need for a married woman‟s right to consent, this note examines the ensuing lacunae that grant legal sanction to child marriages, create an unexplained discrepancy in the punishment for rape, and create variations in the age of consent and the age for availing exception. The recognition of marital rape when spouses live separately and not otherwise appears to be a mysterious distinction. Further, treatment of marital rape * Doctoral Research Scholar (Legal Studies), South Asian University, New Delhi; [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Defamation in Scotland and the Republic of Ireland
    Research and Information Service Briefing Paper Paper 37/14 21 March 2014 NIAR 95-14 Michael Potter Defamation in Scotland and the Republic of Ireland Nothing in this paper constitutes legal advice or should be used as a replacement for such 1 Introduction The Committee for Finance and Personnel commissioned background research into the approaches adopted by the Scottish Parliament and the Oireachtas with respect to defamation law1. This paper supplements Briefing Paper 90/13 ‘The Defamation Act 2013’2, presented to the Committee for Finance and Personnel on 26 June 20133. The paper considers defamation law in Scotland and the Republic of Ireland in the light of legislative change in England and Wales brought about by the Defamation Act 2013. 1 Meeting of the Committee for Finance and Personnel 3 July 2013: http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/Documents/Finance/minutes/20130703.pdf. 2 Research and Information Service Briefing Paper 90/13 The Defamation Act 2013 21 June 2013: http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/Documents/RaISe/Publications/2013/finance_personnel/9013.pdf. 3 Meeting of the Committee for Finance and Personnel 26 June 2013: http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/Documents/Finance/minutes/20130626.pdf. Providing research and information services to the Northern Ireland Assembly 1 NIAR 95-14 Briefing Paper 2 Defamation Law in England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland The basis of defamation law in all four jurisdictions is in common law. Legislation has codified certain aspects of defamation in each case, the more recent
    [Show full text]
  • Poinding and Warrant Sale
    SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION (Scot Law Com No 177) Report on Poinding and Warrant Sale Report on a reference under section 3(1)(e) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers April 2000 SE/2000/40 Edinburgh: The Stationery Office £12.90 The Scottish Law Commission was set up by section 2 of the Law Commissions Act 19651 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law of Scotland. The Commissioners are: The Honourable Lord Gill, Chairman P S Hodge, QC Professor G Maher Professor K G C Reid Professor J M Thomson The Secretary of the Commission is Mr N Raven. Its offices are at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh EH9 1PR 1 Now amended by the Scotland Act 1998 (Consequential Modifications) (No 2) Order 1999 (S.I.1999/1802) ii SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION Report on a reference under section 3(1)(e) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Poinding and Warrant Sale To: Jim Wallace, Esq., QC, MSP, Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice We have the honour to submit to the Scottish Ministers our Report on Poinding and Warrant Sale. (Signed) BRIAN GILL, Chairman PATRICK S HODGE GERARD MAHER KENNETH G C REID JOSEPH M THOMSON NORMAN RAVEN, Secretary 20 March 2000 iii Contents Paragraph Page Executive Summary x-xi Table of Abbreviations xii-xiii PART I - INTRODUCTION Background to report 1.1 1 Our 1985 Report and the 1987 Act 1.3 1 Consultation and other material 1.5 2 The SOCRU evaluation of the 1987 Act 1.9 3 Structure of the report 1.10 3 Acknowledgements 1.11 3 PART 2 - POLICY ISSUES Introduction 2.1 4 The nature
    [Show full text]
  • Wisconsin's Role in the Uniform Law Commission
    LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE BUREAU Wisconsin’s Role in the Uniform Law Commission: 2021–22 Legislative Session Aaron Gary senior legislative attorney Alex Rosenberg legislative analyst WISCONSIN POLICY PROJECT • April 2021, Volume 4, Number 1 © 2021 Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau One East Main Street, Suite 200, Madison, Wisconsin 53703 http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb • 608-504-5801 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA. Introduction The Uniform Law Commission1 (ULC), composed of state delegations and financially supported by the states, crafts legislation for potential enactment by state legislatures. The mission of the ULC is to create uniformity among the states in areas of law in which uniformity is desirable and practicable,2 such as those involving cross-border business transactions or the dissolution of marriages with spouses living in different states. To this end, ULC Commissioners research and draft proposed legislation and the ULC, through deliberative, formal proceedings resembling those of state legislatures, votes to adopt drafted proposals as “final acts” ready for state consideration. The ULC describes its work as providing states with “non-partisan, well-conceived and well-drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of state statutory law.”3 The quintessential uni- form law is the Uniform Commercial Code, developed to facilitate multistate commer- cial transactions by applying uniform rules for all of the transaction’s participants, wher- ever located.
    [Show full text]
  • International Law in the Nigerian Legal System Christian N
    Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons Publications Faculty Scholarship Spring 1997 International Law in the Nigerian Legal System Christian N. Okeke Golden Gate University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/pubs Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation 27 Cal. W. Int'l. L. J. 311 (1997) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Publications by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE NIGERIAN LEGAL SYSTEM CHRISTIAN N. OKEKE· Table ofContents INTRODUCTION 312 ARGUMENT OF THE PAPER 312 DEFINITIONS 317 I. UNITED NATIONS DECADE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 321 II. HISTORICAL OUTLINE 323 A. Nigeria and Pre-Colonial International Law 323 B. Nigeria and "Colonial" International Law 326 C. The Place ofInternational Law in the Nigerian Constitutional Development 328 III. GENERAL DISPOSITION TOWARD INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE ESTABLISHED RULES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 330 IV. THE PLACE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN NIGERIAN MUNICIPAL LAW 335 V. NIGERIA'S TREATY-MAKING PRACTICE , 337 VI. ApPLICABLE LAW IN SELECTED QUESTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 339 A. International Human Rights and Nigerian Law 339 B. The Attitude ofthe Nigerian Courts to the Decrees and Edicts Derogating from Human Rights ............ 341 c. Implementation ofInternational Human Rights Treaties to Which Nigeria is a Party 342 D. Aliens Law .................................. 344 E. Extradition .................................. 348 F. Extradition and Human Rights 350 VII.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Statutes
    Table of Statutes Commonwealth Constitution: 297 s 9: 296 Ch III: 5, 14, 15, 234, 363, 370, 372, 391, s 10: 296 397, 398, 404-406, 410 s 11: 296 s 1: 391, 422, 436 s 12: 17 s 7: 417, 422, 423, 425, 428, 429, 432, s 13: 296 436, 441 s 14: 296 s 8: 436 s 15: 17, 18, 296 s 15: 180, 193 s 15(1): 6 s 16: 436 Australia (Request and Consent) Act s 24: 416, 417, 422-425, 428, 429, 432, 1985: 296 436, 441 Australian Capital Territory (Self-Gov- s 29: 422 ernment) 1988 s 30: 422, 436 s 22: 66 s 49: 317 Broadcasting Act 1942 s 51: 65 Pt IIID: 426 s 51(xxix): 233 Builders Labourers Federation (Cancel- s 51(xxxi): 380 lation of Registration) Act 1986: 367, s 51(xxxv): 426 370 s 51(xxxvii): 3 Builders Labourers Federation (Cancel- s 51(xxxviii): 3, 281, 285, 287, 288 lation of Registration – Conse- s 53: 191 quential Provisions) Act 1986: 367 s 57: 185, 192 s 7: 368 s 61: 391 Builders Labourers Federation Legis- s 71: 14, 384, 391, 396, 397, 399 lation Amendment Act 1990: 389 s 73: 384 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902: 422 s 74: 273 Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904: s 77(iii): 14, 384, 396, 399, 405 367 s 80: 380 Constitution Alteration (State Debts) Act s 90: 66, 67 1929: 142 s 92: 380 Customs Act 1901: 66 s 105A: 142, 144, 148 Financial Agreements (Commonwealth s 105A(3): 144 Liability) Act 1932: 143 s 105A(5): 144 Financial Agreements Enforcement Act s 106: 78, 79, 234, 352, 371, 432, 440 1932: 143, 146, 152, 157 s 107: 356, 357 Pt II: 144 s 116: 380 Financial Agreements (State Legislation) s 117: 380 Act 1932: 148 s 128: 18, 115-117, 429, 434
    [Show full text]
  • Defamation Act 2013 Is up to Date with All Changes Known to Be in Force on Or Before 05 September 2021
    Changes to legislation: Defamation Act 2013 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 05 September 2021. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. (See end of Document for details) View outstanding changes Defamation Act 2013 2013 CHAPTER 26 An Act to amend the law of defamation. [25th April 2013] BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— Requirement of serious harm 1 Serious harm (1) A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant. (2) For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss. Commencement Information I1 S. 1 in force at 1.1.2014 by S.I. 2013/3027, art. 2 Defences 2 Truth (1) It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true. (2) Subsection (3) applies in an action for defamation if the statement complained of conveys two or more distinct imputations. 2 Defamation Act 2013 (c. 26) Document Generated: 2021-09-05 Changes to legislation: Defamation Act 2013 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 05 September 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • Scottish Law Commission Annual Report 2019
    promoting law reform (SCOT LAW COM No 255) annual report | 2019 1 2 promoting law reform The Commission was established under the Law Commissions Act 1965 Our function To recommend reforms to improve, simplify and update the law of Scotland Our role To play a leading role in developing the law for the people of Scotland so that it is just, principled, responsive and easy to understand annual report | 2019 1 Commissioners and Chief Executive in 2019 (back row) Malcolm McMillan (Chief Executive), David Johnston QC, and Lady Paton (Chair) (front row) Professor Frankie McCarthy, Caroline Drummond and Kate Dowdalls QC 2 promoting law reform Annual Report 2019 To: Humza Yousaf MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Justice We are pleased to submit to the Scottish Ministers our Annual Report for the year to 31 December 2019. ANN PATON, Chair KATE DOWDALLS FRANKIE McCARTHY Malcolm McMillan, Chief Executive 10 February 2020 Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers under section 3(3) of the Law Commissions Act 1965. February 2020 SCOT LAW COM No 255 SG/2020/23 3 © Crown copyright 2020 You may re-use this publication (excluding logos and any photographs) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0. To view this licence visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3; or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU; or email: [email protected] Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
    [Show full text]
  • SKEPTICAL INQUIRER Vol
    SKEPTICAL INQUIRER Vol. 18. No. 4 THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER is the official journal of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, an international organization. Editor Kendrick Frazier. Editorial Board James E. Alcock, Barry Beyerstein, Susan J. Blackmore, Martin Gardner, Ray Hyman, Philip J. Klass, Paul Kurtz, Joe Nickell, Lee Nisbet, Bela Scheiber. Consulting Editors Robert A. Baker, William Sims Bainbridge, John R. Cole, Kenneth L. Feder, C. E. M. Hansel, E. C. Krupp, David F. Marks, Andrew Neher, James E. Oberg, Robert Sheaffer, Steven N. Shore. Managing Editor Doris Hawley Doyle. Contributing Editor Lys Ann Shore. Writer Intern Thomas C. Genoni, Jr. Cartoonist Rob Pudim. Business Manager Mary Rose Hays. Assistant Business Manager Sandra Lesniak. Chief Data Officer Richard Seymour. Fulfillment Manager Michael Cione. Production Paul E. Loynes. Art Linda Hays. Audio Technician Vance Vigrass. Librarian Jonathan Jiras. Staff Alfreda Pidgeon, Etienne C. Rios, Ranjit Sandhu, Sharon Sikora, Elizabeth Begley (Albuquerque). The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal Paul Kurtz, Chairman; professor emeritus of philosophy, State University of New York at Buffalo. Barry Karr, Executive Director and Public Relations Director. Lee Nisbet, Special Projects Director. Fellows of the Committee James E. Alcock,* psychologist, York Univ., Toronto; Robert A. Baker, psychologist, Univ. of Kentucky; Stephen Barrett, M.D., psychiatrist, author, consumer advocate, Allentown, Pa. Barry Beyerstein,* biopsychologist, Simon Fraser Univ., Vancouver, B.C., Canada; Irving Biederman, psychologist, Univ. of Southern California; Susan Blackmore,* psychologist, Univ. of the West of England, Bristol; Henri Broch, physicist, Univ. of Nice, France; Jan Harold Brunvand, folklorist, professor of English, Univ.
    [Show full text]
  • HISTORIA SCEPTYCYZMU Monografie Fundacji Na Rzecz Nauki Polskiej
    HISTORIA SCEPTYCYZMU monografie fundacji na rzecz nauki polskiej rada wydawnicza prof. Tomasz Kizwalter, prof. Janusz Sławiński, prof. Antoni Ziemba, prof. Marek Ziółkowski, prof. Szymon Wróbel fundacja na rzecz nauki polskiej Renata Ziemińska HISTORIA SCEPTYCYZMU W POSZUKIWANIU SPÓJNOŚCI toruń 2013 Wydanie książki subwencjonowane przez Fundację na rzecz Nauki Polskiej w ramach programu Monografie FNP Redaktor tomu Anna Mądry Korekty Ewelina Gajewska Projekt okładki i obwoluty Barbara Kaczmarek Printed in Poland © Copyright by Renata Ziemińska and Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika Toruń 2013 ISBN 978-83-231-2949-3 WYDAWNICTWO NAUKOWE UNIWERSYTETU MIKOŁAJA KOPERNIKA Redakcja: ul. Gagarina 5, 87-100 Toruń tel. +48 56 611 42 95, fax +48 56 611 47 05 e-mail: [email protected] Dystrybucja: ul. Reja 25, 87-100 Toruń tel./fax: +48 56 611 42 38, e-mail: [email protected] www.wydawnictwoumk.pl Wydanie pierwsze Druk i oprawa: Abedik Sp. z o.o. ul. Glinki 84, 85-861 Bydgoszcz Spis treści wstęp ......................................................................................................... 9 część i. pojęcie i rodzaje sceptycyzmu rozdział 1. genealogia terminu „sceptycyzm” ........................... 15 rozdział 2. ewolucja pojęcia sceptycyzmu .................................. 21 Starożytny sceptycyzm jako zawieszenie sądów pretendujących do prawdy .......................................................................................... 21 Średniowieczny sceptycyzm jako uznanie słabości ludzkich sądów wobec Bożej wszechmocy
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Memorandum (97KB Pdf Posted 16 June 2009)
    This document relates to the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Bill (SP Bill 27) as introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 15 June 2009 INTERPRETATION AND LEGISLATIVE REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL —————————— POLICY MEMORANDUM INTRODUCTION 1. This document relates to the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Bill introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 15 June 2009. It has been prepared by the Scottish Government to satisfy Rule 9.3.3(c) of the Parliament’s Standing Orders. The contents are entirely the responsibility of the Scottish Government and have not been endorsed by the Parliament. Explanatory Notes and other accompanying documents are published separately as SP Bill 27–EN. BACKGROUND 2. The Bill deals principally with technical procedural matters concerning the making and interpretation of Acts of the Scottish Parliament (“ASPs”) and Scottish instruments made under them. The Bill’s provisions broadly restate, with some modifications, provisions currently found in the Transitional Orders. The Transitional Orders were enacted by Westminster in anticipation of the Scottish Parliament coming into being. The Transitional Orders are– • The Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Publication and Interpretation etc. of Acts of the Scottish Parliament) Order 1999 (SI 1999/1379) (“the Interpretation Order”); • The Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Statutory Instruments) Order 1999 (SI 1999/1096) (“the SI Order”); and • The Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Orders subject to Special Parliamentary Procedure) Order 1999 (SI 1999/1593) (“the SPP Order”). 3. As their name suggests, the Transitional Orders were conceived to be interim measures to allow the new Parliament to operate until such time as it made its own provision.
    [Show full text]