Humanities desk
< August 21	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 22[edit]

PARTINERSHIP[edit]

We are from Tanzania we what to know how we able to be you are partner,because we are in non government organization which operate in Tanzania mainland this is in level of National.From the day which we got registration we haven't found fund from any organization and we have many work in Tanzania community.our organization are known as Foundation fo equable development,this deals whith disabilities person and all person who live in difficult life such as children,HIV/AIDS,Elders,Youth act.--41.75.221.160 (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome. It sounds like you need to contact the Wikimedia Foundation, the people who run Wikipedia. You can get their contact information on this page. All the best with your fundraising and your organization. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian equivalent of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution[edit]

Is there a Canadian equivalent to this? I used to say to my wife" I plead the fifth" to which she replied "You are not American." 198.72.29.37 (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This site [1] says that it is understood as part of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states: "everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." But that's not really explicit, and this article [2] from the Toronto Star is of interest: "Right to remain silent not a given, court says", citing a 2007 Supreme Court of Canada decision. So, it's not as clear cut in Canada as it is in the U.S. But I am not a constitutional lawyer. --Xuxl (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the application of "pleading the fifth" in this circumstance is probably more closely related to Section 11(c): "Any person charged with an offence has the right...not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence". That is to say, you can't be compelled to testify against yourself. (Though there's an interesting twist in Section 13, which seems to indicate that you can be required to give self-incriminating testimony at someone else's trial—but if you do so, that testimony can't be directly used against you.)

That's my interpretation, anyway, with the caveat that I am most certainly not a Canadian lawyer (nor an American one). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, saying "I plead Section 11(c)" doesn't quite have the same ring to it. Blueboar (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on this is at Right to silence#Canada. Other parts of the article give a helpful comparison of the position in the other major common law jurisdictions. If the situation arose in a domestic context as described, in Australia I would just say "Privilege!", short and snappy. I don't know if that would make sense in Canada. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I, for one, would have no idea what you meant. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I should have said, in a domestic context as described where the other participant in the conversation is familiar with Australian law... Cultural context obviously matters. If someone said to me, "I take the fifth", I would be a confused as I don't know US constitutional provisions by number. I would think, is it the guarantee of free speech, or the right to bear arms, or something else? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you meant where the other participant in the conversation "is a person familiar with technical legal phraseology", e.g. a lawyer. I am reasonably familiar with Australian law, as I am required to be as a citizen. Having worked for governments most of my life, I have a better than average understanding of the law-making process and the machinery of government. But I am not a lawyer, and your shouting "Privilege!" at me would elicit at best a blank stare. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, knowing whatever portion of the law is necessary for your work might be knowing "Australian law" in your work context, but I think being familiar with "Australian law" acontextually would suggest at least a passing familiariity with one of the basic principles of criminal law. But I appreciate we are looking at this from different perspectives here.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yesss...ish. Conversational context also matters. If you asked me if I ate all the cookies and I said, "I plead the Fifth!", I assume you'd know that it had nothing to do with free speech or bearing arms. Likewise if you were cross-examining me during trial. Being closer to the USians, most Canadians know at least some of the amendments by number, just from cultural assimilation. Matt Deres (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of words enter the lexicon and become divorced from their cultural context, or are understood as idiom in contexts where such idiom doesn't make sense. People still tape shows using a digital video recorder. People still dial phone numbers (on phones with no dials). This website notes that the idiom "dime a dozen" is known outside of the U.S. despite the coin known as a dime not existing there. --Jayron 32 12:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is infact a standard rule of law in western civilisations and as such it is commonly implemented simply as a written law, which a (US-)Constitution ofcourse basically is too, tho in a more fundamental form as declaration of state.

Therefor, the only thing special here its the unique american choice to implement this into its constitution instead of writing/implementing it into some "lower" law. I believe this counts for everyone as long as he is in the US, including "non-americans" ofcourse, so your wife was, lets put it diplomatic, simply "off topic" with her reply.

Its maybe a smart move to counter your wife with diplomacy next time by citing John F. Kennedys famous historic claim "Ich bin ein Berliner" and therfor simply claim for yourself "I am an American" in a similar sense next chance you see fit. --Kharon (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only if your wife is a jelly doughnut. --Jayron 32 13:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: Ich_bin_ein_Berliner#.22I.27m_a_doughnut.22_urban_legend (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. It isn't true. But it is funny. --Jayron 32 10:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing a Canadian, she is probably a democrat, so Kennedy might score well for your marriage status. --Kharon (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how. The New Democratic Party is a social democratic party, whereas the Democratic Party (United States) is a social liberal party. They come from very different economic philosophies. I'm not sure Kennedy would fit well in the NDP philosophy, and if his wife is part of the NDP, I'm not sure Kennedy's political philosophy fits either. Kennedy, were he Canadian, would be a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, given his political philosophy. --Jayron 32 13:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Pleading the fifth" still works in Canada. Just explain that you've consumed a fifth of whiskey and are thus unable to form sentences. StuRat (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

StuRat that doesn't work as that's called a 26er. See #7. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]