Talk:Clarity Act

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: Law Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

TYhe following edit was removed by me:

19:11, 4 November 2006 70.71.39.130 (Talk) (→Background)

On December 19, 2005, the Venice Commission rendered an opinion on the compatibility of the terms of secession for Montenegro with international law, which referenced the Clarity Act.[1] The terms allowed Montenegro to secede from Serbia and Montenegro as long as a referendum were to reach a 55% majority "yes" vote. This was achieved on May 21, 2006, Montenegro declared independence on June 3, 2006, and Canada has recognized Montenegro as an independent nation.

This Anonymous users edit is not relevant to this article. However, more importantly, it is extremely misleading in that the COE (France included) 55% majority "yes" vote was only a part of the restrictions and not a blanket approval. The COE reasons for condoning the vote conformed to the United Nations position with respect to justification which relates to damage done through the actions of the parent country against Montenegro, limitations on its citizens etc. None of these qualifications apply to Quebec as spelled out in the Supreme Court of Canada ruling. J Martin81 22:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Stephane Dion article says:

"He had a significant role in events leading up to the Supreme Court opinion on the unilateral secession of Quebec, handed down on August 20, 1998, and on the Clarity Act of March 15, 2000."

What was this role exactly, and shouldn't something be mentioned here if that's true? Esn 09:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should the words "Clarity Act" be italicized? It was my understanding that legislation that has been enacted is referred to in italics.Talented Mr Miller 17:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the part that claims "The Clarity Act (Bill C-20) was later drafted and presented to the House of Commons on December 13, 1999. This was more bitterly denounced by all provincial parties in the Quebec National Assembly, the Bloc Québécois, and many federalists." I see that this is missing a citation.. but what the entire second sentence intends to say is (ironically) unclear. First, 'more bitterly denounced' than what? Than the conference? I don't think it makes sense to compare the two in such away. In any case it is confusing and should be clarified. Second, who are these 'many federalists'? If you are going to say that without examples it would make sense to mention that many separatists approved of the act as well (in the interest of objectivity). Third, I think those not familiar with Canadian politics would likely find the intended meaning of "... 'provincial' parties in [a] 'National' assembly" confusing. At first reading I took it to be implying that the "Nation" of Quebec has its own provinces (something I've never even heard claim of even by nationalists). I don't think this was the intention but I don't think if would hurt to add something or reword it in such a way that those reading the article won't be confused in this way. Talnova 18:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this moment link to the text of Clarity Act is incorrect Pamerast (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Mindmatrix 19:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a draft version with a detailed history found at User:Mathieugp/drafts/Clarity Act. I wonder if anyone thinks it's worth merging here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clarity Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061229121354/http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1998/1998rcs2-217/1998rcs2-217.html to http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1998/1998rcs2-217/1998rcs2-217.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040229132319/http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/1998/1998scc63.html to http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/1998/1998scc63.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]