翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Madhava ・ Madhava (Vishnu) ・ Madhava Ashish ・ Madhava Gudi ・ Madhava Kandali ・ Madhava of Sangamagrama ・ Madhava Perumal temple ・ Madhava series ・ Madhava Temple ・ Madhava's sine table ・ Madhava-kara ・ Madhavan ・ Madhavan Ayyappath ・ Madhavan Chandradathan ・ Madhavan K. Palat ・ Madhavan Nair v Public Prosecutor ・ Madhavapatnam ・ Madhavapeddi Satyam ・ Madhavapeddi Suresh ・ Madhavapuram ・ Madhavaram ・ Madhavaram (State Assembly Constituency) ・ Madhavaram Botanical Garden ・ Madhavaram Junction ・ Madhavaram Krishna Rao ・ Madhavaram Milk Colony ・ Madhavaram taluk ・ Madhavaram, West Godavari ・ Madhavarayunigudem ・ Madhavdev Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Madhavan Nair v Public Prosecutor ： ウィキペディア英語版 Madhavan Nair v Public Prosecutor Madhavan Nair & Anor. v. Public Prosecutor () 2 MLJ 264 is a case in Malaysian law concerning the freedom of speech, sedition, and Article 10 of the Constitution. ==Background== The applicants had applied for and been granted a permit to speak in a public place under the terms of the Police Act, which grants the Royal Malaysian Police the power to issue such licences. The permit prohibited the applicants from speaking about particular issues, including the status of the Malay language as the national language, and policies related to education. These issues were considered "sensitive"〔Yatim, Rais (1995). ''Freedom Under Executive Power in Malaysia: A Study of Executive Supremacy'', p. 155. Endowment Publications. ISBN 983-99984-0-4.〕 — they had been entrenched in the Constitution after the May 13 Incident of racial rioting in the federal capital of Kuala Lumpur in 1969.〔Khoo, Boo Teik (1995). ''Paradoxes of Mahathirism'', pp. 104–106. Oxford University Press. ISBN 967-65-3094-8.〕 The applicants argued that these restrictions issued by the Police were unconstitutional, contravening Article 10, which provides for freedom of speech (subject to any legislation that Parliament may pass restricting this freedom). In their view, a person ought to be able to speak on any issue he likes — if in doing so, he runs the risk of violating the law (questioning the "sensitive" provisions of the Constitution constitutes a crime under the Sedition Act), so be it. They argued that the Police did not have the right to impose prior restraint in the issuing of permits, and this was thus ''ultra vires'' (beyond the power granted by) Article 10.〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Madhavan Nair v Public Prosecutor」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.