L’objet de la recherche consiste à mettre en évidence que la prise en compte des violences émeutières requiert une évolution de l’environnement juridique et des méthodes de maintien de la paix publique hérités de notre histoire. Notre dispositif de gestion de l’ordre public est particulièrement adapté au modèle français de manifestation. C’est considérable et exemplaire à beaucoup d’égards mais cela ne peut clore le débat sur les formes de la réaction sociale nécessaires pour répondre aux différentes formes du répertoire de la protestation en particulier à la dynamique complexe des désordres émeutiers.Alors que la manifestation, son encadrement par les forces de sécurité intérieure et son environnement juridique ressortissent à la culture de l’organisation et de l’ordre, les violences émeutières relèvent, quant à elles, de comportements colériques naturels. Elles constituent un objet et un enjeu différents que traduisent notamment la récurrence des crises en milieu urbain et la difficulté d’y faire face de façon satisfaisante.Sur le plan opérationnel comme sur le plan juridique, l’éventail de la réponse aux désordres est particulièrement large, mais il traduit également un double embarras :• Les violences émeutières sont le plus souvent des violences d’expression. Qu’ils en soient conscients ou non, face à ces comportements, le juge et le politique se sont montrés fréquemment indulgents dans un contexte juridique où la liberté d’expression est un droit fondamental et la manifestation une conquête sans équivalent dans notre pays. Les réponses sociale et judiciaire se caractérisent donc par une mansuétude parfois légitime, parfois inadaptée mais souvent mal comprise.• Les modes d’action policiers et les outils du Droit façonnés par l’environnement juridique et la culture de la manifestation, peuvent se révéler inadaptés pour répondre aux émeutes urbaines et conduire à des évolutions aussi variées qu’inappropriées comme la banalisation du recours à des régimes juridiques d’exception et la sédimentation d’une culture d’affrontement entre police et population.Le concept retentissement / identification et l’analyse des colères rebelles et insoumises ouvrent la voie à une adaptation du droit et de la réponse sociale conciliant le respect des droits fondamentaux et le maintien de la paix publique dans l’espace urbain. Tel est l’enjeu de la dialectique « Libertés - Droit - désordres ». / The object of the research is to highlight that rioting violence cannot be dealt with without an evolution of the legal framework and public-order policing inherited from our History. Our way to manage public-order policing is particularly suitable to our French traditional demonstration pattern. It is significant and exemplary in many respects but that alone cannot close the debate about the forms of social reaction that would be necessary to answer the various forms of the repertoire of protest especially the complex dynamics of rioting disorders.Even though the demonstration, its framing by the police and its legal framework are both an order issue and a cultural issue, rioting acts of violence are a natural irascible behaviour of the human nature. Riots are an object and an issue which translate into in recurring urban crises and the difficulty to satisfactorily deal with them.From an operational point of view and from a judicial one, there is a wide range of answers to the disorders but this results in a double embarrassment:• Riots are very often a means of expression. Consciously or not, the judge and the policy-maker have frequently been indulgent with these behaviours in a legal context in which freedom of expression is a fundamental human right and demonstrating a conquest without equivalent in our country. Social and judicial answers are characterized by indulgence, sometimes legitimate, sometimes inadequate and often ill-understood.• Policing and the tools of the law that were shaped by the legal framework and the culture of demonstration can prove to be inadequate to cope with urban riots and they can result in various as well as inappropriate answers like the trivialization of emergency legal schemes and the sedimentation of a culture of clash between people and the police.The repercussion and identification concept and the analysis of the rebel and unsubdued bouts of anger pave the way to an adaptation of the law and the social response aiming at balancing both the expression of the basic rights and the preservation of public peace in urban areas. This is what is at stake with the dialectics « Liberties – Law – Disorder ».

Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right which is important not only for the intellectual integrity of an individual but also for the healthy development of the whole society. The work represents both general arguments for freedom of expression and codification of freedom in two different legal cultures. In the United States the freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, which complements the rich jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States. In Mexico, the right is regulated in Article 6 of the Constitution. The work shows how both countries reached the current legislation on the basis of examination of legal developments and cultural values. The values of the societies are presented on the basis of Hofstede's cultural dimensions. The core of the thesis is to compare the legal limits, which is made primarily on the basis of judicial practice of the Supreme Courts of both countries. Emphasis is placed on four main areas which are related to freedom of speech: (i) fighting words including hate speech, (ii) symbolic speech, (iii) obscenity, and (iv) defamation. In addition to the legal limits the work interprets also the most significant actual limits in both countries. Finally, the author examines the relationship between freedom of expression and...

This historical study analyses the holistic dynamics of Ethiopia, taking into account political, social, economic, cultural, religious, and media development aspects, with a focus on the three most recent governments (1930–2014), in relation to freedom of expression. The analysis indicates that the Feudalist-Imperial system was clearly the extension of centuries-old imperial hegemony which had used religious, cultural and patriotic hegemony to stifle freedom of expression. During the Socialist-Military regime every sphere of society, including acts of expression, were oriented towards the revolution and socialist political ideology. During the current ethnically based so-called Revolutionary-Democratic regime, freedom of expression has been stifled by means of legislation, government and party structures, complex surveillance, and social networks. While the instruments of repression have differed, relatively speaking, from government to government, the extent of repression has remained similar over a number of centuries. Threats to freedom of expression derive from rulers or governments, in which instances they are entrenched through policies, laws and bureaucracies, from religious and cultural hegemonies, from poverty and a related lack of education and access to information, and from conflicts, rivalry and wars. These threats have their origins in three main interrelated causal or determining factors, namely the Certainty–Uncertainty Dilemma, Ethno-Luminary Thought and Narcissism, which together form a pyramid beneath which freedom of expression in Ethiopia has been trapped. This pyramid is identified in the study as the Social Pyramid, or the Pyramid of Repression Instruments, and it in turn gives rise to an overall web of suppression, that is, the Pyramid Trap of Repression. The study concludes that the repression of freedom of expression in Ethiopia is likely to remain intact, insofar as the threats to freedom of expression and the factors giving rise to those threats persist. While limited gains concerning the right to freedom of expression are achieved periodically, these are routinely undone and rolled back, since the Pyramid Trap of Repression is not dismantled. / In hierdie historiese studie word die holistiese dinamika van Etiopië ontleed, met inagneming van politieke, sosiale, ekonomiese, kulturele, religieuse, en media-ontwikkelingsaspekte. Daar word op die drie mees onlangse regerings (1930–2014) gefokus, ten opsigte van vrye meningsuiting. Die ontleding dui daarop dat die feodalisties-imperialistiese stelsel duidelik die uitbreiding van eeue-oue imperialistiese hegemonie was wat religieuse, kulturele en patriotiese hegemonie gebruik het om vrye meningsuiting te onderdruk. Gedurende die sosialisties-militêre regime was elke sfeer van die samelewing, insluitende dade van uitdrukking, georiënteer tot die revolusie en sosialisties-politieke ideologie. Tydens die huidige, etnies gebaseerde sogenaamde revolusionêr-demokratiese regime, is vrye meningsuiting onderdruk deur wetgewing, regering- en partystrukture, komplekse bewaking, en sosiale netwerke. Hoewel die instrumente van onderdrukking relatief gesproke verskil het van regering tot regering, het die mate van onderdrukking oor ʼn aantal eeue heen soortgelyk gebly. Bedreigings vir vrye meningsuiting is afkomstig van heersers of regerings (en in sulke gevalle word hulle beveilig deur beleide, wette en burokrasieë), van religieuse en kulturele hegemonieë, van armoede en ʼn verwante gebrek aan opvoeding en toegang tot inligting, en van konflikte, mededinging en oorloë. Hierdie bedreigings het ontstaan vanweë drie vernaamste kousale of bepalende faktore wat onderling verwant is, naamlik die sekerheid-onsekerheid-dilemma, etno-voorligter-denke en narsisme, wat gesamentlik ʼn piramide vorm waaronder vrye meningsuiting in Etiopië vasgevang is. Hierdie piramide word in die studie as die sosiale piramide, of die piramide van onderdrukkingsinstrumente, geïdentifiseer, en dit lei op sy beurt tot ʼn algehele web van onderdrukking – die piramidelokval van onderdrukking. Die gevolgtrekking van die studie is dat die onderdrukking van vrye meningsuiting in Etiopië waarskynlik onaangeroer gaan bly, so lank as wat die bedreigings vir vrye meningsuiting en die faktore wat tot daardie bedreigings aanleiding gee, onveranderd bly. Hoewel beperkte suksesse van tyd tot tyd behaal word rakende die reg tot vrye meningsuiting, word sulke prestasies dikwels ongedaan gemaak, omdat die piramidelokval van onderdrukking nie afgebreek word nie. / Communication Science / D. Litt. et Phil. (Communication)

Lobbying should be strictly regulated – that is the major finding of this thesis. The thesis presents many reasons to enact stricter regulations. The principle one being that, as lightly regulated as it is, lobbying is corroding democracy in both Canada and the United States. The thesis opens with a deep investigation of how lobbying works in both countries. There are examples taken from the literature, as well as original qualitative interviews of Canadian lobbyists, former politicians, and officials. Together, these make it clear that there is an intimate relationship between lobbying and campaign financing. The link between the two is sufficiently tight that lobbying and campaign financing should be considered mirrors of each other for the purposes of regulatory design and constitutional jurisprudence. They both have large impacts on government decision-making. Left lightly regulated, lobbying and campaign financing erode the processes of democracy, damage policy-making, and feed an inequality spiral into plutocracy. These have become major challenges of our time. The thesis examines the lobbying regulations currently in place. It finds the regulatory systems of both countries wanting. Since stricter regulation is required to protect democracy and equality, the thesis considers what constitutional constraints, if any, would stand in the way. This, primarily, is a study of how proposed stronger lobbying regulations would interact with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 2 (free expression and association rights) and s. 3 (democratic rights). The principal findings are that legislation which restricted lobbying as proposed would probably be upheld by the Canadian court, but struck down by the American court, due to differences in their constitutional jurisprudence. The thesis contends that robust lobbying regulations would align with Canadian Charter values, provide benefits to democracy, improve government decision-making, increase equality, and create more room for citizen voices. The thesis concludes with a set of proposed principles for lobbying reform and an evaluation of two specific reforms: limits on business lobbying and funding for citizen groups. Although the thesis focuses on Canadian and American lobbying regulations, its lessons are broadly applicable to any jurisdiction that is considering regulating lobbying.

This thesis is an examination of whether the “egalitarian model” for political finance that has been established by the Supreme Court of Canada, other Canadian courts and legal scholars and commentators is actually egalitarian and has been applied consistently (in Chapter 2), and whether Canada’s political finance system measures up to the Court’s model (in Chapters 3 and 4), and how it could be changed to comply with a more egalitarian model that would also be ethical in terms of preventing even the appearance of a conflict of interest (in Chapters 6 and 7). Chapter 1 sets out a general theoretical framework for evaluating the Supreme Court’s egalitarian model, and I develop and set out a more egalitarian model in Chapter 5. In the Chapter 8 conclusion, I summarize the findings and propose structural and positive Charter rights court cases as a way forward, given that the platforms federal politicians and political parties from the past few elections, and the reports of parliamentary committees, have not called for the most of the changes I propose are needed to make the system more egalitarian. The thesis addresses political finance broadly defined as money, property, use of property, gifts, services, favours and other benefits and advantages provided to nomination contestants, election candidates and political party leadership contestants, electoral district associations, political parties, politicians and their staff during election campaign periods and also during the time period between elections, including support provided by “third-party” interest groups, lobbyists and other individuals, and by media outlets. In Chapter 3, I examine the rules that apply to each of these political actors in the areas of registration, donations and loans, spending, public subsidies and disclosure (including auditing), including a separate section on the role of media and social media. Given that political systems include providers (whether as contractors or donors) of money, property and the use of property (including gifts and other benefits and advantages), and services (including favours) to politicians, and given that providers could be lobbyists, I also examine in Chapter 4 the rules concerning gifts, favours and other benefits and relations between voters, lobbyists and politicians, and concerning the conflicts of interest that can be caused by these activities. Other than disclosure and auditing, I do not cover enforcement measures or systems in any of the areas. However, I do note at various points in the thesis that, as several studies and history have shown clearly, effective enforcement measures, policies and practices are key to ensure compliance with such rules. The main contentions that I make are: that the key principles of the Supreme Court of Canada’s egalitarian model have not been consistently upheld by the Court and other Canadian courts, that Canada’ federal political finance system does not fulfill the Court’s egalitarian model, and that several changes are needed to make the model and the system more egalitarian, only a few of which have been addressed by Canadian courts and scholars to date. These contentions counter the claim made in the Court’s rulings, and by many scholars and commentators, that Canada’s political finance system has developed and is based on an egalitarian model. In Chapters 5 through 7, I develop a more egalitarian model and set out specific proposed changes to make Canada’s systems more egalitarian, both in theory and in practice, within the framework of a democratic good government political system (meaning a system with separation of powers, elections, human rights protections, rule of law etc.) and a mixed market economy with both public sector institutions and private sector businesses, unions and other organizations (cooperatives, non-profit, religious organizations etc.). Both the model and many of the specific proposed measures should also be applicable in other jurisdictions with different political systems and economic systems. The framework of 19 standards for a more egalitarian model that I develop in Chapter 5 is based mainly on John Rawls’ theory of justice, but modified and expanded to incorporate critiques of Rawls’ theory, other legal principles and democratic good government theories, international standards, government ethics case law, behavioural psychology studies, and evidence of the public’s expectations. The 201 proposals I make in Chapters 6 and 7 for specific changes to the rules of Canada’s current federal political finance system (again, broadly defined), are based on the model, measures from various jurisdictions in Canada and elsewhere, and international standards. I am not claiming that these changes would definitely result in “better” or more “public interest” policy-making decisions, however that would be determined. I am only contending that the framework I develop is more egalitarian than the Supreme Court’s model, and that the rule changes I suggest would make the political finance, gifts, favours, conflict of interest and lobbying systems align with the more egalitarian model I propose. I primarily use the doctrinal research methodology by examining scholarly research and, given I also examine aspects of the laws of Canadian provinces and municipalities, and other countries, I also deploy some aspects of the comparative methodology (most fully when comparing Canada’s federal rules to Quebec’s rules, and somewhat when comparing Canada’s rules to the U.S. and U.K. rules). The research results from these sources inform the conclusions I set out in my thesis. The thesis advances knowledge in the following areas: 1. It is the first complete evaluation of the federal Canadian political finance, gifts-favours-benefits, conflict of interest and lobbying rules and systems in their current state as of May 2023, based on the findings of extensive new research into key parts of these systems; 2. It sets out the first comprehensive analysis of how the Supreme Court of Canada’s egalitarian model has been applied by the Court and other courts inconsistently, in ways that do not comply with the model; 3. It sets out the first analysis of how Canada’s political finance statutory rules, again defined broadly to include rules that apply to donations, loans, gifts, services, favours and other benefits, lobbying and conflicts of interest, do not comply with the Supreme Court’s egalitarian model, based in part on new statistical research set out in 28 charts, and; 4. It sets out a new theoretical framework based on 19 standards, and a comprehensive set of 201 innovative proposals for changes to make Canada’s political finance rules (again defined broadly) more egalitarian, and more ethical in terms of preventing conflicts of interest. Five comprehensive studies of key parts of the political finance, ethics and lobbying systems are also proposed to gather key information needed to inform the design of some of the 201 proposed changes. Eight structural and positive Charter rights cases are also proposed to challenge current rules that do not comply with the egalitarian model.