Posted on 01/02/2005 8:53:31 AM PST by Clive
They're funny things in Canada these days. Seems more and more people are getting more and more "rights" for just about anything under the sun.
Last month, Associate Chief Justice Jeffrey Oliphant ruled that women who want abortions have the right to force government to pay for their procedures at private clinics because they can get them done faster than at a public hospital.
It's their Charter right, he ruled.
Gay couples have been granted the "right" to marry by the courts.
The Manitoba Labour Board ruled recently that a salaried worker had a "right" to get paid overtime by her employer, even though she agreed when she took the job that the position might include some overtime.
Even inmates have the "right" to vote today.
Rights are being handed out so liberally these days, it's difficult to know what a real human right is any more.
The traditional definition would probably include such basic rights as protection from discrimination, the right to a fair trial, freedom of expression and religion, and the right to peaceful assembly.
It's the type of rights most fair-minded and rational people would agree are critical in a free and healthy democracy.
Unfortunately, courts have gone far beyond that traditional definition in recent years in their interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
And it seems people today have the "right" to do and expect just about anything.
There really is no such thing as a natural human right.
We like to say that something is a "fundamental human right." But it's only a right if it's prescribed in law by our legislators.
The only reason we have freedom of the press in Canada, for example, is because it's set out in Sec. 2(b) of the Charter of Rights.
If it wasn't there, we wouldn't have that right.
For example, I don't have the same rights as a woman of colour in applying for most government jobs in Canada. Most governments discriminate against white males as part of their affirmative action programs to increase the percentage of visible minorities in their workforces.
I may think that's a violation of my fundamental rights but it isn't. That's because the Charter is very clear in Sec. 15(2) which states that the protection I have against discrimination based on gender and colour is trumped by any program that "has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."
So white guys like me are out of luck.
If your right isn't in the Charter, or some other statute, it isn't a right.
The problem we run into is that while the Charter is specific in some circumstances, such as the right for any Canadian to live and work in any province they choose, it's vague in other areas.
It was written like that deliberately to allow the courts to interpret it.
But because there are few limits placed on judges on how they interpret the Charter, they have the power to actually create new rights where none existed before, whether that was the intent of the original Charter authors or not.
And that can be a problem.
If you follow through on Oliphant's ruling on abortion clinics logically, for example, the courts -- if they want to be consistent -- would have to grant the same rights to a whole host of other medical customers.
Take the child who has to wait a year in extreme pain for dental surgery because her parents, who are on social assistance, can't afford to get it done immediately at a private clinic.
Should the courts force government to pay the facility fee at a private clinic because it's that child's Charter right?
OK, so what if they did? What's next?
The dental work is not an insured service under Manitoba Health and the only reason the government would have paid this child's doctor fee is because her parents are on welfare.
What about the guy working for $8 an hour whose child is also waiting in pain but can't afford the facility fee or the doctor billing because he's not on welfare?
Is that a Charter violation for the child? Should government be forced to pay both the facility fee and the doctor billing in that case?
There are endless, similar examples.
The question then becomes, how many "rights" can the courts -- who are unelected and unaccountable -- create before government becomes insolvent?
It's very unsettling.
-
you hear that LIBERALS? It's a free-for-all up there in Canada. So GET PACKING!!! lol
One of the main reasons the canadian government can "afford" to "give" so much is they have no real defense budget. They leave their real defense budget to the US taxpayer.
"There really is no such thing as a natural human right."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But there certainly God given rights that are protected by the Constitution.
Oh, that's right - you don't have a constitution.
Well, that's your right......
FRANCIS:
Yeah. I think Judith's point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man--
STAN:
Or woman.
FRANCIS:
Or woman... to rid himself--
STAN:
Or herself.
FRANCIS:
Or herself.
REG:
Agreed.
FRANCIS:
Thank you, brother.
STAN:
Or sister.
FRANCIS:
Or sister. Where was I?
REG:
I think you'd finished.
FRANCIS:
Oh. Right.
REG:
Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man--
STAN:
Or woman.
REG:
Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off.
STAN:
Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
FRANCIS:
Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN:
I want to be one.
REG:
What?
STAN:
I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
REG:
What?!
LORETTA:
It's my right as a man.
JUDITH:
Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA:
I want to have babies.
REG:
You want to have babies?!
LORETTA:
It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG:
But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA:
Don't you oppress me.
REG:
I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA:
[crying]
JUDITH:
Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS:
Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG:
What's the point?
FRANCIS:
What?
REG:
What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS:
It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG:
Symbolic of his struggle against reality.
[trumpets]
[clap clap clap]
If you don't know, this is from Monty Python's "The Life of Brian."
Yet another example of life imatating art!
Mark
One of the main reasons the canadian government can "afford" to "give" so much is they have no real defense budget. They leave their real defense budget to the US taxpayer.
======
Too many countries live under the American nuclear umbrella. They should be paying for it, bit time -- yet all we get is spoiled, liberal/leftist rant from these second-rate socialist countries...as a taxpayer, I am tired of supporting these losers. Let them become respectable contributors to freedom, then we will reconsider their LOSER status.
This is exactly the state of affairs that the opponents of the Bill of Rights warned about - the notion that if a right isn't listed, it isn't a right.
Rights exist independent of governments, and governments are formed to secure them. Too bad the Canadians didn't pick up on that nuance.
Throw out God, add a liberal pinch of marxism, sprinkle with Euroscoialism and voila....
There is no such thing as a fundamental right.
Who said Jehovah? (stones flying)
alas, canada - ye started out bass-ackwards and got worse from there.
"rights" pre-exist government, charters, constitutions, and laws.
the government does not "hand out" rights.
by thinking that it should, by having a specific enumeration in your charter without the analog of our Amendments IX and X, you set yourself up for this eventuality.
of course, the way Civics has been neglected in our schools down here, we are also falling into this pit.
200+ years of history suggest otherwise.....
Actually the american constitution says all our rights are granted by "GOD".. Which God.?. don't say.. Just some generic god.. But the bottom line is our rights are NOT granted by our government.. thats why they are inalienable.. Inalienable by government. Which means even if the government passes a law to alienate them. They are intact and still vital.. because its not the american governments RIGHT to alienate them.. according our constituion..
This is too deep for canadians to understand.. Canadians are not very smart.. Democracy and Parliaments are very primitive social structures.. not on the level of the American Republic.. Their mostly tribal systems.. Democracy is MOB RULE.. Always has been.. Rule by the biggest mob or consortium of mobs, ruled by mobsters all mobbed up.. like the american democrat party.. Very primitive tribalism, with witch doctors and chiefs.. economic anamists basically, socialists..
Churchill said it best about socialism and democracy....
WHat Churchill didn't know was that democracy is the disease that causes socialism, every time, in every place, always..
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.~Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
it is nolonger 200 years ago..... Hillary Clinton and compadres are alive and well and plotting to retake the state in 2008.
To maintain the freedoms of yor there must be a pre coup de'tat.
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!...
You can also put Europe in that playpen. Take away Sparta and Athens will fall to the hordes in a Greek second.
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter." Winston Churchill
"Rights exist independent of governments, and governments are formed to secure them."
hosepipe replies:
Actually the american constitution says all our rights are granted by "GOD".. Which God.?. don't say.. Just some generic god..
No, the Constitution actually doesn't 'say' that at all, in any of its Articles or Amendments. -- But you are free to believe so, if you like, -- and I'm free to believe otherwise.
But the bottom line is our rights are NOT granted by our government.. thats why they are inalienable.. Inalienable by government. Which means even if the government passes a law to alienate them. They are intact and still vital.. because its not the american governments RIGHT to alienate them.. according our constituion..
We agree. Our rights are inalienable regardless of who it is infringes upon them. You have no God given right to violate my rights, nor I yours.
Actually, it's even stronger than that: even you can't violate your own rights. 'Inalienable' has the specific meaning of 'not transferrable', so you can't sign away a right even if you want to.
should be sub-titled "Liberals Gone Wild".
Well made point, -- one most communitarians are incapable of understanding.
To them, the majority rules, allowing community standards to infringe [just a bit] on our individual rights.
This exactly what American liberals want here... for compliant judges to give them socialism through judicial fiat. Create a new "right" and mandate a government program for it. Now y'all understand why they're battling so feriously to keep off conservative nominees off the federal bench. They are determined to preserve their one means of securing their agenda even as they lose at the ballot box.
[YOU- No, the Constitution actually doesn't 'say' that at all, in any of its Articles or Amendments. -- But you are free to believe so, if you like, -- and I'm free to believe otherwise.]
I see... Who is it then, that is the garantor of those "rights"..
Are "rights" just opinion.?. That is, you have "rights", because your opinion says you do.?. Where do they come from.?. The law of the jungle can claim "rights", but then they are rights no more, they are the teeth of the animal.. thats not "RIGHTS"..
Actually the founding fathers deem those "rights" to have been given by God.. not government.. No amount of parseing can obscure that fact.. Its what THEY thought that is the rule and the base of the argument.. God does exist if even only in the mind of the founders.. Pure genius I would say.. Are you smarter than the founders.?...
Actually the american constitution says all our rights are granted by "GOD".. Which God.?. don't say.. Just some generic god..
No, the Constitution actually doesn't 'say' that at all, in any of its Articles or Amendments. -- But you are free to believe so, if you like, -- and I'm free to believe otherwise.
But the bottom line is our rights are NOT granted by our government.. thats why they are inalienable.. Inalienable by government. Which means even if the government passes a law to alienate them. They are intact and still vital.. because its not the american governments RIGHT to alienate them.. according our constituion..
We agree. Our rights are inalienable regardless of who it is infringes upon them. You have no God given right to violate my rights, nor I yours.
I see... Who is it then, that is the garantor of those "rights"..
It makes no difference on how you believe, as long as we agree on the basics, as above.
Are "rights" just opinion.?. That is, you have "rights", because your opinion says you do.?. Where do they come from.?.
Ask your religious advisor. -- I'll refer to history. As long as we agree that we have inalienable rights to life liberty & property, why quibble on where they came from?
The law of the jungle can claim "rights", but then they are rights no more, they are the teeth of the animal.. thats not "RIGHTS".. Actually the founding fathers deem those "rights" to have been given by God.. not government.. No amount of parseing can obscure that fact..
No one here is claiming that rights are given by government, are they?
Its what THEY thought that is the rule and the base of the argument.. God does exist if even only in the mind of the founders.. Pure genius I would say..
Are you smarter than the founders.?...
You tell me. -- You seem to be claiming to speak for them. And for God.
Perhaps you have an answer:
--- As long as we all agree that we have inalienable rights to life liberty & property, why should we quibble on where they came from?
No thread on FR is complete without a little interjection from Monty Python. Well done.
They don't have a God either. Well, their god is the government, similar to our liberals here.
Yeah, right!!
Do the names Homolka and Bernardo come to mind?
The Bernardo case is a classic one involving a conflict of rights, the right of a free press and the right to a fair trial.
Printing the details of Homolka's guilty plea and the admitted would have prejudiced a potential jury, especially in light of the dramatic nature of the case which had attracted continent wide attention.
What it comes down to is that the judge has to resolve the conflict of rights in light of the facts presented to the court by the interested parties, including the press.
In Canada the preference in resolving the conflict tenda to go one way while in the US it tends to go the other way.
But it is not absolute. Gag orders have been issued in the United States as well. All of the pre-trial maneuvering in the Jackson case are subject to gag orders.
And note that the right to a free press is really the right of the public to be informed. As soon as Bernardo was convicted the gag order was lifted and there were at least two thick books authored by reporters who, while not entitled to print while the gag order was in place were permitted to be present and to take notes for future publication.
I understand what you're saying, but confiscating copies of the Buffalo newspaper at the Peace Bridge made Canada look like Communist China.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.