Renegade

Since you and the union seem to be so convinced that the right thing to do is to continue to manufacture pick-up trucks in Oshawa, why don't they put there money where their mouth is. The union can pool their resources and buy the plant from GM and build all the trucks they (but no one else) want.

The US Constitution preamble is as sadly lacking as is the Canadian charter. It is likely widely supported because no one truly would understand its implications. Regardless, we are only talking about at a theoretical level. Regardless of if the specifics were in the "principles" section or were fully elaborated in the content, the principle of equality as I beleive it to be, mean that all people would be accorded equal treatment and a positive right such as economic rights would not fit that criteria. You willl only know if you actually do the research. If you do find radically different concepts and variations, I'd be interested in seeing them. To date what I have seen in "natural rights" has been pretty much consistent.

So we come full circle don't we? I can't see how we can add principles to the constitution when the principles aren't defined clearly enough so that individuals can understand them and the implications of them. You've said before that you need consensus to add the principles to the consitution. I'm really not sure how you can expect to get that consensus without a specfic definition and an understanding of the principle. I don't wish to rehash the earlier discussion of natural rights. I'm sure if you do some searching on the internet you will find quite a bit of detail on what makes a right a "natural right".

We'll just have to disagree on that one. WRT "economic rights", IMV according to my understanding, and consistent with other's definitions I have posted, it is clear to me that "economic rights" as you have defined them, fit neither the principle of natural rights nor equality. Since you provide no unambigous definiition of either principle I'm not sure how in your mind you can be confident that it does.

As I've said before: So unless a more precise definition of what equality is, and what specfic attributes are being compared to determine equality, it is not a principle I would agree to for inclusion. Here's the thing, you seem fine to include ambigous language and trust that "society" will somehow deduce clarity. Who exactly is expected to generate this clarity? The elected government at the time, the people by referendum, the courts? IMV, the consititution is a legal document which defines behaviour which is protected and outllines the reason (principle) why this behviour is protected. Without a clear understanding of the meaning of the phrases, it is certainly not something I woudl be in favour of.

Because if it was optional it would be forced to run like an "insurance" scheme it was meant to be, instead of a taxation scheme it has become.

The issue I have with the principle as phrased above is that it is still ambiguous. There isn't the clarity unless "equality" is defined. Further indiviuals are obviously not equal by almost any measure. Recognizing the "basic equality of each individual", acknowledges something which has no factual basis. The principle should not acknowledge that individuals are equal, instead it should acknowledge that individuals deserve equal treatment.

I retract my use of the word "specific", it is not an accurate reflection of what I meant. What I mean is that each level should be clear and unambiguous. The distinction between levels should be in the detail provided. I use the analogy because IMV no sensible person should sign a legal document which is ambigous and can be interpreted in unintented ways. I understand your point about the varing levels of detail in the document. However, IMV, content supported by vague principles make those principles useless. I would be fine to not include the acceptable or unacceptable forms of discrimmination if there were another clear way of describing the principle. Since you and I and perhaps others mean very different things when we invoke "equality" I don't see another way of describing clearly what is meant other than defining how equality is measured.

I guess then we have a dfferent idea of what a principle is. I believe at each level the wording should be as clear and unambiguous as possible. (ie the principles should be clear and specific, the contents aka rights, should be clear and specfiic, and the laws which are derived should be clear an specific). I believe despite our best attempts at clarity, there will be cases which we have not thought of, where it will not be clear-cut. I believe it is in these borderline cases in which there is room for interpretation. It seems very backward to me. If you have to read a book to understand the introduction, it isn't really an introduction. Further, if the meaning of the introduction changes based upon the content of the book, it is even less worthwhile as an introduction. Given that principles play a much more important role in the document than a book introduction, I think we can't afford to look at principles that way. I merely point it out, to show that you cannot directly corelate the example of an individual decision-making process and a society. Would an indvidual need a "charter of rights" to govern his own behaviour? Of course it would codify the forms of discrimmination which are unacceptable. We cannot judge equality unless we know on what basis equality is judged. If society's principle and definition of equality change over time so should the document in which the principle is defined.

I disagree. We are talking about radically different principles. The difference is the root of the difference between capitalism and communism as ideologies. This goes far beyond interpretation. I thought we aqreed that principles determine content not visa versa. You have now said that to understand the principle you have to look at the content. This is a complete reversal. Principles should be independant of content. Content must align to principles. Of course. Which is why your statement "to find out what the principle of equality means in the constitution is look at the content." is puzzling and contradictory to previous discussions. That analogy may work if the "signee" was of one mind. However society is represented by a large variation in viewpoints. Because we have agreed that there should be varying degrees of consensus required to change different content, it makes a radical difference if the specficity is in the principles or in the content or in specfic laws. A principle should be harder to change (and require broader consensus) than content, which should be harder to change than laws. It makes a great deal of legal difference if the specficity on the areas of change are in one area vs the other. Besides, if society was always of one mind, we probably wouldn't need documented and guaranteed principles and rights. It is precisely because society is not of one mind and there always is the possiblity for majorities to oppress minorities, that you need a charter of rights. Of course, which is exactly why we cannot embed abiguous principles which we each interpret differently. I have found the same behaviour, so I very much agree with your assessment. Only by documenting a specific principle and making sure that all programs are consistent with this principle, can we elimninate this kind of contridictory positions. I don't disagree, however by agreeing on what the specfics of the principle up front it reduces or eliminates the need for revisions due to multiple "interpretations"

As they say "the devil is in the details". Reasonable think they have similar ideas on what a principle means until they delve into the details and find that they have radically different principles. I've given you the example that what is meant by the principle of "equality" for some people, can mean the equality of wealth. This is a radically different principle than the equality of oppportunity. While I understand your desire for room for interpretation, I believe that the room for interpretation for a general prinicple such as "equality" is so broad that it means that we are not talking about the same underlying principle. As we have agreed before, the principles do not just guide interpretation, they guide what is permissable content. It wou it seem that you are far more willing to sign documents which are open to subjective intrepretation than I woudl be. There is already sufficient room for interpretation. For example if age-based discrimmination is prohibited as a principle, a society would have to interpret which programs such as OAS are age-discrimmiatory or are not. The key here is "over time". What we are talking about is not "over time" it is at the moment of including the phase, there should be sufficient agreement on the details of the principle. If sufficient people see age as a legitimate grounds for discrimmination, and exclude it from the definiion of a priniple of equality, it would be fine because it still includes the specifics. (ie it is a deliberate omission). BTW, it is interesting to me that most people would think that age is a legimite form of discrimmination, but would feel unjustly treated if they were rejected for employment because they were "too old". No if in the future society's idea of the principle of equality changes, then they should amend the principle not simply "interpret" it differently.

Actually I don't see why a competence test is any less valid for alcohol or tabacco than for voting. In either case we are requiring the individual to make a significant decision. Why would you assume that they are capable of making an informed decison in one case but not the other. No, I don't have a specific test in mind. Society "accepts" what it is used to. I'm sure there was a time where anyone could drive a vehicle wihtout needing specific tests or qualificaitons, once society got used to testing and licensing, it came to "accept" it. I couldn't disagree with you more. You are no longer talking about interpreting the same principle. If you don't identify specifics, people can have widely different "interpretations" of the same principle, making that principle useless for anything. If we don't agree on what "equality" is how do you expect us to agree that "equality" should be a principle we should embed? Would you personally sign a legal document which committed you to a vague principle without specifc understanding of what that principle meant? I sure wouldn't. Since we are talking about legal documents it would be foolhardy to embed deliberately vague language in the hope that it would be suffiicent guidance so that people agree.

Health issues exist around the consumption of alcohol or tobacco even at older ages. The question is when is an individual competent enough to make a choice that whatever benefit they may derive outweighs the health issues. I believe there are some people over the required age limit who are not competent to make that choice, just as I believe there are some under the limit who are. Age is a crude test for competency however it is a simple one to enforce. I believe if forced to, a different way would be found to determine a "competent" individual from an "incompetent" one. I would allow anyone to vote who is qualified and competent. Some children may fall into that category. Since when pushed to specifics, we don't even agree on the definition of equality, why would you think an ambiguous definition would generate more agreement? We live at the same "time" and we have different views on what equality is. The only way we can ever agree is to outline specifically what we mean. We decidedly should not put in an ambiguouss definition and hope that at some future time specifics and agreement materialize. I highly doubt it. In virtually every politically campaign I have seen, the discussion centers around policies and implementation. Very rarely is there even a discussion of principles. Frankly, that is because the bulk of the population doesn't seem to care.

Your examples illustrate the bias in society which exist around age. The discrimmination around age is based upon an assumption that age indicates competence in making decisions about tabacco, and alcohol or denotes skill around operating a motor vehicle. If forced to not use age, the government would then have to develop proper measurments to determine competenancy and level of skill. Afterall a 14-year old, brought up on video-games may have more skill to operate a vehicle then a 75 year-old with failing eye-sight. The fact that we disagree about age being a factor which should be used for discrimmination further illustrates a point I was trying to make. We can agree that "equality" is a good principle, but unless we discuss the specifics, we won 't surface areas of disagreement. Yes we agree here. Nice idea but I don't really see any mechanism which forces the public to consider "entrenched principles to make decisions regarding changing the content.". The public indirectly influences content by picking elected officials. There is frequently little to no relation to the principles in their choice of elected officials. Frequently chrisima, and short term self-interest are stronger motivators than alignment to principles. For example, seniors may vote for representatives which give them a larger age-based tax deduction, regardless of any relation to a principle of equality.

Personally I disagree that age should be a criteria for discmmination. If government is allowed to discrimminate on the basis of age, should everyone else be allowed to use it as the basis of discrimmination? I'd be fine with that. While I'm ok with that, I think principles shoud go further. Not only should they guide interpretation, but as I've said they should guide content. Any content not consistent with the principles should be invalidated. I too am fine with the courts ability to interpret these things however the wording has to explicit. The courts value is in interpreting documents and they can do their job best when the wording is clear and explicit as possible. I am much more comfortable with courts ability to interpret principles then I am the ability of the uninformed public to decide what consttitue a "right".

As I've said before, principles should convey intent. Without specificity, intent is not apparent. In the example you raise, the specific principle is not "equality before and under the law", IMV it is "the government will treat all people equally and will not discrimminate on the basis of race, gender, age, religion, or sexual-orientation". The principle as I reworded it was more explicit on what are non-permissable factors for discrimmination. For example, wealth and income were not included as factors, making it permissable to discriminate based upon those factors. I have said that I am not opposed to a future society modifying the underlying principle, albeit it should be much more difficult than modifying the rights that are derived from that principle. As well, I wouldn't be opposed that trained and experienced jurist are the ones which we resort to for interpretation. As you will note from Supreme Court rulings, that SCC jurists study long and hard before changing an interpretation from a previous SCC ruling, and will not do so without just cause.

IMV, the principles define intent. The content (ie the "rights") are the specfic rules which laws must abide by in order to carry out that intent. Rights which have no bearing on a principle (ie intent) should not be included in the document. I disagree. Interpretation is a question of how to implement the principles and thus provides the reference point. Interpretaton is NOT a license to vary from the underlying principle. If for example the principle was that "individulals have complete control of their own body" there would be many implication which result in "right". For example, an individual has the right to deny hosting a pregnancy, the individual has the right to die if they so choose, etc.

Not at all. Principles ought to be specific as possible. It should enshrine what is meant. The purpose of the principle is NOT to permit a completely wide open interpretation, on the contrary it should be clear enough so that that the interepretation is obvious as possible. If we want to have to abide by a set of prinicples don't you think that we need to be as clear as possible on the specifics of that priniciple? How else does society know what it is agreeing to enshrine?

The problem is that a principle can't be set and fairly inflexible unless the definition is pretty specfic. An amgibious principle is so flexible that it has no power to limit intepretation. Let me give you an example. Let say one agreed upon principle, was that government could act in the "common good" and that that principle was higher in priority than all others. Without a specific definition of what constituted a "common good" it would give the government unlimited powers to do anything at all on the basis that it part of the "common good". One of the reasons for having a documented and guaranteed set of rights is that even when the government or the people are driven to act rashly, they cannot trump a basic set of agreed upon rights. This essentially protects miniorities from being bullied by the majority, and it benefits us all, because each of us is a minority of some sort. When a principle is vague and can be interpreted in many different ways, then the protection is useless. I would strongly disagree with you that any principle should be embedded if its interpretaion could vary so widely. Why then even bother to put it into a constitution? The government of the day could pass any law it wanted to under the guise of "equality". You may be ok with a clause of "equality" which is vaguely or not defined being put in the constitution, which could be interpreted as everyone's income can be forcibly equalized, but I certainly am not. I woudl suspect that most people would object to such a principle if they understood that this was a potential implication of the interpretation. But as we have discussed, the principle determine what future rights are enacted in the constituion, so it is essential what is meant by the principle.

Sean, it is precisely because we are talking about principles that the intepretation shoudl not be allowed a large degree of iterpretation. Can "equality" be interpreted to mean that everyone should have the same wealth, and so gives justitication for complete income redistribution? If so, than I would not think that is a principle that society has agreed on. I'm not opposed to the use of the term. What I'm cautious about is that the term has a vauge and ill-defined meaning. I can't read what you mean by "equality". If you mean "equality of opportunity" personally I don't that is a principle that society has agreed to. Someone rich may have more opportunities than someone poor. Someone attractive may have more opportunties then someone ugly. Are you meaning that society has agreed to equalize opportunties among all individuals?

IMV, the principle is ambigously defined and "fairness" is a very subjective term, so unless it were more precisely defined and agreed to, I would not be supportive of being the basis of a constitution. As I also have previously stated, I don't think principles should be "flexibile", so while the intrepretation may evolve over time, the principle must be well-defined enough so that the "flexible" interpretation doesn't stray from the intent of the principle. Yes I agree that a constitution needs a way of being amended. I wouldn't be opposed to your suggestion.

To know whether it should be a principle on which the constitution is based, it needs further clarification. Please define what you mean by "equality". Exactly! If we had a preamble which provides a guide for future amendments, what is to stop anyone from changing the preamble at the same time as amending the rest of the document. IOW, for it to have the force of being a guide to the rest of the document it must be much more inflexible to change than the rest of the document. Couldn't agree with you more that we don't have a real preamble or at least a meaningful one. I'm not completely convinced that the preamble is the place to put the constitutional principles, however I could be convinced if somehow the objection I addressed above was addressed.

Where would you put such a protected entitlement and under what principle? The problem here is that we both agree that our society should be based upon a set of principles, but nowhere are these principles documented or even agreed to. All that exist are a protected or prohibited set of behaviours, so there isn't an appropriate mechanism for determining what (if any) addtional protections should be included. Are you saying that the preamble provide context to how the rest of the document is interpreted, or contain the prinicples by which the rest of the document must adhere, or both? IMV, as I said, the prinicples shouldn't change, a process should be in place which makes them even more difficult to change than the rest of the document. Putting them into a single document somewhat defeats that purpose.

No I wouldn't, but it would really depend upon the principles those rights would be based upon. If for example the principle is "democracy" then if the principle is defined, and there is general agreement that the principle is the basis for how we operate as a country, I don't have issue with specific rights related to that principle being embedded. I agree with you. Not only is the preamble lacking, it is insconsistent with our position as a secular state. As far as I am aware the preamble( at least in the Charter) is given no legal weight.

As I've said, I know that under the current system, there would no way to prevent it. What I've been saying all along is that a Charter of Rights should be based upon a well-defined set of principles, and it is only those behaviours which fit within those principles which should be considered "rights". I understand that legally there has never been any constraint on what can or cannot be put into the constitution. What I'm saying is that there SHOULD be. Just as the judiciary interprets whether laws conform to the charter, I would see a judiciary determining whether a "right" can be included in the charter by determining whether it conformed to a set of principles. Which is also why I said the principles should be documented. If you look at the Charter the princple by which most seems to directly apply is that of "natural rights". Ok. I understand.