Sean Hayward

Multiculturalism is not a failure. If you are present in Canadian society today, you will realize that there is no problem here. Even with multiculturalism as policy, immigrants or their descendants eventually integrate into mainstream society and culture, 10 times out of 10.

Hillier was an excellent CDS. There are rumours that he will run for the Conservatives and I hope they are true. To be honest, I can't understand what kind of person doesn't think that the Taliban are scumbags. The Liberals criticized him for speaking the truth and being exactly what a General should be, honest and committed.

Our disagreement has its foundation in differing concepts of what a constitution (and the rights guaranteed therein) is and should be. The two concepts are those of the libertarian ideology and the community-oriented ideology. The first ideology sees a constitution as a document that simply outlines the structure of, and restricts, government, so as to maximize individual freedom within a society. It emphasizes the defence of the individual against government oppression. There is an emphasis on negative rights and rejection of positive rights. I understand and respect this ideology, but I prefer the other. The second ideology sees a constitution as not only a document to outline and restrict government, but also as a sort of contract between the members of society. Both negative and positive rights are emphasized. This type of constitution outlines how society, not only government, fundamentally operates, including the provision of certain economic rights to ensure that basic necessities are available. As it is impossible to produce a definitive list of natural rights, it is up to the society to decide what rights it guarantees to its members. In a society where certain resources are unavailable, the right to those resoucres would obviously not be guaranteed. In response to your new example, the right to basic necessities would only exist if the two people on the island enter into a society together and agree to abide by fundamental laws or rules, a primitive constitution.

Yes, we agree that in the specific scenario the man possesses no such right. However, I believe that the entire concept of rights, not just economic rights, is not applicable to a single person completely isolated from every other person. The concept of rights only makes sense if there are others in the society with whom conflicts may arise. Saying that the man on the island has rights does not make sense because he is completely alone, and he therefore possesses absolute freedom and access to any resources that exist within his domain. Yes, economic rights are dependent upon human constructs to exist, and so are all other rights. I agree with you to some extent that the people must provide the basic necessities for themselves, but my version of economic rights would ensure that the people have a right to have access to these resources. In other words, the government would have to ensure that the basic necessities are available and affordable for all of its people to access and make use of.

What?

Go back and read my previous posts. There is plenty of evidence and proof in them. I'm not going to re-write everything because of your failure to accept it. Everyone else can see through your last ditch effort to preserve your remaining dignity in this discussion.

To your example first. If there was one man on an island and he is dying of thirst, who would be infringing on his right to water? I would start by saying that the economic rights cannot be "infringed" in the same way as traditional rights because they are positive rights rather than negative rights, and so the right demands action, rather than to refrain from action. If the man was part of a larger society, then the society would have the obligation to provide him with water. If he was not part of a larger society, then he would have no right to water because the very concept of rights does not make sense in the context of a single person. So my final answer to your question is: the man would have no such right because rights exist only in societies of more than one person. I believe that certain economic rights are natural rights. This is a philosophical position on the fundamental question of how a society should operate. The people have an inherent right to the basic necessities of life. I believe that this is a concept present in human thought since the earliest days of civilization. What constitutes a "basic necessity" is subject to debate.

Thank you for articulating my argument in one sentence better than I was able to: rights only exist with a guarantee of enforcement. In other words, rights only exist in reality if they are backed up with a guarantee that the people will be able to freely exercise those rights. There are two obviously different definitions of "rights", that of natural or inherent rights and that of guaranteed or granted rights. Both are valid, but are very different concepts, as one refers to a theoretical "what should be" and the other refers to an actual "what is". The people of China have rights, if using the first definition, and don't have rights, if using the second definition. An optimal society would have all of its natural rights guaranteed, and a distinction between the two definitions of rights would be unnecessary. The problem is that there is no definitive authority to decide on what is contained under the heading of "natural rights", other than the society itself. One could argue that certain economic rights are natural rights, that they are possessed inherently by all people and have been infringed throughout history just as other human rights have been infringed, and that they should be entrenched in order to make a better society.

If there was no government, there would be no rights because there would be no authority to guarantee them. For example, if there was no government and you wanted to speak against a certain group, but members of that group would kill anyone who spoke against them and there was no government to protect you, would you have freedom of speech? With government, the "power of enforcement" protects everyone equally, but, without government, some, perhaps most, people would have little or no such power. If the government does not guarantee any rights, or does guarantee rights in theory but does not respect the rule of law, then the people would indeed have no rights. They would be entirely subject to the discretion of the government, without limitation. I understand what you are saying about the people possessing inherent rights. To say that the people should have rights does not mean that they do have rights. In response to your example, the people of China should have rights, but they obviously have very few, if any, rights in actuality.

The Liberal Party of Canada built this "horses ass" immigration system. If anyone tries to change it, they are condemned as racist.

But shouldn't rights also be protected against infringement by other individuals, as well against infringement by government? The rule of law is a fundamental obligation of government. Without it, rights, constitutions, and democracy mean nothing. If I had my own ability to enforce my right to free speech, would I still have the right to free speech? Of course, but how could your ability to freely exercise your rights be guaranteed? However, without government, there would be no authority to protect the free exercise of rights. Therefore, the rights would not exist in effect. You would, in theory, have absolute freedom without government, but others would also have absolute freedom, and they could use that absolute freedom to limit your ability to exercise your rights. Is that kind of society truly free? I don't believe it is. It would be the ultimate example of "might makes right".

I'm not saying there is a consensus on positive rights, I'm just saying that the concept has been explored in the past and is philosophically well-defined. Of course, it is a subject over which there is going to be some division of opinion, just like everything else. There are some who do not believe that there should be any constitutional rights at all and there are some that believe in widely expanded constitutional rights, and the vast majority of people are somewhere in the middle. It is not a fundamental obligation of the government to protect groups while protesting. However, I think it is necessary to protect people to allow them to exercise their rights. This is essential to the existence of rights. Perhaps you disagree. Following your line of logic, one could argue that the government has no obligations whatsoever, not even to uphold their own laws. Without government, there would be no rights. That is the problem with your argument. The existence of rights requires a government to protect those rights against infringement by others. The people have rights guaranteed to them through the constitution, and it is the responsiblity of the government to ensure that those rights can be freely exercised.

By well-established, I mean that the concept has been discussed extensively throughout history and has been explored via intellectual debate, and so it is not unheard of, in fact far from it, to have a right impose an obligation on government to do something. For example, the Charter of Rights guarantees the right to an interpreter if the accused does not understand the language in which the proceedings are to be conducted. Of course, this imposes an obligation on the government to provide an interpreter, presumably at some cost. That quote is flawed in that it supposes that no traditional "negative rights" impose any obligation on anyone. The right to freedom of speech can impose obligations on others. What about policing costs required to protect controversial groups while protesting? An incidental cost, I grant you, but a cost nonetheless. I see no distinction between different types of costs required to protect different types of rights. I do not follow the line of thinking on rights in your second paragraph. Are you saying that any right that presumes the existence of government should not exist? This is too simplistic a view of rights and freedoms. Yes, I think your assessment of my definition of "basic necessities" is about right. Basic necessities are those things required to keep a person in a basic standard of living (not starving or dying of thirst or living on the streets, etc).

"Positive rights" and "negative rights" are philosophical concepts and the idea that rights can forced a government to do something, just as they can force a government not to do something, is well-established. The issue is one of access. What I am saying is that the government should be forced to make certain basic necesities available to everyone. I am not saying that the government should have to "spoon feed" things to people. In response to the fact that what constitutes a "basic necessity" is bound to change, I would say that the rights must be basic enough so as to remain constant. Sure certain things in life are bound to change, such as cars and electronics, but I think the basic necessities I am talking about remain fairly constant. Even 2000 years ago, water, food and shelter were considered basic necessities just as they are today.

Is it even possible for the PM to get an election from the Governor General after the fixed election dates bill was passed? The Liberals aren't stupid enough to defeat the government and have an election. They would have a result equal to or worse than what they have now and Dion would have to look for a new job. Looks increasing like October 2009 is the date of the next election.

Yes, you have shown some of the many problems with entrenching economic rights. There are many issues that come into play here and that is why it is such a complicated proposal. Economic rights are "positive rights". That is, they require the government to do something for people, not just to refrain from doing something aka "negative rights" (as most rights currently in the Charter of Rights are). All of the potential economic rights that I would propose are very basic things and would not impose any substantial cost beyond that which is currently assumed by government to provide these services. And I have already stated that the text of those rights should be written to make it clear that the individual would still, ultimately, have to provide it themselves and incur a cost in doing so. Another problem is the question of where do you draw the line. I think that is something that society will just have to decide, if and when economic rights are ever to be entrenched. Personally I would never propose an economic right to anything above the most basic necessities for living, such as food, water, shelter, etc.

Couldn't agree with you more, but there should be a baseline quality of life provided to all members of society regardless of their ability to pay. That's what I think these economic rights are all about. By the way, if economic rights are ever entrenched in the Charter of Rights, I think property rights should be entrenched as well. This would create a need for balance in the interpretation of economic rights. Also, I think the wording could be done in a way that does not allow any confusion in interpretation. For example, instead of saying "Everyone has the right to water", a more effective text would be "Everyone has the right to have reasonable access to an adequate source of water". This still leaves open the question of which level of government should provide that. The most effective way might be to include a clause that directs the courts to decide which level of government should provide which economic rights, based on the division of powers.

Ultimately, it would be the responsibility of the individuals to provide these things for themselves, but I see economic rights as a means of ensuring that the government provides a decent level of access to them. For example, a right to water would force the government to provide affordable, clean water to the people. The people would still have to pay for it themselves. However, this brings up the problem of enforcement. How would a court interpret a text such as "Everyone has a right to water"? They might interpret it as meaning that the government should give everyone unlimited amounts of free water. This would obviously cause problems. I know that Charter rights are enforced by the courts. That's not what I meant. The problem is: how would the courts interpret economic rights (as discussed above), and how can we design the text to ensure that the courts enforce them as they were originally intended? Yes, I believe most of what would be considered economic rights would be under provincial jursdiction. I suppose you could leave it up to the discretion of the courts to decide which level of government is responsible for each specific right, but that might cause problems as well.

Economic rights in this context would be rights to basic needs, like food, shelter, water and other things like that. But the problem is how would you enforce these rights, and what level(s) of government would be responsible for providing them? Someone mentioned Section 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982. This section is not enforceable as it specifically states that it does not restrict the powers of Parliament or any legislature, or their rights with respect to the use of those powers. Can we please not turn this thread into a generic "bash Trudeau" thread, or should I just give up on it now?

This must be a joke. You are accusing me of putting out pure opinion without any factual basis, while you have not only failed to provide anything more than anecdotal evidence to support your arguments, but you have also not acknowledged my supporting facts. I have provided evidence and I am sorry if you can't understand that. You are, at best, a hypocrite. This debate didn't go the way you wanted and you will have to accept that. Unlike you, I don't need luck to prove my arguments.

Great. Just great. Good to see all of us Conservatives can still get dragged through the mud because of something one insignificant person said 16 years ago. No matter what we do or say we are always shackled to the perception that all Conservatives are like that.

Then I'm sorry to tell you this, but I think you belong in a different century, perhaps the early nineteenth.

This is a question that has been raised in the past in many other contexts. Should economic rights be guaranteed alongside other human rights? The answer is probably yes, as long as the rights provided are kept reasonably basic. However, the devil is in the details and I would be surprised if anyone could come up with a good text for such rights to be put into the Charter of Rights.

The Liberal Party is using court action to prevent freedom of speech. Hmm. Wasn't that what they told the public was dangerous when Harper sued them for accusing him in the Cadman Affair?

I will try to respond to your points reasonably without resorting to the kind of misinformation that you use regularly. "Facts speak for themselves" - that's the basis of my argument. I was not thanking you for presenting facts or admitting my defeat as you seem to think, I was thanking you for not using ridiculous smear tactics, as you seem prone to do. OFFICIAL BILINGUALISM IS NOT MANDATING CULTURE. I can not say that any more clearly. Maybe you have not read what I am supporting in my previous posts. There is nothing in sections 16-23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that mandates culture. Of course my arguments consist of personal opinion, any argument is founded on an opinion and supported by facts. I ask questions to try to establish whether there is any factual or reasonable basis for your comments. I don't understand your position. You say English requires no official designation and yet you say English should be the sole official language. I am not confusing the issue of the patriation of the Constitution. Maybe you are not as well informed as I on this issue, but the Supreme Court ruled, in the Patriation Reference and the Quebec Veto Reference, that NO provincial consent was required for the federal government to request that the British Parliament modify the Constitution. I understand that amendments now require provincial consent, but that was not the case before patriation. Do you have any evidence to suggest that the Canadian people are, or were, strongly opposed to the patriation of the Constitution? This is about as simple as I can phrase the question, and yet you say it is nonsenical. I assume that your response means that your real answer is no. I simply reject the assertion that official bilingualism is "kissing Quebec's butt". There are French-speaking Canadians outside of Quebec too, as well as English-speaking Canadians in Quebec. My point is that the Quebecois were not assimilated and did not start speaking English even when there was no protection for French and the British were specifically trying to assimiliate them. You clearly don't understand the basic concept of official languages. You say that the official languages are not recognized provincially. There is no significance of non-recognition or implicit non-recognition by the provinces. The federal government has its own official languages, and the provincial governments have their own official language(s). The basic difference between you and I on this issue is that you believe that English should be spoken by everyone, and I believe that people should be able to continue using the language of their specific community. I think your position would be quite different if English-speaking Canadians were a minority, and French was the "de facto language" of Canada. BTW - I couldn't care less what you think the normal way of posting is. I have presented proof in the form of current and historical evidence, a great deal more proof than you have cared to mention.