Machjo

But the constitution is what frames the debate. For instance, if the constitution guarantees a right to employment, then one could argue that minimum wages violate that right. Of course it would be up to the courts to examine this, but should it be found that it does in fact stand in the way of employment, then minimum wage laws could be struck down. Or let's say the constitution guarantees taht parents can choose their children't education, then one might use that to try to argue for school vouchers or allowing parents to bow out of the public system in some way. Or if the constitution should guarantee freedom of associatoin and from associaton, then one might argue that companies should not be allowed to force people to join a union as a condition of employment. Of course these are just examples, but you can see how, depending on the details of the content of the constitution, legislation will have to conform to it.

Fair enough, as long as it's done in full accordance with the law and in a spirit of good Faith. But however little or much is owed the First Nations, give it back to them and get it over with already so we can move on.

I'll admit I don't know the details here. My only concern is that if the First Nations gave Britain any lands by treaty in good faith in excahnge for certain rights etc., that we may have reneged on, then certainly we ought to give them that right pronto and let the chips fall where they may. Chances are in reality, many of these groups would not start kicking people out of their homes and such because quite frankly, I don't think they'd know what to do with us.

Anotehr question: Would you oppose the idea that government should not be allowed to pass laws that prevent one from working, such as minimum wages laws and such?

The two go hand in hand. If I have a right to freedom of religion, I have a responsibility to protect yours. If I have a right to an education, I have a responsibility to provide for yours too. Does that make sense? Even the UDHR acknowledges it: Article 29. (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

If they are legally entitled to all land as per treaty, then how about we give it all back to them and then let them figure out what to do with us all. My guess is they wouldn't really know what more to do with us other than just integrate us into the new nations. So they'd give us citizenship, and then we could petition them to recognize these laws. Or, realizing that by giving us all citizenship, they'd find themselves in a minority again, with us all then voting to unite all these new nations back into Canada, they might just decide heck with it, to give us a portion of their land to live on and do what we want with it while their keep the rest. Again, we'd likely all unite, leaving us with a Swiss-cheese-looking Canada. Needless to say, they'd likely keep the best land and ensure they ave access to rivers or other waterways, and give us the land where we find the largest consentrations of non-First-Nations. So they'd probably give us all of our major cities, while keeping all the uninhabited rural lands. Who knows. But once we give them their land back, it wouldn't be our problem anyway. Then it would be up to them to figure out what to do with us. And of course if they want to protect their reputation abroad, they'd have to treat us reasonably fairly. That would certainly be an interesting pickle to throw at them.

Sure we can. We can also ignore legitimate land-claims treaties in Canada on the grounds that the First Nations don't have the military clout to take their land back themselves, or we can say that regardless of military clout, if we'd entered into treaties with them in good faith, we ought to honour those treaties. Why can't the same apply to Israel? Of course in a way Canada is no better with regards to our treaties, but now to make it worse, Canada defends other countries that violate international laws as we do.

There you go. So in order to avoid war, countries can agree to common principles defining their boundaries, rather than each country randomly just declaring unilaterally what it owns.

OK, not worried in a military sense, but merely by the hassle of always having to bicker with Canada over who owns the land as Canada decides every few years to try to argue that it owns this land and that around Alaska, the Northwest Passage, etc. In the end, if there is disagreement as to whether the waters of the North-West Passage are Canadian or international waters, does Canada resolve it by spending all its money on the military, or does it instead turn to a more neutral tribunal to make a fair decision based on legal precedent?

Well if they're separte nations, then our laws wouldn't apply to them anyway, right? So give them their land back and leave it at that. This law would still apply to whatever land we have left.

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world." George Washington. "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto" Thomas Jefferson "I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government [to be] peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Thomas Jefferson As you can see, my position on neutrality is shared by many great and respected thinkers in history. "My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." Thomas Paine (Rights of Man, 1791) "For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see, Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be; Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails, Pilots of the purple twilight dropping down with costly bales; Heard the heavens fill with shouting, and there rain'd a ghastly dew From the nations' airy navies grappling in the central blue; Far along the world-wide whisper of the south-wind rushing warm, With the standards of the peoples plunging thro' the thunder-storm; Till the war-drum throbb'd no longer, and the battle-flags were furl'd In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world. There the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in awe, And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapped in universal law." Lord Tennyson (Locksley Hall, 1835) "We must make the United Nations continue to work, and to be a going concern, to see that difficulties between nations may be settled just as we settle difficulties between States here in the United States. When Kansas and Colorado fall out over the waters in the Arkansas River, they don't go to war over it, they go to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the matter is settled in a just and honorable way. There is not a difficulty in the whole world that cannot be settled in exactly the same way in a world court." Harry Truman As you can see, my position on the rule of law extending beyond national boundaries is likewise not unique to myself, but common among many great thinkers. We can add Winston Churchill to the list with his Atlantic Charter too. Who is Canada to decide unilaterally what its boundaries will be? If it had that power, then all of its neighbours, including the US, ought to worry.

So wouldn't UDHR 17 reinforce indigenous land claims? If so, then would it not be a good thing?

I suppose another way of looking at it would be this: If the only requirement for joining this new party or running for it in a campaign is to agree with its principles, this could allow for much flexibility. For example, some more extremist members might have as a goal to push for the adoption of the UDHR as a priority. Others might support it in principle in that they'd vote in favour of any such bill that should be presented, but would otherwise focus on the economy while still doing so in a way that respects human rights. This means of course that candidates for this new party could be quite different from riding to riding, allowing some to win and others not, with members of this new party being free to collaborate with other MPs in the House.

Though the UDHR was created by the UN, it was created years ago when the UN was a more reasonable organization. Also, what we'd be talking about here would be patriation of the UDHR, meaning that it would henceforth be a Canadian document under Canadian law. Sure it would continue to be a UN document too, but separately from its Canadian position.

And as for the debt, yes, seeing that I'm a tax-and-axe austerity voter myself, I agree with you there. However, I don't see why one must come at the expense of the other. After all, if taken to an extreme, we could pay off the debt sooner by scrapping the Charter of Rights and Freedoms so as to be able to just run around the country claiming valuable property of any kind, shooting dissenters, selling the claimed goods on the world market, and poof, the debt would be paid off in no time.

They actually go hand in hand. For instance, if you have a right to work, then the government does not have a right to impose minimum wage legislation for example. Add to that that if all are working, then all are paying taxes or at least getting less from the government in social assistance, which in turn allows the government to pay its debt. An absence of legislation guaranteeing the right to work also allows the government to legislate people out of work via wage floors and allowing closed shop unions, etc. Some US states have right-to-work legislation prohibiting companies from forcing workers to join them. Anotehr example of making work available to all. Also, the right to education would raise people's skills, meaning higher wages, more productivity, and more tax revenue to pay off the debt. Stronger property rights too could help stabilize investment in Canada too. It all goes hand in hand.

If it was based on legal precedent, yes. In fact, there are currently disputes over treaties and land claims. I also oppose Canada trying to solve Northern disputes via military means alone. There are already UN conventions on defining our boundaries there, and Russia for example is already mapping out the oceans to prove its case based on continental plates. At least they're trying to claim land on legal grounds rather than blind muscle-flexing. So yes, I do hold Canada to the same standards as any other country. Nice try though.

We recognize your land. We just don't recognize its post-1967 expansion. What? If you got that land legally recognized and then claimed even more land, and we opposed it, then you'd still say we're anti-semites? Continue that way and Israel's borders will just continue to expand.

Wrong. It had always survived among some Jews.

I ctually would be in favour of a free-trade and free-labour-movement agreement between Canada and Israel. I'd even go so far as to have our ministries of education agree to common educational standards in various trades and professions so as to strengthen the free movement of labour. And at least in principle, I'd even be in favour of agreeing to a common currency with Israel and possibly even a shared military force under certain conditions. That does not change the fact though that I also recognize Israel's original borders in 1947, not its current occupied territories.

Bob, you prove the point of the signature. Ever hear of Jews Against Zionism? Now I don't agree with them entirely and think they go too far in opposing Israel's right to exist. I can also agree with where they're coming from though. From a Biblical perspective, they argue that since the Messiah has not yet returned, therefore the current state has no legitimacy. Based on that argument, on the assumption of course that the Messiah has not in fact returned, they'd be right. Since, unlike "Jewis Against Zionism, I based my defense of Israel on international law, I'd therefore argue that since the UN did recognize Israel's pre-1967 borders already, Israel therefore has a right to those borders. Now my question is, which argument do you use? If religious, then we must first ask if the Messiah has yet returned. And secondly, if he's not yet returned, then on what grounds you defend the state? And even if he had returned to promulgate a Jewish state, then why not stoning for violation of any of the ten commandments too? And if your argument is on legal grounds, then how do you defend Israel's claim to its post-1967 borders? I've reveraled my position, which is a more legalistic one(i.e. based on official international recognition of Israel's borders, which is the pre-1967 ones). So on what grounds do you defend Israel's post-1967 borders if neither on legal nor religious grounds? Ethnic grounds? If so, then would that not be ethnicist and racist? "National grounds"? Then define the nation? Based on religion (Has the messiah returned yet)? Ethnicity (not racist)? Or some other grounds. Before we can continue any rational debate, we furst have to know the basic departure pont, whether religious, ethnic, legal or other on which he bases his argument? Mine is lega? And your?

Why are you so worried, Remiel. If you want to receive Israli citizenship, all you have to do is convert, make sure your conversion is officially approved by your local Orthodox Jewish comunity, show up in Israel, request citizenship on arrival, present the proof that you're an "approved Jew" and, Bingo! You're an Israeli citizen. So what are yu so concerned about? Personally, if I were Hamas, I'd tell all Palestinians to convert to Judaism, get citizenship, and then all convert back.

I realise that the purpose of a constitution is to determine how the state is to be governmed, but that also includes responsibilities on the part of the state towrds its citizens. Making the UDHR the primary document would mean that even the Bill of Rights 1689 and the BNA Act would be subject to its provisions. On the surface it would be a matter of changing the Charter. Beyond that though, it's a discussion of what our basic human rights ought to be. More important?

But you wont' deny that those converts have a right of "return" though a Palestinian with much more history in the land doesn't. Right?

Bob. If I went to an Orthodox synagogue, did everything to convert to the Jewish Faith, or at least pretend (I wouldn't even have to be honest about it), got circumcized and all, guess what. I could become an Israeli citizen no problem. Meanwhile, a Palestinian coudn't even though he may very well have ancestors going back to Ancient Israel. Unless the Palestinian converted to the Jewish Faith too of course. So clearly this whole right is based on religious affiliation and not any historicity whatsoever.