Machjo

You totally misunderstood my point. I was saying that the argument that the Jews have a prior right to Israel based on history, religion, race, or ancestry does not hold water. I was taking that study of the cultruazl similarities to show that we could use the same argument either way. Based on that, the only legitimate argument for the state of Israel is the legal basis (i.e. that under the British mandate the UN decided to create establish the State of Israel). Seeing that the only basis for its existence is in fact legal and nothing else, therefore any modification of its territory must also be based on international law. Without the UN, Israel would never have come into being. In other words, Israel owes its very existence to the UN. And as such, just as the UN originally had the power to form Israel, it also has the right to define Israel's borders. Should one deny the UN has the right to define Israel's borders, then we must conclude the UN also never had teh authority to form the state of Israel in the first place, thus making it an illegal state. ON my part, i do recognize the UN authority to have formed the state of Israel, and so recognize it as a legal state in international law, though its original borders can be disputed seeing that Israel now occupies more land than originally granted to Israel.

It is relevant because that would mean many of those Arabs trace their ancestry to Hebrews.

Er... that was my whole point. Glad you got it. It doesn't matter that some historical Jews lived in that land millennia ago. Let's consider the people who live there now and the current reality. Unless you can present a family tree proving you trace your roots back to Ancient Israel, it means nothing. I'm sure there have been just as many convrts to Judaism in Europe over the centuries as there have been Jews converting to Islam in th eland of Palestine. In the end, religion thus becomes a moot point.

Then start a petition for Canada to withdraw its membership from the UN.

Many Palestinians gradually integrated into the Arab community, which explains the genetic and cultural similarities that were discovered between them and Jews. Just because they are Arabs today, it doesn't mean their ancestors always were. You're not going to tell me now that their integration into the Arab world therefore denies them the right to their land, are you?

And not one single Jew ever converted to Islam, and not one single non-Jew ever converted to the Jewish Faith? Remember that in the beginning, when Moses was on the Mount talking with God, there was no Jew. It could only have come into being via preaching and conversion. Though it has certainly become far less proselyte in the last few centuries or even thousand years, it has always been proselyte in principle in that people have always been free to convert to the Jewish Faith. So are you telling me that not a single Palestineian is of historical Jewish descent and that each and every single Jew is of Hebrew Descent?

But certainly not arbitrarily. There certainly ought to be something in the constitution to at least set some kind of litmus test for reasonable seisure of property, no?

There is something to consider here as an aside. One study had found that many Palestinians have many cultural and genetic traits shared between them and Jews, suggesting that while other Jews had chosen to leave Palestine, their ancestors chose to remain and over time adopted Islam. Remember too that as per Israeli law, to become an Israel citizen you need to prove you're a Jew, not necessarily a Hebrew. Considering that Judaism has always been a proselyte religion, even if less so than Christianity or Islam (though it has always welcomed converts), many Jews imigrating to Israel may be descendants of Jewish converts who have had nothing to do with the land of Israel. These are just some points to consider, that some Jews may have no historical link to Israel whereas some Palestinians may have links going back to Ancient Israel. The division here is therefore quite rbitrary. Consider too the weakness of the religious argument. If God gave that land to Jews, converted or not, then he also required them to stone anyone violating any of the ten commandments, right? Again, just food for thought.

In my opinion, by taking a unilateral stance on this, Canada is interfering is reaching beyond its jurisdictional boundaries. A more neutral approach would be for Canada to simply say that it shall abide by all appropriate UN resolutions. Should the UN deny Palestinian statehood, will too. Should the UN recognize Palestinian statehood, then so will Canada. Canada is free to share its ideas on the subject at the UN General Assembly, but at the end of the day it's not up to us to dictate national boundaries beyond our borders. We did not appreciate it when De Gaule announced "Vive the Quebec libre", and so we should not do the same, or it could come and bite us in the rear later when we try to negotiate northern boundaries.

Alright, you may have a point there.

Agreed. But as pointed out above, including property rights could actually strengthen land claims.

Hmmm... never thought of that. I was saying earlier that treaties would of course not be affected, as my intuition was telling me that. Now I see why my intuition was telling that. Of course if we guarantee rights to land within reason, and there is enough evidence that this or that land belongs to the first nations, than such an Aritcle would actually reinforce land claims! And seeing that we could argue that that land had been seized arbitrarily in many cases... Hmmm... this might explain why so many governments in Canada have always feared guaranteeing property rights. Thanks for clarifying that. Now I support adopting UDHR 17 even more.

I was wondering how successful you think a Party for the Adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (PAUDHR) would be in Canada? Of course the specific name of the party could always be changed, so that would be a separate issue. Let's say it had as a mission statement something along the lines of: "To adopt the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, as the primary constitutional document in Canada" Among some advantages I would see include: 1. Since Canada has already signed on to the UDHR but just doesn't apply it, this party could argue that it's not extreme in the least, but is merely trying to implement a document we've already signed on to as a country. After all, if we're not going to implement it, then let's be honest about it and formally withdraw our signature from it. We should not be signing onto such documents just for photo ops. 2. Making the UDHR the chief constitutional document in Canada would have the unfortunate effect of risking the shared monarchy with the Commonwealth, as that would mean that suddenly, those parts of the Constitution requiring the monarch to be Anglican and to not marry a Catholic would henceforth be abrogated. So unless other Commonwealth Realms should join in, Parliament could end up having to elect its own monarch. However, it would also extend religious freedom and basic human rights to the monarchy (ironic that the average citizen should have more freedom of religion than his monarch!). This would also immediately abrogate the separate school system. 3. As a moderate document outlining only more fundamental human rights, it therefore has elements that both the left and the right could agree to. Overall, I'd say the UDHR leans more towards the left of centre, let's say moderate social democrat or even more moderate than that, such as social-corporatist. However, since it does include various elements the right and the left could agree to, it could potentially attract some liberal conservatives too. On the negative side, I could see many labour-socialists opposing such a party owing to the considerable religious freedoms it guarantees (some defenders of school vouchers for example have argued their case on the basis of UDHR 26(3)), just as many libertarians would oppose the considerable positive rights granted in the document, especially with regards to education rights and the point about education being compulsory. Many conservatives might feel uncomfortable about the fact that the document could almost be interpreted to defend consientious objection. However, this mixture of guaranteed rights that can appeal to people of various persuasions might be a strenght too. Any thoughts on how successful such a party would likely be? For those who've not read the UDHR, here it is: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Thanks.

Actually, I've never voted Conservative yet. And believe it or not, I wouldn't mind something like UDHR 26 being added to the Constitution: "Article 26. (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children." Hardly libertarian except possibly for UDHR 26(3). The reason I started this thread on property rights specifically is because I think this would be a beneficial right to add and I figured there might actually be enough support for it. Seems I was wrong on that front. As for something like UDHR 26 being added to the Charter, though I support it, I don't think it even worth starting a thread on it since I can't imagine it hving even nearly as much support as property rights. Interestingly enough, some proponents of school vouchers such as is practiced in Sweden have in fact argued the case based on UDHR 26(3). Anyway, I think this proves more than conclusively that not all proponents of private property rights are libertarian conservatives. But what more can we expect from those who like to simplify things into partisan soundbites. Quite frankly, I'd like to see the entire UDHR patriated into the Charter, but seeing that it does contain many positive rights, I can't imagine many Conservatives or Libertarians supporting it. So again, just proves how when you assume, you make a ASS out of U and ME.

Again, of course the right to property would not override treaties signed in good faith. That does not mean however tht the right to proterty is not otherwise beneficial.

Of course not. But they would still be beneficial none-the-less.

"Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. " (Bolding, underlining, and italisizing mine) That's one reason I like the wording of this one. Seeing that in your example, they'd actually broken the law, then that would not be an arbitrary seizure.

His take on "just war": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgb_Fnde9G4

Civil libertarians for one.

OK, I agree it's a little tangential. It still would be good to have that Article in the Constitution anyway just to strengthen that right further.

As it stood, it was believed that he had downloaded information via her computer onto a stick. The police were hoping he may have left a trace. She herself was never a suspect. And again, in the end, he was cleared himself.

This could also apply to the government seizing property for some private mining company that needs the land for instance. Again, how much this Article would help is debatable since the land would still be Crown land, but it could still help even if only to influence opinions in the government whereby the government would be more cautious about seizing land without first ensuring that it is not doing so in an arbitary manner in the widest sense of the word.

Yet I'd say she should still ahve a right to a comparable computer in the meantime as long as there is a reasonable assurance that she won't let me use it anymore.