Machjo

In the instance I pointed out above, it wasn't just the suspect's computer that was seized. Let's say I'm accused of downloading child pornography, and it's suspected that I'd done so on my friend's computer. So is it reasonable for the police to seize her computer without some kind of reasonable compensation? Remember, she would not be the suspect; I would be. So she should be deprived of her computer for the whole duration of the case because the police think I may have downloaded child pornography? Seeing that I'd be innocent until proven guilty, why should I compensate her?

The other person was found not guilty in the end. As to how the suspicions began, I'm not sure, as she'd never gone into the details. But why should he compensate her for somethng the police did? Sure if the police suspect me of downloading child pornography, they certainly have a righ tto seize my computer and possibly the computers of otehr people if I may have had access to those computers. But why should I then have to compensate them if not convicted yet, especially if I should be found not guilty afterwards?

I don't agree with all that Ron Paul says, but I will give him this: He's a Republican who's been able to win much non-partisan support, and even support from many Democrats. Show me one other candidate, Republican or Democrat, who's been as able as he to reach beyond party base. Again, it's not that he's perfect or that everyone agrees with everything he says. But compared to the others, he still stands out as the best option right now.

And while I is not reaching at all. Is it not reasonable to compensate one for property taken unless there is a good reason not to? Looking at it that way, we could argue that to seize property without reasonable compensation is "arbitrary".

The reason her computer was seized was suspicion that another person may have used it, with or without her knowledge, to download child pronography. Seeing that she herself was not a suspect, there was no fear that she herself would use the computer for child pornography, only that another person could use it for that purpose should he be given access to it. So she herself was not even a suspect, she jsut happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, and so another person was suspected of possibly having used her computer to look at child pornography.

That's fair enough. But there should not be stronger property rights entrenched in the constitution to ensure such seizures are reasonable and not arbitrary? And by arbitrary, I mean in the wides sense of the word which could include compensation even for temporary seisures?

Having it in the Charter though would reduce the chances that it even make it to court, as then the person could point out to the police that she wants reasonable compensation such as temporary use of an alternative similar computer in the mean time. To avoid a losing court case, the police would likely have obliged. Now I don't know how hard she fought to an such compensation since I wasn't there, but she did mention that she did mention it to them and they brushed her off.

Now my colleague did not require her computer for her livelyhood. But let's say she did. No issue? And even if she doesn't, we're still talking about state seisure of her property, which again can be reasonable, depending on how it's done. Taking it without some kind of compensation is not reasonable. Or another example. Let's say your house was part of a crime scene. Could the police reasonably seize your property for some time? Sure, that would be reasonable. But without providing you with lodging in the meantime? What if the investigation takes a couple weeks or even months should it be particularly complex? So, you pay your mortgage and rent at a hotel or look for a rental apartment? Seriously now.

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. However, antonyms of "arbitrary" are: circumspect, rational, reasonable, reasoned, supported, democratic, accountable, complaisant, compliant, restricted, submissive, yielding, constant, dependable, sensible, staid, steadfast, steady, docile, passive, amenable, doubting, flexible, indecisive, manageable, obedient, questioning, and skeptical. http://thesaurus.com/browse/arbitrary Now some of these words could argue the cse for reasonable compensation for the seisure of one's property, such as circumspect, rational, reasonable, reasoned, supported, democratic, accountable, sensible, amenable, and flexible. In other words, to take her computer without reasonable compensation could be said to be arbitrary according to a wider sense of the word, with reasonable compensation being circumspect, rational, reasonable, reasoned, supported, democratic, accountable, sensible, amenable, and flexible.

That's fine. And they could not have provided her with a similar computer in the mean time? And as for copying data from the original computer, could a police officer not have supervised it so that she would still have access to the documents in her computer? Seeing that it was a child-pornography case, even if data were copied from her computer to the new computer on loan, since it would merely have been copied and not transfered, any pornographic images in the computer would still have been there. The officer could have been responsible for the copying of the information, with her merely being present and not allowed to touch it. How would have have hurt the police investigation in the least? Or even if there was a valid reason not to touch or copy any informatoin from the computer, what was stopping the police from providing her with an alternative computer in the meantime, seeing that she was deprived of a computer she needed for personal work she did? And remember, she was not charged. She was not even a suspect. And even if she were, she would still ahve been innocent until proven guilty? Providing an alternative computer in the meantime would have been an example of the police avoiding arbitrary deprivation of one's property by taking all reasonable measures necessary to compensate for any seizure of property. This is one example where such an article in the constitution could have helped.

As mentioned earlier, taking her computer was reasonable. However, fair compensation woudl have suggested for example lender her another similar computer in the mean time, or access to documents in her computer, which could have been done within minutes, even if under close police supervision. None of that was done, and so she was deprived of a computer for a number of months without compensation.

Exactly. Inasmuch as that Article would protect one's private property, there is the question of defining one's property. And house husbands (or, sorry, stay at home dads) would be no different. It would just be a matter of considering that marriage is like a contract where property is shared collectively, which the first part of the article deals with in reference to collective property.

The police would not be allowed to seize your laptop without good reason, and certainly not without fair compensation for instance. Even if it's to return it to you later, you could demand that it at least provide you with a temporary alternative computer in the mean time, or access to the data on your computer, etc. for example. I take this example because I know a case of a colleague of mine who was denied access to her computer by the polcie for nearly a year, without any compensation. Sure they gave her her computer back, but in the meantime she had no access to it nor its contents.

We should remember though that property is not limited to land itself. Techinically, should the Crown never have sold the land, then no, it does not belong to us. I suppose that would be one way for the state to circumvent this Article to a degree. But remember though that computers, cars, etc. etc. etc. all count as property too. This would place certain limits on the police to be able ot seize property arbitrarily too. Without fair compensation could fall into the category of arbitrary too.

Of course Canada does well. However, I think such an article in the Charter woudl make Canada even better. Again, I can accept certain reasonable conditions. For example, a housewife who worked hard caring for her family all her life and then her husband decides to divorce her to be with another. Well, is it reasonable for her to get a percentage of his property, possibly even 50%, on the grounds of the sacrifice she made for the family? Or is it reasonable that he compensate her for emotional damages should he have cheated on her? Sure. But again, this would be the state seizing his property for a very valid reason which it can defend by lucid and logical argument, and not just arbitrary seizure of his property. I think that word "arbitrary" is quite possibly the most important word in that article in that it places a reasonable limit on the right to property.

The Crown is fine. But one would think that even the Crown woudl have have certain obligations, no? And defending the right to property within reason (e.e. not being allowed to deprive one of his propoerty arbitrarily, or without good reason) would be a reasonable enough obligation it would seem to me.

Thanks. I must admit though that I am surprised at how many Canadians disagree. Now as for the wording, as I said, sure it could be reworded to make it more grammatically gender-neutral. But I don't see why one would oppose the meaning of the article, even if in different wording. The impression I get though is that most people oppose not just the wording, but the very notion of protection of property rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Heck, even Trudeau wanted something similar added, but some provincial governments had opposed him on it. So if even Trudeau could agree to include property rights into the Charter, then I can only imagine that the dissenting provinces must have been not just NDP, but a particularly leftist brand thereof.

So it should be allowed to take property arbitrarily? It would seem to me that that's the main stipulation in the Article. That any such deprevation of ones property not be arbitrary. If that's not reasonable, then what is?

Not at all. Should the state have a valid reason to deprive a person of his property, it could certainly do so. However, it would be banned from doing so in an arbitrary manner, meaning that it would have to prove that this was the only way it could achieve a particular objective and that there is no other reasonable way around it.

We're all well aware of this. But just reread the article: "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." Nowhere does it state that the state cannot regulate the use of the property. In fact, it does not even state that one cannot be deprived of his property, but merely arbitrarily deprived. Seems reasonable enough to me.

Exactly. That way the government would have to prove its case, and in the example you just described above, the governnment might win on the grounds that it actually would have a very valid reason to do so. But at least it puts the onus on the government to defend its case.

Though the French version also avoids any problem with that to, at least in this particular instance: Or actually, no. "Personne" is always feminine, as are "collectivité" and "propriété". Yet no French-speaker would ever misconstrue this to suggest that these rights apply to women only. There is an undeerstanding that that's just the rules of French grammar, and in no way an attempt to exclude men from these rights. Besides, to try to make it gender-neutral in French would be impossible without reqriting more than just one rule of French Frammar.

I'm sure it could always be reworded while keeping the same meaning without it looking too clumsy. I actually like Persian on that front in that it has only two sets of third-person-singular pronouns: animate and inanimate, thus eliminating the problem altogether.

In other words, he needs to acknowledge that he is not negotiating with the government as an equal. Again, UDHR 17 would rectify that by making it more difficult for the government to confiscate his property, be it a computer (as in the example above), vehicle, land, etc. without a reasonable reason to do so.

That is how it began, however it has since been so entrenched in the English language that it is now taught in school as a basic part of English grammar, which explains its presence in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a UN document.