Canadian History - Economic Inequalities?

[Sean Hayward]

I agree that most decisions about government should be determined on a periodic basis. However, the framework in which this determination occurs should be enshrined in a constitution, so that there is stability and fundamental laws which cannot be altered without consensus. A constitution, and all laws, bind future generations unless they are altered by them through the legitimate processes. Your quote about the tyranny of the majority illustrates the necessity of constitutionalism.

Rights only exist in societies, so the idea that only rights which exist with or without society are legitimate, is false. If there was no other person with whom one could interact, the concept of rights would be illogical. I understand what you mean, but rights are guarantees provided to members of a society, a fundamental set of rules upon which the society is based. Therefore, I see no philosophical obstacle to the provision of economic rights, no distinction between negative and positive rights.

Compelling reason? This is a matter of ideology. A constitution is a contract between members of a society to outline the way that the society is to govern itself and the guarantees that each member of the society is to receive as a result of their membership in the society. I see basic necessities as something that we should guarantee to all members of Canadian society. If these things are already done universally through policy, which is doubtful in some areas, then they are recognized by society as having the status of near-rights.

[Renegade]

I agree that most decisions about government should be determined on a periodic basis. However, the framework in which this determination occurs should be enshrined in a constitution, so that there is stability and fundamental laws which cannot be altered without consensus.

Yes we already have such a framework. That framework determines who can pass laws and what the consensus required is (ie a majority government). It is a moot point on whether that framework is defined in the constitution or other legaly binding documents.

A constitution, and all laws, bind future generations unless they are altered by them through the legitimate processes. Your quote about the tyranny of the majority illustrates the necessity of constitutionalism.

I don't dispute the need for a constitution. It is fine to bind future generations to respect natural rights which each individual has anyway due to the nature of their existance. It is NOT fine to bind future generations to social contracts which denote an entitlement to some at a cost to others, especially since those entitlements can be freely determined by those future generations themselves through the use of their voting power.

Rights only exist in societies, so the idea that only rights which exist with or without society are legitimate, is false.

Only in the way that you define rights. You have igored the external quotes which I provided showing that the rights I am referring to do not depend upon society.

If there was no other person with whom one could interact, the concept of rights would be illogical. I understand what you mean, but rights are guarantees provided to members of a society, a fundamental set of rules upon which the society is based. Therefore, I see no philosophical obstacle to the provision of economic rights, no distinction between negative and positive rights.

As before we are talking about completely different things. You are referring to a set of contractual guarantees, I am referring to a set of intrinsic freedoms we each are entitled to.

Compelling reason? This is a matter of ideology. A constitution is a contract between members of a society to outline the way that the society is to govern itself and the guarantees that each member of the society is to receive as a result of their membership in the society. I see basic necessities as something that we should guarantee to all members of Canadian society.

I don't see how we can agree on this since we differ substantially on the purpose of the constitution. Personally I don't see the difference between how you have defined the constitution and a law passed by parlament (except perhaps in the level of agreement needed to enact changes).

If these things are already done universally through policy, which is doubtful in some areas, then they are recognized by society as having the status of near-rights.

Not at all. Things which are a matter of policy are subject to change. Once enshrined in a constitution, it is notoriously hard to change. I see no reason to distort the purpose of the constitution so that the flexibility to determining what is policy, is lost.

[Sean Hayward]

I know we have such a framework. I disagree that it is fine to bind people to your "natural rights" but not to other rights. Society must decide whether something is a right or not, and entrench those rights in a constitution, so that they may not be infringed.

I can't understand how you define natural rights. In other words, what is the test to determine whether something is a natural right? I don't think there is any objective method. I have not ignored your quotes, I just don't think those definitions are fitting in the context of a society.

We have different views on the purpose of a constitution, so I don't expect us to agree on this. I see a constitution as a fundamental contract between the members of a society. The difference between this and ordinary laws is that the constitution is the set of fundamental rules that cannot be altered without broad consensus, and ordinary laws are rules that change at the discretion of society on a periodic basis.

[Renegade]

I know we have such a framework. I disagree that it is fine to bind people to your "natural rights" but not to other rights. Society must decide whether something is a right or not, and entrench those rights in a constitution, so that they may not be infringed.

Why "must" society do such a thing? "Rights" as you define them are nothing but contracts within society and as such it is free to just encapuslate its ageements in laws and change them as it sees fit.

In your opinion what makes something a "right" or not? Government allows us a deduction from income for RRSP contribution. That is a societal contract. Is that too a "right" and so, must it be enshrined in a constitution?

I can't understand how you define natural rights. In other words, what is the test to determine whether something is a natural right? I don't think there is any objective method. I have not ignored your quotes, I just don't think those definitions are fitting in the context of a society.

First, those aren't "my" definitions, those are definitions from external sources I have referenced to show that it isn't simply my opinion of what a "natural right" is. If you have different definitions which is something other than your own opinion, please post them.

Of course the definition isn't within the context of society, because, BY DEFINITION, (at least according to the ones I have posted), they do not depend upon society, they however are present with or without society.

Second, yes there is a test of whether something is a natural right. See the quote "A natural right is a universal right inherent in the nature of human beings and is not contingent on ethics, human constructs, laws or beliefs.". If one has the the right to a behaviour, quite independant from the existance of society, it is a test of a natual right. Can one breathe, speak one's mind, believe in one's choice of god, all without society, laws, or any other constructs being present? Of course you can. These make them natural rights, not ones "given" by society, but ones acknowledged and respected by society

We have different views on the purpose of a constitution, so I don't expect us to agree on this. I see a constitution as a fundamental contract between the members of a society. The difference between this and ordinary laws is that the constitution is the set of fundamental rules that cannot be altered without broad consensus, and ordinary laws are rules that change at the discretion of society on a periodic basis.

As I suspected, the only real difference, (in your view) between constitution and law, is how difficult and how often those contracts change. So then, why would society want to bind itself into a more inflexible arrangement when it had the choice of a more flexible one?

Edited April 17, 2008 by Renegade

[Sean Hayward]

If society considered RRSP deductions as a fundamental right in Canadian society, and the consensus was broad enough to enact constitutional change to that effect, then it would be a right. Such a situation will almost certainly never occur, and rightly so, but so be it if that is the opinion of society. Of course there are many types of contracts, but a constitution is a fundamental contract of society, and therefore only rules that society considers to be of a fundamental nature should be included therein.

May one drink from the streams and eat food from the earth and have access to the resources of their land, without government? Yes. This is why the definition of "natural rights" is not as black and white as it appears at first glance. May one kill and enslave others, without government? Yes. Does that make those things rights in a society?

You are not incorrect when you say that the difference between a constitution and ordinary laws is the difficulty of their amendment. This is because a constitution is a set of fundamental rules, that are intended to remain fairly constant, and ordinary laws are simply the rules that change with the times and the opinion of the majority.

[Renegade]

If society considered RRSP deductions as a fundamental right in Canadian society, and the consensus was broad enough to enact constitutional change to that effect, then it would be a right. Such a situation will almost certainly never occur, and rightly so, but so be it if that is the opinion of society. Of course there are many types of contracts, but a constitution is a fundamental contract of society, and therefore only rules that society considers to be of a fundamental nature should be included therein.

Sean, please define what you mean by "fundamental". It would seem that you have substituted the criteria I use for what shoudl be included in the constitution ( "natural rights") for something much more subjective (ie a "fundamental contract"). How do you intend that society determine what is "fundamental" and what is not?

May one kill and enslave others, without government? Yes. Does that make those things rights in a society?

If you could kill and enslave others without violating the other's rights you would certainly have the right to do so. The nature of killing and enslaving violates the rights of others. Yes natural rights are those rights we have without human constructs, but also subject to the limitations that it doesn't violate others natural rights. The criteria seems pretty clear to me. I'm not sure why you are having such difficulty with it.

You are not incorrect when you say that the difference between a constitution and ordinary laws is the difficulty of their amendment.

No, I believe that there are much more differences between a constitution and ordinary laws. What I stated above was what I believed YOUR position to be.

This is because a constitution is a set of fundamental rules, that are intended to remain fairly constant, and ordinary laws are simply the rules that change with the times and the opinion of the majority.

Again what constitutes "fundamental" and why should entitlement to basic provided services not be subjected to the discretion of the majority?

[Sean Hayward]

What is "fundamental" to a society is entirely at the discretion of that society. If society, through political processes, determines that a certain characteristic is fundamental to their society, they will entrench it in the constitution. This is why the process of constitutional amendment is so much more rigorous than the ordinary legislative process, because it must be determined whether those principles contained in a proposed constitutional amendment truly have the consensus required to be considered fundamental of that society. I understand that you think there are more differences between a constitution and ordinary laws, so do I, but one key difference is the difficulty of amendment.

I apologize if I offend you, but I am simply trying to test the concept of "natural rights". So, because one may do so without government, there are natural rights to kill and enslave others. And there is a natural right not to be killed or enslaved by others. These rights obviously and directly conflict with each other. Which has supremacy over the other? Is there a hierarchy of rights in the theory of "natural rights"? How can you say that the natural right not to be killed overrules the natural right to kill? Doesn't that violate someone's natural rights? So where do you draw the limitations? Which "natural rights" should trump others, if all are to be guaranteed?

[eyeball]

So, because one may do so without government, there are natural rights to kill and enslave others. And there is a natural right not to be killed or enslaved by others. These rights obviously and directly conflict with each other. Which has supremacy over the other? Is there a hierarchy of rights in the theory of "natural rights"?

Might precedes if not makes right, whether there is a government or a hierarchy of rights or not. You guy's have just about pursued this discussion to the point at which theoretical rights are rooted in the phyiscal laws of nature. How much deeper can you go?

[Sean Hayward]

Might makes right. The rights of the people exist by virtue of the might of the government.

[eyeball]

There may be a chicken and egg question here. The might of a government may exist by virtue of the rights of the people. Even the mightiest of governments have collapsed when they've tried to limit to many people's rights.

[Renegade]

What is "fundamental" to a society is entirely at the discretion of that society. If society, through political processes, determines that a certain characteristic is fundamental to their society, they will entrench it in the constitution. This is why the process of constitutional amendment is so much more rigorous than the ordinary legislative process, because it must be determined whether those principles contained in a proposed constitutional amendment truly have the consensus required to be considered fundamental of that society. I understand that you think there are more differences between a constitution and ordinary laws, so do I, but one key difference is the difficulty of amendment.

The way you conceptualize society, laws and the constitution virtually any society no matter how brutal or oppressive to its citizens can be legitimized if there is sufficient support within that society.

For example, if a society decided to enslave a portion of its citizens because enough of them decided that they do not possess the "fundamental" right to liberty. If a society decides that one minority doesn't the "fundamental" right to live, it can exterminate that minority and still claim legitimacy and respect for human rights, because after all they are the ones who determine what "fundamental" human rights its citizens are entitled to. See the 18th and 19th century American South and 1930s Germany for examples.

I cannot see how you vision of a society somewhat arbitrarily determining what "fundamental" rights a person should have, is in keeping with our modern view that each person has inalienable rights which CANNOT be taken away by society.

I apologize if I offend you, but I am simply trying to test the concept of "natural rights". So, because one may do so without government, there are natural rights to kill and enslave others. And there is a natural right not to be killed or enslaved by others. These rights obviously and directly conflict with each other. Which has supremacy over the other? Is there a hierarchy of rights in the theory of "natural rights"? How can you say that the natural right not to be killed overrules the natural right to kill? Doesn't that violate someone's natural rights? So where do you draw the limitations? Which "natural rights" should trump others, if all are to be guaranteed?

No apology in necessary. The discussion has been nothing but civilized and respectful.

While not strictly defined, yes there is a precedence of natural rights which stems from an assumption that each person right to his own person is more important than any other individual's right to behaviour which would be conflict with it. The issues where two individual’s rights to the sanctity of their own person come into conflict is something we struggle with everyday. (For example abortion).

While I understand your point that sometimes rights will conflict, it doesn’t render the presumption that natural rights are derived from inalienable and inherent entitlements to self which each individual possesses. This forms the philosophical basis for determining the rights guaranteed in the constitution, rather than an ad hoc determination by society of whether a right should be "fundamental".

[Renegade]

Might makes right. The rights of the people exist by virtue of the might of the government.

So then, by that presumption, the apartheid of South Africa as enforced by the might of the government was "right", as was the German government's extermination of the Jews, and so on in endless examples I could give.

Might never makes right. Rigth is right regardless of might. Might can be be used just as easly to implement "wrong" as it can to implement "right" and redefining what is "wrong" to make it "right" doesn't make it so.

Edited April 22, 2008 by Renegade

[Oleg Bach]

So then, by that presumption, the apartheid of South Africa as enforced by the might of the government was "right", as was the German government's extermination of the Jews, and so on in endless examples I could give.

Might never makes right. Rigth is right regardless of might. Might can be be used just as easly to implement "wrong" as it can to implement "right" and redefining what is "wrong" to make it "right" doesn't make it so.

Might only comes to a government and their handlers if they have access to lots and lots of very stupid non-thinking people. Might is like an ant hill gone crazy...so it's really not a form of intelligence but a form of agressive insect like behaviour. First as a leader ...you have to realize that the average person is a monkey...and the lower onces are insects..THEN - you stir up their emotions and off goes the swarm of stupifed crazed humanity to do the bidding of someone that holds his own populace in utter cold contempt..perfect example..Cheney killed thousands of American soldiers in the flower of their youth because he looked upon them as worms...that is might! You want it? Go head and take it...the world is crawling with tons of worms that are willing to love - and HATE...and do the bidding of evil men who betray their own henchmen in the end also - MIGHT and stupidity and evil are all from the same family. Show me one dictator that had MIGHT who was successful in the end? There are none! So much for the illusion of might!

[Sean Hayward]

So then, by that presumption, the apartheid of South Africa as enforced by the might of the government was "right", as was the German government's extermination of the Jews, and so on in endless examples I could give.

Might never makes right. Rigth is right regardless of might. Might can be be used just as easly to implement "wrong" as it can to implement "right" and redefining what is "wrong" to make it "right" doesn't make it so.

That's not what I meant at all. You are twisting what I am saying into support for apartheid, genocide, etc. What I said was that "the rights of the people exist by virtue of the might of the government". This is simply an extension of what I said in earlier posts about rights existing only if they come with a guarantee of enforcement.

[Sean Hayward]

You seem to have very little trust in the judgement of society. Society is, through political processes, the authority on rights, and a substantial degree of consensus is required for altering the rights of the people. No society would ever have the consensus required to remove anyone's right to life, except for perhaps an extremely backward society, which would probably be too primitive to have a concept of rights anyway. This way of defining rights is very far from arbitrary, as it requires a substantial consensus.

My point is not only that rights conflict, this will always be the case, it is that the definition of natural rights is too rigid and inflexible a definition of rights to be viable in a society. Also, who is to define what constitutes a "natural right"? If your answer is society, then we are in complete agreement on this issue. If your answer is anything else, then I am afraid that I must disagree with you and suggest that your method of determining rights is arbitrary.

[Renegade]

You seem to have very little trust in the judgement of society.

Yes, I absolutely don't trust the judgement of society. I have shown you examples above that society judgement sometimes results in the complete loss of individual freedom when left to the discretion of society.

Society is, through political processes, the authority on rights, and a substantial degree of consensus is required for altering the rights of the people. No society would ever have the consensus required to remove anyone's right to life, except for perhaps an extremely backward society, which would probably be too primitive to have a concept of rights anyway.

You can't be serious Sean. War, capital punishment, abortion, are but some examples in modern society where by society has deemed it is appropriate that someone die.

1930's germany is an example of a modern society where many group's right to life were removed simply by societal consensus. Societal consensus is subject to manipulation, emotion, and whim. Not very long ago after the terrorist incidents of 2001, when people's fear trumped their reason, they were completely willing to give consensus to subvert rights.

This way of defining rights is very far from arbitrary, as it requires a substantial consensus.

The dictionary specifices a definition o "arbitrary" as:

based on whim: based solely on personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions, rather than on objective facts, reasons, or principles

Regardless of the "substantial" consensus it requires, it it at the whim and discrection of a subset of the members of society. That makes it arbitrary.

If in fact it is not arbitrary and is in fact based upon "objective facts, reasons, or principles", then I'd like to understand what those objective facts, reasons, or principles are which society uses to determine what is "fundamental".

My point is not only that rights conflict, this will always be the case, it is that the definition of natural rights is too rigid and inflexible a definition of rights to be viable in a society.

Not at all. You need a somewhat objective definition or set of principles. The flexibility should only be in the interpretation of those principles. For example if the principle derived from a natural rights is individual is allowed the freedom of speech, the flexibility is in the interpretation of whether shouting "fire" in a theatre is a protected behaviour under that principle.

Also, who is to define what constitutes a "natural right"? If your answer is society, then we are in complete agreement on this issue. If your answer is anything else, then I am afraid that I must disagree with you and suggest that your method of determining rights is arbitrary.

No it absolutely cannot be simply left to the judgement of society to determine what a natural right is. If you agree with the definition of what a natural right is, then it becomes a point of discussion whether a particular right fits within that definition. Some may fit quite easily and clearly which no reasonable person can dispute. Some behaviours may not be as clear. Where a behaviour is not clear as a natural right, I can see cause for society's judgment, but when a behaviour is clearly a "natural right" as defined, no judgement from society is required.

I'm really not sure how you can both call the method of determining what is a natural right, both "too rigid and inflexible" and arbitrary in the same post. Natural rights have been determined by principles which I have previously described. This makes them distinctly nonarbitrary. You haven't yet posted a definition of "natural rights" which conflicts with any I have posted and linked to, so I assume that there is no dispute in the definition.

Edited April 22, 2008 by Renegade

[Renegade]

That's not what I meant at all. You are twisting what I am saying into support for apartheid, genocide, etc. What I said was that "the rights of the people exist by virtue of the might of the government". This is simply an extension of what I said in earlier posts about rights existing only if they come with a guarantee of enforcement.

I don't see that I'm twisting anything. Yes it is consistant with your earlier posts where you have stated that society and their designate (government) are free to define what a right is based upon nothing more than their wishes. In some of the examples I have pointed out, the government has done exactly that. How is that twisting what you have said? I am simply pointing out the implication of what you have said as it applies to those societies.

Edited April 22, 2008 by Renegade

[Sean Hayward]

The consensus required for modifying rights is not 50% plus one. It is much more demanding and is therefore protected from the whims of the majority and the "personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions" you speak of. Your examples are all exceptions to the rule. War is a situation where we recognize that many rights may have to be infringed for collective security. Capital punishment is a situation where the person in question has been found guilty of a serious crime and may therefore be deprived of their right to life. Abortion is a situation where something that, notwithstanding "personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions", our society has decided is not a person, is killed.

To outright abolish someone's right to life would be a very grave step that I don't believe any modern society would take. In 1930s Germany, the right to life was removed by a dictatorship that clearly did not have consensus required to take that action. After September 11th, there may have been the consensus required to remove certain rights, but that consensus did not last long, and by now there would be the consensus required to restore those rights.

I fail to see how the definition of arbitrary that you have provided fits my theory on defining rights. There is no way that "personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions" would be able to command the consensus in society to modify rights. If they did, then they are by definition no longer "personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions", they are principles of society. The society must, and will, use "objective facts, reasons, or principles" to define the rights that exist within that society.

You agree with me then, that "natural rights" cannot be strictly defined. You may call rights what you want, "natural rights", "inherent rights", "inalienable rights", they all mean the same thing. There must be some source of judgement to decide what the rights of individuals and groups in a society are. In my opinion, the only legitimate source is the society itself. I don't dispute your definition of natural rights, but I can't state clearly enough that there much room for interpretation left in it. In other words, one could say that the right to water is as much a natural right as the right to life. Because of this lack of clarity, society must be the authority to decide what it deems to be a right.

Your idea of natural rights is too rigid and inflexible because you leave no room for society to define what it consider a "natural right", and arbitrary for exactly the same reason, because it imposes a set of rules upon a society that does not necessarily support them. In the examples you have laid out to show why society cannot be trusted, they always involve a dictatorship that clearly did not have the consensus from society to do what it was doing. The blacks, a large majority of the society, were excluded from participating in the government in South Africa, so that government's actions were not representative of the society. In Germany, a dictatorship was in power which had no regard for its people and, although it may have been elected with a plurality of the vote, did not have, or even seek, the consensus required to take its extreme actions.

[Renegade]

The consensus required for modifying rights is not 50% plus one. It is much more demanding and is therefore protected from the whims of the majority and the "personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions" you speak of. Your examples are all exceptions to the rule. War is a situation where we recognize that many rights may have to be infringed for collective security. Capital punishment is a situation where the person in question has been found guilty of a serious crime and may therefore be deprived of their right to life. Abortion is a situation where something that, notwithstanding "personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions", our society has decided is not a person, is killed.

To outright abolish someone's right to life would be a very grave step that I don't believe any modern society would take. In 1930s Germany, the right to life was removed by a dictatorship that clearly did not have consensus required to take that action. After September 11th, there may have been the consensus required to remove certain rights, but that consensus did not last long, and by now there would be the consensus required to restore those rights.

The fact that they are "exceptions to the rule" doesn't diminish the fact that they occured in the past and such incidents can continue to occur in the future. Requiring a larger consensus than 50% only reduces the chance of rights being determined by the whims of the majority but doesn't eliminate it. the constitution and the definition of right should NOT be soley determined upon the whims of the populace. There are many populations (for example ultra-religious ones) which will gladly deny some of their citizens certain behaviours because they are guided by religious principles. By your reasoning they are perfectly justified to do so.

I fail to see how the definition of arbitrary that you have provided fits my theory on defining rights. There is no way that "personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions" would be able to command the consensus in society to modify rights. If they did, then they are by definition no longer "personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions", they are principles of society. The society must, and will, use "objective facts, reasons, or principles" to define the rights that exist within that society.

Please explain what compels society so that it MUST use "objective facts, reasons, or principles" to define the rights. I have asked before and you have not addressed what are those ""objective facts, reasons, or principles" which are used?

You agree with me then, that "natural rights" cannot be strictly defined. You may call rights what you want, "natural rights", "inherent rights", "inalienable rights", they all mean the same thing. There must be some source of judgement to decide what the rights of individuals and groups in a society are.

Yes there is a certain amount of judgement involved because there will always be cases which are borderline, however the existance of borderline cases, doesn't eliminate the fact that the principle of natural laws can be applied to determine most cases.

Look at it this way. Laws are the rules of society. The constituion is the set of principles upon which law is based and to which laws must conform. Natural Law and natural rights are the set of meta-principles upon which the constitution should be based.

In my opinion, the only legitimate source is the society itself. I don't dispute your definition of natural rights, but I can't state clearly enough that there much room for interpretation left in it. In other words, one could say that the right to water is as much a natural right as the right to life. Because of this lack of clarity, society must be the authority to decide what it deems to be a right.

Yes you could state that the natural right to water is as much a natural right as the right to life, and I agree with that. But society doesn't provide you with life, nor should it provide you with water.

Your idea of natural rights is too rigid and inflexible because you leave no room for society to define what it consider a "natural right", and arbitrary for exactly the same reason, because it imposes a set of rules upon a society that does not necessarily support them.

If you refer back to the definition of "arbitrary", you will see that the support of society or anyone else, isn't relevant to the standard of how arbitrary something is.

Society retains the flexibility to determine what is law not what are rights.

For example, I believe that each individual has the natural right to die. I don't believe that the consensus of society shoudl be required to grant each individual such a right.

In the examples you have laid out to show why society cannot be trusted, they always involve a dictatorship that clearly did not have the consensus from society to do what it was doing. The blacks, a large majority of the society, were excluded from participating in the government in South Africa, so that government's actions were not representative of the society. In Germany, a dictatorship was in power which had no regard for its people and, although it may have been elected with a plurality of the vote, did not have, or even seek, the consensus required to take its extreme actions.

So is it your contention that society can NEVER through CONSENSUS impose egregious rules limting the "rights" of its citizens?

Edited April 24, 2008 by Renegade

[Rue]

Hey all, my first post here. Great site!

I was wondering what some of your views were on economic inequalities. I kmnow its been a reoccuring theme throughout Canadian history and was wondering what you guys thought were the most significant aspects?

Has much changed?

S.15 of the Charter in regards to equality rights, makes it possible for someone to argue that being poor, places them in a specific group with specific characteristics which is the first test of entitlement to a legal claim for equal rights.

It could be in theory used to define that group as "the poor".

The complaintant could then go on and argue that the federal or provincial governments, or companies, or public access discriminates against the poor in a way it doesn't discriminate in regards to the non poor and therefore the law or service doing that must address the inequity caused.

So it would definitely be raised and argeud by poverty interest groups contesting privatizing health care or attempts by provincial governments to create different tiers of hospital care based on what you pay for.

It would probably be raised if a province tried to do away with welfare or assisted housing.

So in that sense, it could be argued to gurantee certain services not be taken away from the poor.

In theory it could also be argued to justify giving certain services to the poor that others don't get, i.e., free dental care. If someone argued for example its unfair the poor get free dental care in Ontario but they don't, it probably would be argued under s.15 as being allowed or justified differential treatment since it addresses a greater inequality.

In terms of guaranteeing all people make a certain amount of money-no. In terms of guaranteeing all people have a job, no.

It probably can be invoked to preserve certain government services or minimum standards of care for the poor but it gets very limited after that.

Some of the responses you have had do not understand the Charter or how the Equality section works. They assume it confers automatic rights to the poor it does not give to others. It doesn't. any right it would guarantee a poor person it would also guarantee everyone else.

Some people believe Welfare is unfair and provides a service to the poor others don't get and so its unfair and creates inequality.

It most certainly on one theoretic level creates preferential treatment for those who qualify it. But what is that preferential treatment? Its the kind of basic, minimum services that are intended to keep people from committing crimes of desperation. Its primarily a safety net to prevent crime. Secondarily it is a social exercise to relieve people of feeling guilty that some people are poor and others aren't. It makes humanity seem caring and compassionate which is an intangible value many on this board would laugh at or do the usual Macho Red Neck routine to laugh at, but it very much influences politicians who would never risk doing away with it and alienating their voters. Very few people actually when polled, think we should do awaty with welfare. They want compassion and some sort of service for the poor. What they get pissed off at is not the concept of welfare, but welfare ABUSE an entirely different issue.

This is why politicians will focus on welfare abuse when they speak. When Mike Harris and Stephen Harper deliberately pandered to people by involving the spectre of welfare abuse-while they made sure never to argue against welfare but only welfare abuse in their words, their actual references did not distinguish between the poor and those poor who might abuse welfare.

Now you can live in a society where we do not believe the government has any role in looking after the poor, or we can live in a society where we feel society has some sort of minimal moral obligation to protect its most vulnerable.

To me those concepts do not have anything to do with socialism. There is another misconception that the moment one feels there is a moral obligation by society for the poor or most vlunerable that is socialist since it means government involvement and any social service is socialist.

No. The actual concept of feeling morally obliged to look after the poor or most vulnerable in society can be held by classic conservatives (followers of Edmund Burke) as much as it can be by classic Liberals ( Benthamites ).

Libertarians reject this concept and many assume Libertarians are necessarily conservatives. No they are people who believe there should be no government role. You could still be a Libertarian and be very compassionate to the poor and believe they need help but the best way to do it would be through non profit organizations not government ministries. Likewise conservatives and liberals could feel the same way. Or the fact that a conservative or liberal might believe government is the best way to provide some basic services for the poor, could be based on law and order concerns and not necessarily socialist believes.

Its too complex an issue to simply dismiss as socialist if people feel society has some sort of moral obligation for its most vulnerable.

The fact is in all societies, there will be inequality due to human nature. If nothing else biological differences in humans will make some more disposed to be unable to work and fend for themselves as others due lower iq's or perhaps chronic disabilities, inability to afford school, self-destructive behaviour more common in some groups then others due to socio-economic factors, religious or lack of religious values, diet, on and on.

The Charter today is used to identify alleged barriers that prevent equality and then suggest methods to alleviate the inequality the barriers cause. Yes it has created an infinite variation of possible social victims or interest groups seeking assistance, one only has to look at the court system and the thousands of charter equality cases.

Whether its actually alleviating inequality or simply creating new forms of inequality and simply changing the hierarchy as to who is privileged and who is not, is a philosophical question ultimately not a legal one.

In the law, attempts to address inequality look at a snap shot in the overall evolution of humans-laws at best provide temporal relief for a perceived inequality but soon become outmoded and in need of changing as human behaviour and conditions keep changing.

[Sean Hayward]

I categorically disagree with your assertion that the judgement of society is just some "whim" or personal opinion. It is much more than that. You bring up the issue of ultra-religious people as if their views hold the consensus of Canadian society. That is simply wrong. Ultra-religious groups are very small in Canada and would never be able to muster the consensus required to amend the constitution to suit their ideology.

Just because you recognize that society should be trusted to decide for itself what its fundamental characteristics and principles are, it doesn't mean you are giving any special interest group the ability to have their way with the constitution. The proposed amendments must be tested through the process of constitutional amendment, a very rigorous process. And yes, by my reasoning, if society did have a consensus to entrench ultra-religious principles in the constitution, they would be perfectly justified in doing so, otherwise you are following a double standard based on "personal opinions", etc.

It is self-evident that society will use "objective facts, reasons, or principles" to determine whether or not to amend its constitution. That is simply the nature of public debate and collective decision-making. If you admit that some amount of judgement is involved in determining rights, the next logical step is the question of who provides this judgement. I believe it is the society itself. I would call a system that imposes a set of rules upon a society that does not support them arbitrary, regardless of the dictionary definition.

Flexibility is an important aspect of the discussion. My contention is that laws should be flexible enough to change with the will of the majority, and constitutions should be much less flexible, but still flexible enough to change based on a consensus of society. You are correct in saying that there is a right to die, implicit in the right to life is the ability to not exercise that right. Therefore, various rights exist which are not specifically enumerated, but fall under the umbrella of other rights.

As to your last point, that is definetly not my contention. Societies are free to do such things by consensus. However, because of the requirement for consensus, it is impossible for things considered egregious by the society to be done. The need for consensus is key.

I must admit, I am not very familiar with Section 15 in this context. Are there any specific cases on this subject?

[Renegade]

I categorically disagree with your assertion that the judgement of society is just some "whim" or personal opinion. It is much more than that. You bring up the issue of ultra-religious people as if their views hold the consensus of Canadian society. That is simply wrong. Ultra-religious groups are very small in Canada and would never be able to muster the consensus required to amend the constitution to suit their ideology.

Sean, you may categorically disagree but you have provide no evidience to dispute my contention. I do agree with you that in Canada ultra-religious groups are unlikely to sway consensus, however my comment was not restricted to Canada. My point referred to political systems in general, which in some countries ARE swayed by ultra-religious ideals.

Just because you recognize that society should be trusted to decide for itself what its fundamental characteristics and principles are, it doesn't mean you are giving any special interest group the ability to have their way with the constitution. The proposed amendments must be tested through the process of constitutional amendment, a very rigorous process. And yes, by my reasoning, if society did have a consensus to entrench ultra-religious principles in the constitution, they would be perfectly justified in doing so, otherwise you are following a double standard based on "personal opinions", etc.

So also, by your reasoing that if a society by consensus decided no or very little rights to some of it's citizens, it would be " perfectly justified" in doing so, correct?

It is self-evident that society will use "objective facts, reasons, or principles" to determine whether or not to amend its constitution. That is simply the nature of public debate and collective decision-making. If you admit that some amount of judgement is involved in determining rights, the next logical step is the question of who provides this judgement.

It may be self-evident to you but it certainly is not self-evident to me. I see many historical incidents where "objective facts, reasons, or principles" are tossed out the window in the face of an emotionial response motivated by fear, hate, and other emotions. Just look at the internment of some groups during WWII. I believe the action had widespread support. Could such widespread support have translated into a constitutional amendment ABSOLUTELY!. The US is talking about a constititutonal amendent to prevent the adoption of Same-Sex Marriage? Is it based upon "objective facts, reasons, or principles"? Not at all, it is based upon bigotry and fear.

I believe it is the society itself. I would call a system that imposes a set of rules upon a society that does not support them arbitrary, regardless of the dictionary definition.

If we aren't using English dictionary definitions of words, then you are using terminolgy different than anything I'm using and I'm not sure how we can have a constructive discussion.

Flexibility is an important aspect of the discussion. My contention is that laws should be flexible enough to change with the will of the majority, and constitutions should be much less flexible, but still flexible enough to change based on a consensus of society.

I agree that constituions should be much less flexible than laws. I agree that constitutions should have the ablitiy to change because no constitution is perfect, however I disagree with you in that the principles of what goes into constituonal change should be specific and defined. Consensus from society is only required to determine if a specific constituional amendment fits into those principles on not, assuming it is not altogether obvious already.

You are correct in saying that there is a right to die, implicit in the right to life is the ability to not exercise that right. Therefore, various rights exist which are not specifically enumerated, but fall under the umbrella of other rights.

While both you and I think it should be, there is no "right to die" in the Charter. In Rodriguez v. British Columbia the SCC majority ruled that the right to die was not a protected right.

However, because of the requirement for consensus, it is impossible for things considered egregious by the society to be done. The need for consensus is key.

History shows you to be wrong. It certainly is not "impossible for things considered egregious by the society to be done" even when consensus is required. The history of the US and its adoption of slavery for many years proves that.

Despite the freedoms demanded in the Declaration and the freedoms reserved in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, slavery was not only tolerated in the Constitution, but it was codified.

Constitutional Topic: Slavery

Edited April 25, 2008 by Renegade

[Renegade]

S.15 of the Charter in regards to equality rights, makes it possible for someone to argue that being poor, places them in a specific group with specific characteristics which is the first test of entitlement to a legal claim for equal rights.

It could be in theory used to define that group as "the poor".

I seriously doubt it. In Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney General) such a case was fought on the basis that welfare rules was unconstitutional because the regulation violated sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. Gosselin lost. See also Fraser Forum for an interesting read on the case.

[Sean Hayward]

I don't understand what kind of evidence you are looking for. There are no statistics to back me up because this is not a statistical question, it is a philosophical question. If ultra-religious principles truly hold a consensus in a society, then of course they may change their constitution to suit their principles. I do not believe in ultra-religious principles, but that is just my personal opinion.

I don't quite understand what the second question is asking. Are you asking whether unequal rights are justified? Or are you asking whether a society could limit rights almost entirely? The answers to the questions are no and yes, respectively.

I have more trust in Canadian democracy. I don't believe that our political processes can be motivated by fear and hate, etc. in the way that you suggest. The situation with same-sex marriage in the US is not based on "bigotry and fear". I would say that it is a society deciding whether or not something constitutes a fundamental characteristic of itself, based on its principles.

History does not show me to be wrong. The example you bring up, in fact, proves me right. The American Civil War occurred because that society was struggling with the question of slavery, and it was getting closer to consensus on abolishing slavery.

[Renegade]

I don't understand what kind of evidence you are looking for. There are no statistics to back me up because this is not a statistical question, it is a philosophical question. If ultra-religious principles truly hold a consensus in a society, then of course they may change their constitution to suit their principles. I do not believe in ultra-religious principles, but that is just my personal opinion.

The evidence I was looking for is some evidence to support that society makes decisions regarding rights based upon objective facts and reason, rather than emotion or whim. I understand now that it is simply your personal opinion.

I don't quite understand what the second question is asking. Are you asking whether unequal rights are justified? Or are you asking whether a society could limit rights almost entirely? The answers to the questions are no and yes, respectively.

I was asking wether a society could limit rights almost entirely and be justified in doing so. In your opinion it can. The way I read that, you then can justify any brutality of a minority simply by getting enough consensus of people to agree with that brutality. I don't believe that most people would agree with you on such a concept of rights.

While it was not the question I asked, I am curious on your answer to the first question. Why would unequal rigthts not be justified in your opinion presuming you had sufficient consensus in the population?

I have more trust in Canadian democracy. I don't believe that our political processes can be motivated by fear and hate, etc. in the way that you suggest.

Perhaps your trust is based upon a more recent snapshot of the political processes. In the long run, perhaps over centuries there are no guarantees of what the politicial process will be nor of what the motivation factors of the populace will be. As seen by 9/11 a population can easily be motivated by fear. There are many other scenarios I can imagine where the population is motivated by non-rational decision making processes. In my view, much of the population are ill-informed sheep. They are eaisly swayed by politicians and events. Putting individual rights into their hands is simply tempting fate.

The situation with same-sex marriage in the US is not based on "bigotry and fear". I would say that it is a society deciding whether or not something constitutes a fundamental characteristic of itself, based on its principles.

Since much of its principles and opposition is based upon religious beliefs and objections, and much of its religion is riddled with bigotry and fear, I feel quite comfortable saying that bigotry and fear play a huge part in their decision making process on this particular issue.

History does not show me to be wrong. The example you bring up, in fact, proves me right. The American Civil War occurred because that society was struggling with the question of slavery, and it was getting closer to consensus on abolishing slavery.

You seem to forget that the slaves endured decades if not centuries of slavery before that debate occured. Furthermore there was no consensus as you have described. Basically a change was forced on the south through the violence of the Civil War. If the US had waited for consensus it may have waited until the 60s before abolishing slavery.