Article 17 of UDHR in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[Machjo]

Would the following article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights be a reasonable add-on to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

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.

[Michael Hardner]

But women's property may be confiscated at random?

[Machjo]

But women's property may be confiscated at random?

Er?

[pinko]

There is no need for such terminology in the Charter.

[Machjo]

There is no need for such terminology in the Charter.

As it currently stands, we have limited prooperty rights in Canadian law.

[Guest American Woman]

Er?

The article refers to "his" property.

[pinko]

As it currently stands, we have limited prooperty rights in Canadian law.

We have ample property rights in Canadian law. Every government ultimately has the authority to expropriate private property.

[jacee]

We can 'own' property, to the extent that our government can defend its title.

[pinko]

For example if a government agency wants land for a hydro line and a portion of your property is required then a negotiation is undertaken and a fair market value is established.

[Machjo]

The article refers to "his" property.

Er, yes. And let's review basic English grammar:

Singular inanimate neuter gender: it/its

Singular animate masculine gender: he/his

Singular animate feminine gender: she/her/hers

Singular animate neuter gender: he/his

In such formal documents, the singular animate masculine and singular animate neuter are identical. I'd learn that in elementary school, and that in an English-as-a-second-language class at a French-medium school.

[Machjo]

For example if a government agency wants land for a hydro line and a portion of your property is required then a negotiation is undertaken and a fair market value is established.

It can also force you to sell it without having to prove that it could not build the lines elsewhere. Now with Article 17 of the UDHR added in, it could still force you to sell it, but would at least need to prove that its decision to force you to sell it is not arbitrary, making it at least a little more difficult, especially shoudl it be proven that it could simply build elsewhere.

Now sure out of goodwill governments may exercise caution in such cases, but it does not change the fact that it's doing so out of kindness and not out of obligation as such.

A colleague of mine had her computer confiscated by the police for a year without fair compensation. All she wanted were:

1. That the police lend her a temporary replacement while they kept her computer in custody, and

2. That she be allowed to gain access to the documents downloaded in her computer, even if a police officer must transfer them on her behalf. The police refused to do any of that on the grounds it was too much work and would compromise their investigation even though they could not present any proof of such and that she was left with no access to her computer and many documents for about one year. And she was not even the person being charged.

And yes, this was in Canada just last year.

[Guest American Woman]

Er, yes. And let's review basic English grammar:

Singular inanimate neuter gender: it/its

Singular animate masculine gender: he/his

Singular animate feminine gender: she/her/hers

Singular animate neuter gender: he/his

In such formal documents, the singular animate masculine and singular animate neuter are identical. I'd learn that in elementary school, and that in an English-as-a-second-language class at a French-medium school.

Good for you. But in legal documents, considering women don't always enjoy the same rights as men worldwide, perhaps such articles should be written in terms that cannot be argued/refuted/questioned.

[Machjo]

Good for you. But in legal documents, considering women don't always enjoy the same rights as men worldwide, perhaps such articles should be written in terms that cannot be argued/refuted/questioned.

"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. "

(Bolded, italicized and underlined mine)

This clearly indicates all persons; and seeing that the pronoun "his" refers back to the pronoun "one" (also in the singular animate neutral gender), it becomes clear from context that this is referring to all persons.

[Guest American Woman]

For example if a government agency wants land for a hydro line and a portion of your property is required then a negotiation is undertaken and a fair market value is established.

Even if the "negotiation" doesn't satisfy the property owner. We see it all the time when land for road expansion/airport expansion, etc. is 'taken' with "fair compensation" whether the property owner wants to part with the land and/or sees it as "fair compensation" or not. Some people end up with the highway practically at their front door. I'm not sure there is such a thing as "fair compensation" for that.

[pinko]

It can also force you to sell it without having to prove that it could not build the lines elsewhere. Now with Article 17 of the UDHR added in, it could still force you to sell it, but would at least need to prove that its decision to force you to sell it is not arbitrary, making it at least a little more difficult, especially shoudl it be proven that it could simply build elsewhere.

Now sure out of goodwill governments may exercise caution in such cases, but it does not change the fact that it's doing so out of kindness and not out of obligation as such.

A colleague of mine had her computer confiscated by the police for a year without fair compensation. All she wanted were:

1. That the police lend her a temporary replacement while they kept her computer in custody, and

2. That she be allowed to gain access to the documents downloaded in her computer, even if a police officer must transfer them on her behalf. The police refused to do any of that on the grounds it was too much work and would compromise their investigation even though they could not present any proof of such and that she was left with no access to her computer and many documents for about one year. And she was not even the person being charged.

And yes, this was in Canada just last year.

I notice eminent domain operates in a manner similar in nature in the USA. As I said there is no need for such provisions.

Edited July 10, 2011 by pinko

[bush_cheney2004]

Good for you. But in legal documents, considering women don't always enjoy the same rights as men worldwide, perhaps such articles should be written in terms that cannot be argued/refuted/questioned.

The patriarchal view is intentional, as seen in Parliament's Interpretation Act of 1850:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_Act_1850

[Machjo]

Even if the "negotiation" doesn't satisfy the property owner. We see it all the time when land for road expansion/airport expansion, etc. is 'taken' with "fair compensation" whether the property owner wants to part with the land and/or sees it as "fair compensation" or not. Some people end up with the highway practically at their front door. I'm not sure there is such a thing as "fair compensation" for that.

A good reason to add UDHR 17 to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While it still woulnd't guarantee an absolute right to one's property, it would at least put the onus on the government to prove beyond reason that its confiscation of said property is not arbitrary or that it cannot be reasonably avoided. That I think would be a reasonable limit on the powers of the Crown.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Machjo

[pinko]

Even if the "negotiation" doesn't satisfy the property owner. We see it all the time when land for road expansion/airport expansion, etc. is 'taken' with "fair compensation" whether the property owner wants to part with the land and/or sees it as "fair compensation" or not. Some people end up with the highway practically at their front door. I'm not sure there is such a thing as "fair compensation" for that.

The property owner needs to make an informed decision when in such circumstances. In any negotiation a party has to have a sense of the negotiation and the consequences of failing to reach an agreement.

Edited July 10, 2011 by pinko

[Machjo]

The patriarchal view is intentional, as seen in Parliament's Interpretation Act of 1850:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_Act_1850

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.

[Machjo]

The property owner needs to make an informed decision when in such circumstances. In any negotiation a party has to have a sense of the negotiation and the consequences of failing to reach an agreement.

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Sexist language is being replaced by gender neutral alternatives. Dated patriarchal pronouns now stick out like a sore thumb (gender neutral).

[Guest American Woman]

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.

I'm sure the nations that afford rights to men that women aren't afforded see it that way - being that it's entrenched in the English language.

FYI, not everyone is happy that such a "patriarchal view" (there's no other way to describe it) is entrenched in the English language. If women are afforded rights too, it should be clearly stated as such. I doubt whether writing he/she or his/her et al would put a time burden on those writing the articles.

More and more these days we see references to him/her and sir or madam rather than the old patriarchal way, and that's the way it really should be. Unless we adopt a matriarchal view and refer to all as she/her et al. That's another option, eh?

Sexist language is being replaced by gender neutral alternatives. Dated patriarchal pronouns now stick out like a sore thumb (gender neutral).

Exactly. Especially in legal documents, where misinterpretation could occur.

Edited July 10, 2011 by American Woman

[pinko]

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.

If the computer was confiscated there must have been a reason to do so. The police need a warrant in such circumstances.

[Machjo]

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.

[Guest American Woman]

The property owner needs to make an informed decision when in such circumstances. In any negotiation a party has to have a sense of the negotiation and the consequences of failing to reach an agreement.

The property owner doesn't get to make any decisions, though. That's the point that I'm making. They have no choice. They are told that they must part with their property and they are told what is "fair compensation." I'm not saying that I personally think it shouldn't be this way - a highway can't stay dangerously inadequate because one property owner refuses to give up his/her land so it can we widened, for example, but if someone disagreed with such a practice, then they would feel that there is a need for such an article.