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

[Machjo]

Though the French version also avoids any problem with that to, at least in this particular instance:

Article 17

1. Toute personne, aussi bien seule qu'en collectivité, a droit à la propriété.

2. Nul ne peut être arbitrairement privé de sa propriété.

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.

[pinko]

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.

Here is some information that might help you better understand property rights.

"Property and the Charter of Rights

Although the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not expressly provide for the protection of property rights, property rights are created and are therefore protected by common law and by statute law, although both can be changed by legislation. Any constitutional guarantee should recognize that property is a social institution that must be constantly remolded. A great jurist has warned that an absolute right of property would result in the dissolution of society. The importance of this warning can perhaps be best illustrated by considering a person who buys a gun. The property rights that this person acquires in the gun cannot extend to permission to use the gun in any way. Similarly, landowners should not be permitted to pollute the air and water because this would lessen the enjoyment and property values of adjacent owners and because of the moral obligation to pass on to succeeding generations a habitable planet. Property rights may therefore be modified to respond to new threats to the environment. There is no preordained harmony between private rights and public welfare; society will always face the dilemma of how to combine efficient use of resources with effective regulation in the interests of all society."

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006519

I hope this is helpful to you.

[Machjo]

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.

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.

[pinko]

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.

You neglect to consider the right of the state in your equation.

[Machjo]

Here is some information that might help you better understand property rights.

"Property and the Charter of Rights

Although the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not expressly provide for the protection of property rights, property rights are created and are therefore protected by common law and by statute law, although both can be changed by legislation. Any constitutional guarantee should recognize that property is a social institution that must be constantly remolded. A great jurist has warned that an absolute right of property would result in the dissolution of society. The importance of this warning can perhaps be best illustrated by considering a person who buys a gun. The property rights that this person acquires in the gun cannot extend to permission to use the gun in any way. Similarly, landowners should not be permitted to pollute the air and water because this would lessen the enjoyment and property values of adjacent owners and because of the moral obligation to pass on to succeeding generations a habitable planet. Property rights may therefore be modified to respond to new threats to the environment. There is no preordained harmony between private rights and public welfare; society will always face the dilemma of how to combine efficient use of resources with effective regulation in the interests of all society."

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006519

I hope this is helpful to you.

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.

[pinko]

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.

No state will give up the capacity to take property as proposed in the language offered.

[Machjo]

You neglect to consider the right of the state in your equation.

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.

[Machjo]

No state will give up the capacity to take property as proposed in the language offered.

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?

[pinko]

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.

You miss my point. The state is not going to put itself in the position you propose. I have given you a link and I would suggest you read it carefully.

[Bonam]

You neglect to consider the right of the state in your equation.

The state has no rights. The only entities that can have rights are thinking individuals, not inanimate abstractions.

[pinko]

The state has no rights. The only entities that can have rights are thinking individuals, not inanimate abstractions.

Maybe in your world but in the real world the state has all the rights it requires.

[Guest American Woman]

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?

Sounds reasonable to me.

[bush_cheney2004]

The state has no rights. The only entities that can have rights are thinking individuals, not inanimate abstractions.

Yes....Canada instantiates such rights in a living monarch ("the Crown"), and continues what is essentially a feudal land system.

[pinko]

Yes....Canada instantiates such rights in a living monarch ("the Crown"), and continues what is essentially a feudal land system.

No more feudal than that in the USA.

[Bonam]

Maybe in your world but in the real world the state has all the rights it requires.

No, it is only specific government officials that make specific decisions that have any right to make those decisions. These are rights of those individuals, granted to them through the actions of other individuals, such as those who appoint them or those who vote them in. It is individuals that have rights. Again, the state is only an abstraction.

[Machjo]

Sounds reasonable 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.

[bush_cheney2004]

No more feudal than that in the USA.

This is not about the USA, which purposely abandoned such a feudal land system in favor of public domain (We...the People).

[pinko]

WINNIPEG– The Frontier Centre for Public Policy, along with the International Property Rights Alliance, today released the 2010 International Property Rights Index. The Index, measures the protection of property rights in 125 countries.

On a ranking of one to ten—the higher scores reflecting a greater protection of property—worldwide scores ranged from Finland with 8.6, to Bangladesh with a score of just 2.9. Canada scored 8.0 on the Index as did Germany and Ireland; all three countries thus tied for 12th position.

The scores are based on ten measurements ranging in three broad subject areas:

•The legal and political environment (as it relates to judicial independence, rule of law, political stability and degree of corruption);

•Physical property rights (protection of physical property rights, ease of registration of property, and access to loans);

•Intellectual property rights (protection of intellectual property rights, patent protection, and copyright policy)

Results for Canada:

In 2010, Canada maintained its position as the highest ranking country in the Western hemisphere, with increased scores for increased judicial Independence and the protection of physical property. Canada was 12th, while the United States scored lower at 15th. On the negative side for Canada, copyright piracy levels continue to be somewhat high for a well developed country – estimated at an average of 33 percent.

http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/3192

[Machjo]

Yes....Canada instantiates such rights in a living monarch ("the Crown"), and continues what is essentially a feudal land system.

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.

[Machjo]

WINNIPEG The Frontier Centre for Public Policy, along with the International Property Rights Alliance, today released the 2010 International Property Rights Index. The Index, measures the protection of property rights in 125 countries.

On a ranking of one to tenthe higher scores reflecting a greater protection of propertyworldwide scores ranged from Finland with 8.6, to Bangladesh with a score of just 2.9. Canada scored 8.0 on the Index as did Germany and Ireland; all three countries thus tied for 12th position.

The scores are based on ten measurements ranging in three broad subject areas:

The legal and political environment (as it relates to judicial independence, rule of law, political stability and degree of corruption);

Physical property rights (protection of physical property rights, ease of registration of property, and access to loans);

Intellectual property rights (protection of intellectual property rights, patent protection, and copyright policy)

Results for Canada:

In 2010, Canada maintained its position as the highest ranking country in the Western hemisphere, with increased scores for increased judicial Independence and the protection of physical property. Canada was 12th, while the United States scored lower at 15th. On the negative side for Canada, copyright piracy levels continue to be somewhat high for a well developed country estimated at an average of 33 percent.

http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/3192

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.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Machjo

[pinko]

Of course Canada does well. However, I think such an article in the Charter woudl make Canada even better.

You are certainly entitled to hold that opinion.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

This would be a challenge to the very notion of "Crown". Ontario landowners want their land, not just use and possession:

"The problem with the argument that individual property rights are preserved by Crown patent grants is that it misunderstands what such grants stand for legally," wrote Michael Lamb, a University of Western Ontario law professor and an expert on real estate law, in an email.

"They do not transfer ownership of land but only grant the use and possession of the land."

The Crown technically owns all land in Canada, said Lamb. This legal underpinning gives governments the right to assert a certain level of control over people's private property.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110709/landowners-land-patents-110709/

[WWWTT]

Ok I am indifferent on this topic.

However I will add a thing or two.

How does ownership exactly reflect mineral rights?

Say I own a substantially large parcell(several hundred acres anywhere in Canda)and a mining company discovers a natural gas deposit in and around my property.How would any new changes to the existing law affect me?

WWWTT

[Machjo]

This would be a challenge to the very notion of "Crown". Ontario landowners want their land, not just use and possession:

"The problem with the argument that individual property rights are preserved by Crown patent grants is that it misunderstands what such grants stand for legally," wrote Michael Lamb, a University of Western Ontario law professor and an expert on real estate law, in an email.

"They do not transfer ownership of land but only grant the use and possession of the land."

The Crown technically owns all land in Canada, said Lamb. This legal underpinning gives governments the right to assert a certain level of control over people's private property.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110709/landowners-land-patents-110709/

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.

[Machjo]

Ok I am indifferent on this topic.

However I will add a thing or two.

How does ownership exactly reflect mineral rights?

Say I own a substantially large parcell(several hundred acres anywhere in Canda)and a mining company discovers a natural gas deposit in and around my property.How would any new changes to the existing law affect me?

WWWTT

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.