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

[Guest American Woman]

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?

Ok. I can't resist. That would be stay-at-home mom or homemaker, not "housewife." She's not married to the house. But wouldn't she already be entitled to 50% of the property, regardless of the reasons for the divorce? - The key word there being "the" property, not "his" property. What would make it "his" rather than "theirs?"

[Machjo]

Ok. I can't resist. That would be stay-at-home mom or homemaker, not "housewife." She's not married to the house. But wouldn't she already be entitled to 50% of the property, regardless of the reasons for the divorce? - The key word there being "the" property, not "his" property. What would make it "his" rather than "theirs?"

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.

[TimG]

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

eminent domain allows city councils to expropriate property and give it to a private developer. I don't know if Canada laws go that far or if our city councils are not as blantently corrupt. In any case, eminent domain has serious problems in the US and needs to have limits placed on it.

[bush_cheney2004]

eminent domain allows city councils to expropriate property and give it to a private developer. I don't know if Canada laws go that far or if our city councils are not as blantently corrupt. In any case, eminent domain has serious problems in the US and needs to have limits placed on it.

City councils are elected and eminent domain proceedings are subject to judicial review. Not so a "crown'.

[pinko]

eminent domain allows city councils to expropriate property and give it to a private developer. I don't know if Canada laws go that far or if our city councils are not as blantently corrupt. In any case, eminent domain has serious problems in the US and needs to have limits placed on it.

I am unaware of a similar concept here in Winnipeg.

[Shwa]

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.

No, it isn't necessary. As already pointed out, everyone already has the right to own property through common law. Secondly, there are very few instances where anyone is arbitarily deprived of their property and when they are, there is legal recourse.

As for your friend's computer, if there was a warrant, it wasn't an arbitrary deprivation since it was likely done all nice and legal like. Gaining a warrant requires proof of it's requirement and that proof has narrow grounds in which it is valid. Similarly, expropriation of land for public purposes also requires a systemic process to be enacted that requires proof of the need. And again, if there is a problem with the expropriation there is legal recourse.

[Machjo]

No, it isn't necessary. As already pointed out, everyone already has the right to own property through common law. Secondly, there are very few instances where anyone is arbitarily deprived of their property and when they are, there is legal recourse.

As for your friend's computer, if there was a warrant, it wasn't an arbitrary deprivation since it was likely done all nice and legal like. Gaining a warrant requires proof of it's requirement and that proof has narrow grounds in which it is valid. Similarly, expropriation of land for public purposes also requires a systemic process to be enacted that requires proof of the need. And again, if there is a problem with the expropriation there is legal recourse.

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.

[pinko]

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.

Most likely the computer was evidence in a trial.

Edited July 11, 2011 by pinko

[Shwa]

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.

But this:

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.

Says absolutely nothing about "compensation."

So your friend's computer example is invalid. You even say that the siezure of the computer was "reasonable."

[Machjo]

Most likely the computer was evidence in a trial.

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.

[pinko]

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.

I seen no reason for such an obligation on the part of the police.

[Machjo]

But this:

Says absolutely nothing about "compensation."

So your friend's computer example is invalid. You even say that the siezure of the computer was "reasonable."

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.

[pinko]

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.

If a warrant is granted to the police and it has been executed properly there is no need for any compensation. As has been previously noted a person may resort to the courts if that person believes a breach of the law has occurred.

Edited July 11, 2011 by pinko

[Machjo]

I seen no reason for such an obligation on the part of the police.

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.

[Machjo]

If a warrant is granted to the police and it has been executed properly there is no need for any compensation. As has been previously noted a person may resort to the courts if that person believes a breach of the law.

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.

[pinko]

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.

We should certainly be serious and realistic as well. There are a variety of circumstances where property may be seized and that isn't confined to the police.

[Machjo]

We should certainly be serious and realistic as well. There are a variety of circumstances where property may be seized and that isn't confined to the police.

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?

[Shwa]

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.

No, you are reaching. The articles you cite say nothing about "compensation" at all and the word "arbitary" has nothing to do with compensation. That much is clear. In fact, using your antonym list, even you agree that the seizure of her computer was "reasonable." All you are referring to now is a matter of time factors.

For example, one sentence that is sometimes passed by a court is to restrict the use of computers as part of the sentencing. In the case of your friend, if the warrant was based on the suspicion that she was using her computer for, say, terrorism, then it wouldn't really make any sense to take her computer away and give her another in the meantime now would it? That wouldn't be "reasonable."

[pinko]

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?

You seem to be conflating arbitrary seizure with compensation. They don't necessarily go hand in hand.

[Machjo]

No, you are reaching. The articles you cite say nothing about "compensation" at all and the word "arbitary" has nothing to do with compensation. That much is clear. In fact, using your antonym list, even you agree that the seizure of her computer was "reasonable." All you are referring to now is a matter of time factors.

For example, one sentence that is sometimes passed by a court is to restrict the use of computers as part of the sentencing. In the case of your friend, if the warrant was based on the suspicion that she was using her computer for, say, terrorism, then it wouldn't really make any sense to take her computer away and give her another in the meantime now would it? That wouldn't be "reasonable."

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.

[Machjo]

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".

[pinko]

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.

Tough. Those are the breaks. Maybe the other person should compensate the computer owner.

[Shwa]

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.

It is all beside the point and doesn't contribute to your argument. The law already provides legal recourse for compensation.

[TimG]

City councils are elected and eminent domain proceedings are subject to judicial review. Not so a "crown'.

The problem is the judicial precident has expanded the definition of public good to include "more tax revenue" - hence they approve the bids to take property and had it over to a private developer.

The issue here are minority rights that should be protected which means the fact that a majority elects the councils does not make what these councils do reasonable.

[pinko]

The problem is the judicial precident has expanded the definition of public good to include "more tax revenue" - hence they approve the bids to take property and had it over to a private developer.

The issue here are minority rights that should be protected which means the fact that a majority elects the councils does not make what these councils do reasonable.

I haven't seen any evidence of that. Unless you have some concrete examples I take what you say with a grain of salt.

Edited July 11, 2011 by pinko