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

[Shwa]

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".

No, you are reaching since the cited articles say nothing about compensation at all. The word arbitrary says nothing about compensation.

Since you agree that the seizure of your friend's computer was "reasonable" that is all that is required to show - according to you - that the authority to seize the computer was not arbitrary. Now you would ask that same authority to declare itself "arbitrary" because it didn't agree to compensate or 'provide a good reason not to.'

That is a reach indeed.

[Machjo]

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

The other person was found not guilty in the end. As to how the suspicions began, I'm not sure, as she'd never gone into the details. But why should he compensate her for somethng the police did?

Sure if the police suspect me of downloading child pornography, they certainly have a righ tto seize my computer and possibly the computers of otehr people if I may have had access to those computers. But why should I then have to compensate them if not convicted yet, especially if I should be found not guilty afterwards?

[pinko]

The other person was found not guilty in the end. As to how the suspicions began, I'm not sure, as she'd never gone into the details. But why should he compensate her for somethng the police did?

Sure if the police suspect me of downloading child pornography, they certainly have a righ tto seize my computer and possibly the computers of otehr people if I may have had access to those computers. But why should I then have to compensate them if not convicted yet, especially if I should be found not guilty afterwards?

Maybe the person should sue the police if that person thinks there is a cause of action.

[Shwa]

The other person was found not guilty in the end. As to how the suspicions began, I'm not sure, as she'd never gone into the details. But why should he compensate her for somethng the police did?

Sure if the police suspect me of downloading child pornography, they certainly have a righ tto seize my computer and possibly the computers of otehr people if I may have had access to those computers. But why should I then have to compensate them if not convicted yet, especially if I should be found not guilty afterwards?

Because if you were suspected of breaking the law with a computer, why on earth would the police supply you with another one as compensation? Once you have been cleared you might have a point. If you wanted compensation for the time between the seizure and the time you were cleared, you can take them to court or some other legal avenue.

But regardless, them seizing your computer is not arbitrary and within their "right."

Do you think if a person is pulled over for DUI and they police seize their car, that the police should supply that person another until their DUI case is sorted out?

[Machjo]

Because if you were suspected of breaking the law with a computer, why on earth would the police supply you with another one as compensation? Once you have been cleared you might have a point. If you wanted compensation for the time between the seizure and the time you were cleared, you can take them to court or some other legal avenue.

But regardless, them seizing your computer is not arbitrary and within their "right."

Do you think if a person is pulled over for DUI and they police seize their car, that the police should supply that person another until their DUI case is sorted out?

In the instance I pointed out above, it wasn't just the suspect's computer that was seized. Let's say I'm accused of downloading child pornography, and it's suspected that I'd done so on my friend's computer. So is it reasonable for the police to seize her computer without some kind of reasonable compensation?

Remember, she would not be the suspect; I would be. So she should be deprived of her computer for the whole duration of the case because the police think I may have downloaded child pornography? Seeing that I'd be innocent until proven guilty, why should I compensate her?

[Machjo]

Yet I'd say she should still ahve a right to a comparable computer in the meantime as long as there is a reasonable assurance that she won't let me use it anymore.

[Machjo]

This could also apply to the government seizing property for some private mining company that needs the land for instance. Again, how much this Article would help is debatable since the land would still be Crown land, but it could still help even if only to influence opinions in the government whereby the government would be more cautious about seizing land without first ensuring that it is not doing so in an arbitary manner in the widest sense of the word.

[Shwa]

In the instance I pointed out above, it wasn't just the suspect's computer that was seized. Let's say I'm accused of downloading child pornography, and it's suspected that I'd done so on my friend's computer. So is it reasonable for the police to seize her computer without some kind of reasonable compensation?

Absolutly since she would need to be cleared of not being the person downloading child pornography wouldn't she? If she has a problem with it, there are already mechanisms in place to deal with her complaints or requests for compensation. Since you say the seizure of the computer is reasonable and since there are mechanisms in place to address compensation issues, including Article 17 of the UDHR in the CCRF is not required.

Remember, she would not be the suspect; I would be. So she should be deprived of her computer for the whole duration of the case because the police think I may have downloaded child pornography? Seeing that I'd be innocent until proven guilty, why should I compensate her?

Trust me, if there is child pornography on her computer, she is a suspect.

[Machjo]

Absolutly since she would need to be cleared of not being the person downloading child pornography wouldn't she? If she has a problem with it, there are already mechanisms in place to deal with her complaints or requests for compensation. Since you say the seizure of the computer is reasonable and since there are mechanisms in place to address compensation issues, including Article 17 of the UDHR in the CCRF is not required.

Trust me, if there is child pornography on her computer, she is a suspect.

As it stood, it was believed that he had downloaded information via her computer onto a stick. The police were hoping he may have left a trace. She herself was never a suspect. And again, in the end, he was cleared himself.

[pinko]

As it stood, it was believed that he had downloaded information via her computer onto a stick. The police were hoping he may have left a trace. She herself was never a suspect. And again, in the end, he was cleared himself.

You mean there may not have been enough evidence to get a conviction.

[Bonam]

The whole issue of compensation seems tangential. If compensation is felt to be so important, one may well include a part (3) to the article talking about compensation explicitly. As it is, the core issue seems to be whether the right to own property should be enshrined in the constitution or not.

Personally, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea, though I don't see it as particularly necessary either. In general, the government of Canada is not particularly tyrannical and doesn't unjustifiably confiscate property. If it decided to become tyrannical in the future, an extra article in the charter wouldn't do anything to stop it.

[Machjo]

The whole issue of compensation seems tangential. If compensation is felt to be so important, one may well include a part (3) to the article talking about compensation explicitly. As it is, the core issue seems to be whether the right to own property should be enshrined in the constitution or not.

Personally, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea, though I don't see it as particularly necessary either. In general, the government of Canada is not particularly tyrannical and doesn't unjustifiably confiscate property. If it decided to become tyrannical in the future, an extra article in the charter wouldn't do anything to stop it.

OK, I agree it's a little tangential. It still would be good to have that Article in the Constitution anyway just to strengthen that right further.

[Remiel]

Broad, entrenched property rights of this sort are worse than useless: they are a make work project for lawyers.

There is nothing about most private property that is intrinsically worth protecting, say, in the same way that the right to life, free speech, association, belief and that sort of thing are. While it appears that widespread private property is beneficial for society, this does not entail any intrinsic right to extensive private property.

The only real exceptions to this are going to be essentials. You can probably say that you have a right not to be arbitrarily deprived of your food and shelter, but that is about it, in my opinion.

[Jack Weber]

This sounds like crybaby,right wing libertarian stuff...

Yes!!The government is coming to confiscate your house!!We are this close(index finger and thumb almost touching) from a Communist dictatorship!!!

We all know,or at least we all should know,that libertarians of this ilk are the useful idiots of the conservative movement...

Edited July 11, 2011 by Jack Weber

[Bonam]

There is nothing about most private property that is intrinsically worth protecting, say, in the same way that the right to life, free speech, association, belief and that sort of thing are. While it appears that widespread private property is beneficial for society, this does not entail any intrinsic right to extensive private property.

Yours is a subject statement of opinion, not an objective fact, though you state it in a tone to imply that it is. I disagree with it. The rights to free speech, association, and belief are no more fundamental than the right to private property. What is so more "intrinsically worth protecting" about people's right to adhere to mystical superstitions than people's right not to suddenly have their possessions that they worked long and hard for forcefully taken away?

A society in which your means to sustain life, your means to express yourself freely, your building in which you celebrate your belief, or the tools that you use to associate with others, can be arbitrarily confiscated, is a society which does not protect those rights. If anything, the possession of property is a requirement for any of the other rights to even be a possibility.

Replying to your post has altered my earlier opinion. If there are really people out there that think owning private property is no big deal and that these other rights are somehow more fundamental, then we'd probably better include it in the charter.

[Bonam]

This sounds like crybaby,right wing libertarian stuff...

Yes!!The government is coming to confiscate your house!!We are this close(index finger and thumb almost touching) from a Communist dictatorship!!!

We all know,or at least we all should know,that libertarians of this ilk are the useful idiots of the conservative movement...

Your contempt for libertarians, or anyone else who doesn't worship at the altar of organized labor, is well known. Have anything useful to add besides that?

[Jack Weber]

Yours is a subject statement of opinion, not an objective fact, though you state it in a tone to imply that it is. I disagree with it. The rights to free speech, association, and belief are no more fundamental than the right to private property. What is so more "intrinsically worth protecting" about people's right to adhere to mystical superstitions than people's right not to suddenly have their possessions that they worked long and hard for forcefully taken away?

A society in which your means to sustain life, your means to express yourself freely, your building in which you celebrate your belief, or the tools that you use to associate with others, can be arbitrarily confiscated, is a society which does not protect those rights. If anything, the possession of property is a requirement for any of the other rights to even be a possibility.

Replying to your post has altered my earlier opinion. If there are really people out there that think owning private property is no big deal and that these other rights are somehow more fundamental, then we'd probably better include it in the charter.

Interesting that you talk about freedom of association,yet,you're an admitted fan of legislated union busting (Right to Work)..

Interesting that you feel the right to possess (sp) property,"is a requirement for any of the other rights to even be a possibility",yet you are a proponent of legislation that has been demonstrably proven to make people poorer and make it more difficult to own property...

[Remiel]

Yours is a subject statement of opinion, not an objective fact, though you state it in a tone to imply that it is. I disagree with it. The rights to free speech, association, and belief are no more fundamental than the right to private property. What is so more "intrinsically worth protecting" about people's right to adhere to mystical superstitions than people's right not to suddenly have their possessions that they worked long and hard for forcefully taken away?

A society in which your means to sustain life, your means to express yourself freely, your building in which you celebrate your belief, or the tools that you use to associate with others, can be arbitrarily confiscated, is a society which does not protect those rights. If anything, the possession of property is a requirement for any of the other rights to even be a possibility.

Replying to your post has altered my earlier opinion. If there are really people out there that think owning private property is no big deal and that these other rights are somehow more fundamental, then we'd probably better include it in the charter.

You should have noticed that I left myself plenty of weasel room in the original statement. It would be dishonest I think to say I was anticipating your exact argument, but it is along the idea of what I was thinking. You see, my problem with broad property rights has very much to do with the fact that a lot of property is not particularly worked for long and hard, at least not in proper proportion to what was received. Obviously it is very difficult to make exact judgements about what is deserved, but I do not think I am asking so much for you to concede that this is a problematic aspect of private property.

Also, I should perhaps qualify what I think of the "right to private property" a little more, though not necessarily enough to satisfy you: If one were approaching the business of creating a new state, it is obviously true that the state must be in some sense the sum of the property of those creating it. However, once the state has been created, the "right" to that property has been pooled. And if afterwards, especially given a few generations of more or less untraceable change, that society decides that they best use of this property pooled under the sovereignty of their state is to make all property public property, then I do not think anything fundamentally wrong has occured. As I said before, such a move may lead to bad things happening, but it is not in itself a bad thing per se.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Remiel

[Bonam]

Interesting that you talk about freedom of association,yet,you're an admitted fan of legislated union busting (Right to Work)..

Err, it should be obvious. The freedom not to be forced to associate is just as important as the freedom to be able to choose to associate. Just as freedom of religion also means being free not to belong to one.

Interesting that you feel the right to possess (sp) property,"is a requirement for any of the other rights to even be a possibility",yet you are a proponent of legislation that has been demonstrably proven to make people poorer and make it more difficult to own property...

The effects of various pieces of legislation on economic prosperity are completely irrelevant when it comes to the debate of whether a particular right should or should not be included in a constitution.

[Jack Weber]

Err, it should be obvious. The freedom not to be forced to associate is just as important as the freedom to be able to choose to associate. Just as freedom of religion also means being free not to belong to one.

The effects of various pieces of legislation on economic prosperity are completely irrelevant when it comes to the debate of whether a particular right should or should not be included in a constitution.

The "personal freedom" canard as means to legislate union busting...And make people poorer...

If people are poorer,how can they afford property?

[Bonam]

You should have noticed that I left myself plenty of weasel room in the original statement. It would be dishonest I think to say I was anticipating your exact argument, but it is along the idea of what I was thinking. You see, my problem with broad property rights has very much to do with the fact that a lot of property is not particularly worked for long and hard, at least not in proper proportion to what was received.

Well, that much is obviously true. Some people work hard to make money, others inherit, others have jobs that are relatively not that "hard" but for whatever reason pay a lot of money. Regardless, that some people are compensated more than others is a function of the market, and is based on the demand of various skillsets, an individual's abilities, the influence of unions, etc. I don't think this in any way takes away from the importance of property rights. If anything, not having your property arbitrarily confiscated is even more important for the poor and middle class, since for them it would be a much greater hardship to replace it.

Obviously it is very difficult to make exact judgements about what is deserved, but I do not think I am asking so much for you to concede that this is a problematic aspect of private property.

It's not an aspect of private property at all. It's an aspect of the free market. Different activities garner different levels of reward/compensation. It might not always seem fair. For example, I think professional athletes are vastly overpaid, for a skill that I personally judge to be pretty much completely worthless. That's just how it is, different skills are valued differently, and not everyone agrees on that valuation.

But money and property are different things. I do not argue that taxes are immoral, for a government to provide the services that it should rightfully provide, it needs to raise some revenue in taxes. When they tax you, they are taking your money, not your property. But if you've bought property, such as a house, or a car, or a computer, for the government to come and to take that away can cause a lot of hardship and inconvenience. Even if you have the means (money) to replace the confiscated item, it can use a lot of your time, cause stress, etc. The government should not have the power to arbitrarily do so.

Furthermore, the right to have your property not confiscated from you or destroyed applies not only to government but also to other private entities. If I own a farm and some corporation decides to set up a dirty mine nearby and poor their refuse onto my property and thus destroy it, I expect that the government should help me to protect my private property in that case. Such a situation is presently covered under civil law, but there's nothing wrong with having it addressed in a constitution too.

Also, I should perhaps qualify what I think of the "right to private property" a little more, though not necessarily enough to satisfy you: If one were approaching the business of creating a new state, it is obviously true that the state must be in some sense the sum of the property of those creating it. However, once the state has been created, the "right" to that property has been pooled.

I disagree. Let's look at a classic example of a "creating a new state", the US. Where exactly in its constitution or declaration of independence does it state that all of the property owned by its creators is relinquished into the ownership of a state-owned "pool"? Nowhere, of course. If anything, it was the opposite. There is absolutely no reason that the formation of a state should be associated with a pooling of property. Certainly, a state can form with such a provision, if its founders choose for that to be the case, but by no means does it have to be the case.

And if afterwards, especially given a few generations of more or less untraceable change, that society decides that they best use of this property pooled under the sovereignty of their state is to make all property public property, then I do not think anything fundamentally wrong has occured.

Nothing wrong has occurred? Really? That's about as wrong of something that could occur in a state as I can imagine, short of mass extermination and genocide. Take away ALL of everyone's private property and make it public? Not even the Soviet Union went that far, and that was more than hellish enough.

Also note that after the passage of a few generations, there will be a lot more property in that state than it started with. Property is not only land. All the products that are produced and bought by people are property.

As I said before, such a move may lead to bad things happening, but it is not in itself a bad thing per se.

I really couldn't disagree more. It really doesn't sound any different to me than saying: "banning free speech may lead to bad things happening, but it is not in itself a bad thing per se". I really don't see the difference between the two. Why do people need free speech anyway? They just need to get back to work at the state owned factory so they can keep living in their state owned communal apartment, eating publically provided food, and in general living out their state owned lives...

[Bonam]

The "personal freedom" canard as means to legislate union busting...And make people poorer...

If people are poorer,how can they afford property?

This thread isn't about unions. When did you become such a one trick pony? You are becoming a poster that just endlessly harps on one issue, like dub/bud on Israel or CR on natives or wyly on global warming.

Anyway, having your personal property protected is even more important for the poor. If you've been saving years to finally buy a car or something, it will hurt a lot more when the government confiscates it, compared to if you are rich and can just go and buy a replacement the next day.

[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.

I would like to address the seizure of a house by way of an example and then test your hypothesis against my example. Let us say a warrant is obtained by police based upon investigation and observation of a particular home. Upon entrance to the home the police find a grow op and charge the owner and/or occupants under the appropriate sections of the criminal code. For the sake of discussion assume convictions are obtained. In the province I reside in the Crown may seize the proceeds of crime including a home and contents.

In such a circumstance why should the Crown be obliged to provide any compensation whatsoever?

Edited July 11, 2011 by pinko

[charter.rights]

We can't have property rights in Canada until we have dealt with lands claims and aboriginal rights first.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples provides that First Nations may not be deprived of their lands and that land transfers can only be made by their intention and voluntary consent. And given that 100% of Canada is not free and clear title, and only about 20% of the treaties meet the Supreme Court tests for proper surrender, we have a long way to go before we can even start to talk about our own property rights.

[charter.rights]

And one last thing. Even if property rights were included in the Charter, they would not over-ride aboriginal or treaty rights.