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

[Bob]

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.

I agree 100%. The rights to private property and legal protections of them are essential components of a free and prosperous state. These rights are inextricable from other fundamental rights that guarantee us freedoms of speech (unfortunately limited in Canada, and unjustifiably) and association, as well as our rights to the judicial process. It's quite sad that certain people don't understand just how vital property rights are, they are no less important than other basic rights.

[pinko]

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

I am wondering if you could distinguish the constituent parts of the aboriginal community. It is my undertstanding there are aboriginal communities without treaties.

Edited July 11, 2011 by pinko

[Machjo]

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?

"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. "

(Bolding, underlining, and italisizing mine)

That's one reason I like the wording of this one. Seeing that in your example, they'd actually broken the law, then that would not be an arbitrary seizure.

[Machjo]

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

Of course not. But they would still be beneficial none-the-less.

[Machjo]

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.

Again, of course the right to property would not override treaties signed in good faith. That does not mean however tht the right to proterty is not otherwise beneficial.

[Bob]

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.

I would not have used Bonam's description of property being acquired through "working long and hard", because such qualifications are completely objective. But you took Bonam's statement and ran with it, dancing around the standard leftist rhetoric about inequalities in this world that are just oh-so-unfair that you think you can and should undo.

If I am born into a rich family and acquire a lot through inheritance, does the state therefore have some right to confiscate it from me? Do you have some sort of right to my property because you were born into a poor family, in the name of addressing inequality? What about the work that was done towards creating that wealth by my family? Are you then going to manufacture some sort of litmus test through which we can evaluate whether or not someone worked "hard enough" to "deserve" the property they own, in order to satisfy your opinion? What right do you have to the wealth generated by my family that was willed to me? Although you didn't go directly into this subject, it's clear in which direction you're going - seizing property and wealth from some in order to transfer to others, because the wealthier folks didn't work "hard enough" to "deserve" what they acquired.

This talk of yours about the "proper proportion" of work being done towards earning "what was received" reeks of Marxist/communist ideology. That's exactly the type of argumentation advanced by those vermin, and you're now parroting their talking points, fancying yourself as some sort of philosopher king who can decide what people deserve.

There is no problematic aspect with private property. None whatsoever. On the contrary, as Bonam has already indicated, private property rights and protections of these rights are essential components of fabric of a free and prosperous society. Nobody, not you or anyone else (or the state claiming to act on the behalf of the collective), have any rights to the property owned by anyone else. The only exception is taxation, which is way over the top and has been for a long time in virtually all modern welfare states (including the USA). That's another topic altogether, of course...

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.

Wow. You really are a communist to the core. This is sickening rhetoric. You really think that as long as a large enough group of people vote to steal the property of another group of people, that it's alright. Basically, if 51% of the population votes to tax the other 49% of the population at a rate of 95%, then that's alright. If the state wants to steal property from private owners in the name of the public good, then that's fine. Tyranny of the majority - NO PROBLEM! I can't say I'm that surprised that this is your perspective, given the posts of yours that I've actually read, but it is very disturbing to me that people with such despicable political views such as yourself are seemingly so common in our societies. Absolutely disgusting.

[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. "

(Bolding, underlining, and italisizing mine)

That's one reason I like the wording of this one. Seeing that in your example, they'd actually broken the law, then that would not be an arbitrary seizure.

It would be a lawful seizure. Here in Winnipeg such laws have been used to undermine the activities of biker gangs including a Hells Angels chapter.

Edited July 11, 2011 by pinko

[Machjo]

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...

Actually, I've never voted Conservative yet. And believe it or not, I wouldn't mind something like UDHR 26 being added to the Constitution:

"Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children."

Hardly libertarian except possibly for UDHR 26(3). The reason I started this thread on property rights specifically is because I think this would be a beneficial right to add and I figured there might actually be enough support for it. Seems I was wrong on that front. As for something like UDHR 26 being added to the Charter, though I support it, I don't think it even worth starting a thread on it since I can't imagine it hving even nearly as much support as property rights.

Interestingly enough, some proponents of school vouchers such as is practiced in Sweden have in fact argued the case based on UDHR 26(3).

Anyway, I think this proves more than conclusively that not all proponents of private property rights are libertarian conservatives. But what more can we expect from those who like to simplify things into partisan soundbites.

Quite frankly, I'd like to see the entire UDHR patriated into the Charter, but seeing that it does contain many positive rights, I can't imagine many Conservatives or Libertarians supporting it. So again, just proves how when you assume, you make a ASS out of U and ME.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Machjo

[Bob]

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.

In all seriousness, you're speaking with a communist. He has an inherent dislike from private property (notice how he views rights to and protections of private property as trivial, and only contingent on the permission of the majority) and generally views those with wealth as undeserving and exploitative of the less wealthy. In other words, people who are successful generally stepped on the necks of others or were given unfair advantages as the expense of others - and the benevolent government must address these inequalities through seizing property for the "common good". He subscribes to the Robin Hood mythology, where the noble government should steal from the more wealthy and give it to the less wealthy. It's pure Marxism, straight up communism 101. Remiel certainly votes NDP.

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.

Remiel reserves the right to determine who deserves their property, by examining whether or not they worked hard enough. Put another way, he will examine whether their "work" was "proportional" to the property acquired. In the instance where people have more property than they deserve, well... you know what happens, then.

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.

Taxes become immoral when they end up doing more harm then good. And this is true for all forms of taxation - whether income or sales taxes on individuals or businesses/corporations, duties and excise taxes, municipal property taxes, minimum wage laws, rent control laws, environmental protection laws, labour laws, printing money and increasing inflation, etc, etc, ad infinitum. So if the tax/social program/regulation causes more harm than good, it's immoral. Unfortunately, this is true more a majority of government endeavours.

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.

I agree, I see nothing wrong with protecting people from harmful externalities in the CCRF.

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.

Absolutely it's the opposite, like you said. Don't forget - Remiel is a communist. Or, at a minimum, a socialist who wants heavy government control of the economy and centralized planning.

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.

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...

Like I said, he's a communist. Don't forget that the Nazis did this, stealing things and doing whatever they wanted simply because they had widespread support among the German population, and committed their crimes in the interests of the "common good". In Remiel's world, property rights are contingent on the support/acceptance of others. In other words, my rights to property are trumped by the "common good", and depend on support from the majority of the population. So as long as enough people vote to steal your property, then it's kosher. Property rights are invalidated as long as you can convince enough people that they're subordinate to the "common good".

[pinko]

In all seriousness, you're speaking with a communist. He has an inherent dislike from private property (notice how he views rights to and protections of private property as trivial, and only contingent on the permission of the majority) and generally views those with wealth as undeserving and exploitative of the less wealthy. In other words, people who are successful generally stepped on the necks of others or were given unfair advantages as the expense of others - and the benevolent government must address these inequalities through seizing property for the "common good". He subscribes to the Robin Hood mythology, where the noble government should steal from the more wealthy and give it to the less wealthy. It's pure Marxism, straight up communism 101. Remiel certainly votes NDP.

Remiel reserves the right to determine who deserves their property, by examining whether or not they worked hard enough. Put another way, he will examine whether their "work" was "proportional" to the property acquired. In the instance where people have more property than they deserve, well... you know what happens, then.

I am wondering if you realize that there are both individual and collective rights in any society. Canada is such a society.

Taxes become immoral when they end up doing more harm then good. And this is true for all forms of taxation - whether income or sales taxes on individuals or businesses/corporations, duties and excise taxes, municipal property taxes, minimum wage laws, rent control laws, environmental protection laws, labour laws, printing money and increasing inflation, etc, etc, ad infinitum. So if the tax/social program/regulation causes more harm than good, it's immoral. Unfortunately, this is true more a majority of government endeavours.

I agree, I see nothing wrong with protecting people from harmful externalities in the CCRF.

Absolutely it's the opposite, like you said. Don't forget - Remiel is a communist. Or, at a minimum, a socialist who wants heavy government control of the economy and centralized planning.

Like I said, he's a communist. Don't forget that the Nazis did this, stealing things and doing whatever they wanted simply because they had widespread support among the German population, and committed their crimes in the interests of the "common good". In Remiel's world, property rights are contingent on the support/acceptance of others. In other words, my rights to property are trumped by the "common good", and depend on support from the majority of the population. So as long as enough people vote to steal your property, then it's kosher. Property rights are invalidated as long as you can convince enough people that they're subordinate to the "common good".

I am wondering if you recognize that there are both individual and collective rights in Canada.

Edited July 11, 2011 by pinko

[Remiel]

But money and property are different things.

This really confuses me. I do not think money and property are essentially different in a way that is relevant to this argument Money is merely deferred property.

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"?

What is sovereignty of a territory if not a relationship of owner and owned? I am not saying that it says in the Declaration of Independence that it says that property is pooled in this was. I am arguing that pooling in this was is exactly what the Declaration of Independence was, in itself.

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.

Then you are suffering from a lack of imagination, Bonam. Slavery is worse. Indefinite imprisonment is worse. Having your family taken away and hidden from you is worse. And I would argue that taking away all freedom of speech is in fact worse, because without freedom of speech, and freedom of association, how does one come to a justifiable conclusion that one has been wronged in this matter? How does one correct it?

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.

It was just an example. Sentiment would prevent such drastic measures in real life.

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.

Yes, and my example is wanting insofar that it is most strongly tied to land, but the fact is that when in need the state can and does expropriate other kinds of property as suits their needs, such as the cop pulling over a car when he needs one to pursue a criminal.

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...

I do not think this analogy holds. The things that are necessary for deliberation are always going to be of utmost importance in any sort of society, otherwise there is no society.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Remiel

[Remiel]

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

False, and a contradiction to boot. It would be absurd to argue at the same time that there is no such thing as property rights and that aboriginals have property rights.

[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. "

(Bolding, underlining, and italisizing mine)

That's one reason I like the wording of this one. Seeing that in your example, they'd actually broken the law, then that would not be an arbitrary seizure.

Then explain how the seizure would be arbitrary if they hadn't actually broken the law? It wouldn't since the word arbitrary does not include anything notion of compensation whatsoever. On the one hand, you have the authority as "reasonable" and non-arbitrary in one instance while having the same authority as arbitrary and unreasonable in another instance. That is a contradiction.

[charter.rights]

False, and a contradiction to boot. It would be absurd to argue at the same time that there is no such thing as property rights and that aboriginals have property rights.

Aboriginals DO have property rights and any property rights afforded us would have to be AFTER Aboriginal lands claims have been fully reconciled. The Charter cannot abrogate or derogate from aboriginal rights. That is Canada's reality.

[eyeball]

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.

I'm quite certain there will never ever be a shortage of things for you to endlessly argue/refute/question.

[Wild Bill]

I am wondering if you recognize that there are both individual and collective rights in Canada.

Perhaps, but the right to property is the most basic of all. If you don't have that, any lawyer can easily argue you out of any others. You are left with a toothless Charter that SOUNDS good to an ignorant, trusting voter but will present no effective barrier to any government action, so that a government can always easily do whatever the hell it wants.

[Chippewa]

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.

Ironically First Nations have been saying the same thing about there property for years. Only today, people call them "Land Claims".

[Machjo]

Ironically First Nations have been saying the same thing about there property for years. Only today, people call them "Land Claims".

Hmmm... never thought of that. I was saying earlier that treaties would of course not be affected, as my intuition was telling me that. Now I see why my intuition was telling that. Of course if we guarantee rights to land within reason, and there is enough evidence that this or that land belongs to the first nations, than such an Aritcle would actually reinforce land claims!

And seeing that we could argue that that land had been seized arbitrarily in many cases...

Hmmm... this might explain why so many governments in Canada have always feared guaranteeing property rights.

Thanks for clarifying that. Now I support adopting UDHR 17 even more.

[Machjo]

Aboriginals DO have property rights and any property rights afforded us would have to be AFTER Aboriginal lands claims have been fully reconciled. The Charter cannot abrogate or derogate from aboriginal rights. That is Canada's reality.

Agreed. But as pointed out above, including property rights could actually strengthen land claims.

[Machjo]

Then explain how the seizure would be arbitrary if they hadn't actually broken the law? It wouldn't since the word arbitrary does not include anything notion of compensation whatsoever. On the one hand, you have the authority as "reasonable" and non-arbitrary in one instance while having the same authority as arbitrary and unreasonable in another instance. That is a contradiction.

Alright, you may have a point there.

[pinko]

Perhaps, but the right to property is the most basic of all. If you don't have that, any lawyer can easily argue you out of any others. You are left with a toothless Charter that SOUNDS good to an ignorant, trusting voter but will present no effective barrier to any government action, so that a government can always easily do whatever the hell it wants.

It has already been established we have property rights. An informed citizen will not be intimidated by a lawyer advocating a particular point of view.

[pinko]

Aboriginals DO have property rights and any property rights afforded us would have to be AFTER Aboriginal lands claims have been fully reconciled. The Charter cannot abrogate or derogate from aboriginal rights. That is Canada's reality.

What aboriginal claims are you referring to?

[Tilter]

There is no need for such terminology in the Charter.

Au contraire--- The right to own property & to retain it is paramount in any society.

No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Meaning --- "at random"--- Why should this be excluded?

At present if a company wants to build a graveyard that includes your property that company has the right of eminent domain. Why, when cemeteries should be eliminated as archaic and unsanitary?

This is only one example of eminent domain but the fact that it exists at all should be a good enuf reason to include property ownership in the CCRF

[g_bambino]

The right to own property & to retain it is paramount in any society.

No, it isn't. Every state has the right to expropriate property.

[pinko]

Au contraire--- The right to own property & to retain it is paramount in any society.

Meaning --- "at random"--- Why should this be excluded?

At present if a company wants to build a graveyard that includes your property that company has the right of eminent domain. Why, when cemeteries should be eliminated as archaic and unsanitary?

This is only one example of eminent domain but the fact that it exists at all should be a good enuf reason to include property ownership in the CCRF

I live in Manitoba and the concept(your graveyard example) does not exist here as you describe it..

Edited July 11, 2011 by pinko