Party for the Adoption of the UDHR?

[Machjo]

I was wondering how successful you think a Party for the Adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (PAUDHR) would be in Canada?

Of course the specific name of the party could always be changed, so that would be a separate issue.

Let's say it had as a mission statement something along the lines of:

"To adopt the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, as the primary constitutional document in Canada"

Among some advantages I would see include:

1. Since Canada has already signed on to the UDHR but just doesn't apply it, this party could argue that it's not extreme in the least, but is merely trying to implement a document we've already signed on to as a country. After all, if we're not going to implement it, then let's be honest about it and formally withdraw our signature from it. We should not be signing onto such documents just for photo ops.

2. Making the UDHR the chief constitutional document in Canada would have the unfortunate effect of risking the shared monarchy with the Commonwealth, as that would mean that suddenly, those parts of the Constitution requiring the monarch to be Anglican and to not marry a Catholic would henceforth be abrogated. So unless other Commonwealth Realms should join in, Parliament could end up having to elect its own monarch. However, it would also extend religious freedom and basic human rights to the monarchy (ironic that the average citizen should have more freedom of religion than his monarch!). This would also immediately abrogate the separate school system.

3. As a moderate document outlining only more fundamental human rights, it therefore has elements that both the left and the right could agree to. Overall, I'd say the UDHR leans more towards the left of centre, let's say moderate social democrat or even more moderate than that, such as social-corporatist. However, since it does include various elements the right and the left could agree to, it could potentially attract some liberal conservatives too.

On the negative side, I could see many labour-socialists opposing such a party owing to the considerable religious freedoms it guarantees (some defenders of school vouchers for example have argued their case on the basis of UDHR 26(3)), just as many libertarians would oppose the considerable positive rights granted in the document, especially with regards to education rights and the point about education being compulsory. Many conservatives might feel uncomfortable about the fact that the document could almost be interpreted to defend consientious objection. However, this mixture of guaranteed rights that can appeal to people of various persuasions might be a strenght too.

Any thoughts on how successful such a party would likely be?

For those who've not read the UDHR, here it is:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

[TimG]

I am not sure you understand what the purpose of a constutition is. It purpose is to define how a state is to be governed. It makes no sense to suggest that the UNHRD be the 'primary constitutional document'. I suspect you mean to say it should replace the charter which is simply an add-on.

On that point I disagree as well. There are better things to be discussing than changing the charter at this time.

[Machjo]

I am not sure you understand what the purpose of a constutition is. It purpose is to define how a state is to be governed. It makes no sense to suggest that the UNHRD be the 'primary constitutional document'. I suspect you mean to say it should replace the charter which is simply an add-on.

I realise that the purpose of a constitution is to determine how the state is to be governmed, but that also includes responsibilities on the part of the state towrds its citizens. Making the UDHR the primary document would mean that even the Bill of Rights 1689 and the BNA Act would be subject to its provisions.

On that point I disagree as well. There are better things to be discussing than changing the charter at this time.

On the surface it would be a matter of changing the Charter. Beyond that though, it's a discussion of what our basic human rights ought to be. More important?

[TimG]

On the surface it would be a matter of changing the Charter. Beyond that though, it's a discussion of what our basic human rights ought to be. More important?

Gee I wonder. How about getting the deficit under control or reforming healthcare? Both divisive topics that are more important than arguments over rights. Edited July 11, 2011 by TimG

[Machjo]

Gee I wonder. How about getting the deficit under control or reforming healthcare? Both divisive topics that are more important than arguments over rights.

They actually go hand in hand. For instance, if you have a right to work, then the government does not have a right to impose minimum wage legislation for example. Add to that that if all are working, then all are paying taxes or at least getting less from the government in social assistance, which in turn allows the government to pay its debt. An absence of legislation guaranteeing the right to work also allows the government to legislate people out of work via wage floors and allowing closed shop unions, etc.

Some US states have right-to-work legislation prohibiting companies from forcing workers to join them. Anotehr example of making work available to all.

Also, the right to education would raise people's skills, meaning higher wages, more productivity, and more tax revenue to pay off the debt. Stronger property rights too could help stabilize investment in Canada too. It all goes hand in hand.

[Machjo]

And as for the debt, yes, seeing that I'm a tax-and-axe austerity voter myself, I agree with you there. However, I don't see why one must come at the expense of the other.

After all, if taken to an extreme, we could pay off the debt sooner by scrapping the Charter of Rights and Freedoms so as to be able to just run around the country claiming valuable property of any kind, shooting dissenters, selling the claimed goods on the world market, and poof, the debt would be paid off in no time.

[TimG]

And as for the debt, yes, seeing that I'm a tax-and-axe austerity voter myself, I agree with you there. However, I don't see why one must come at the expense of the other.

The public/media only have the attension span to deal with a single divisive issue at a time. There are many more issues which are much higher priority than dickering with the constitution.

You also don't deal with the fact that a lot of people see the UN as a corrupt playground for dictators and lefties. Trying to put anything produced by the UN into the constitution would meet resistance for that reason alone. That I why I said you are better off identifying changes to the existing charter that you would like to see.

[Machjo]

The public/media only have the attension span to deal with a single divisive issue at a time. There are many more issues which are much higher priority than dickering with the constitution.

You also don't deal with the fact that a lot of people see the UN as a corrupt playground for dictators and lefties. Trying to put anything produced by the UN into the constitution would meet resistance for that reason alone. That I why I said you are better off identifying changes to the existing charter that you would like to see.

Though the UDHR was created by the UN, it was created years ago when the UN was a more reasonable organization. Also, what we'd be talking about here would be patriation of the UDHR, meaning that it would henceforth be a Canadian document under Canadian law. Sure it would continue to be a UN document too, but separately from its Canadian position.

[Machjo]

I suppose another way of looking at it would be this:

If the only requirement for joining this new party or running for it in a campaign is to agree with its principles, this could allow for much flexibility.

For example, some more extremist members might have as a goal to push for the adoption of the UDHR as a priority. Others might support it in principle in that they'd vote in favour of any such bill that should be presented, but would otherwise focus on the economy while still doing so in a way that respects human rights.

This means of course that candidates for this new party could be quite different from riding to riding, allowing some to win and others not, with members of this new party being free to collaborate with other MPs in the House.

[Sandy MacNab]

So many want to discuss "rights" and want to have iron-clad guarantees that their "rights" are protected. I'd like to see the same number of people as concerned with their "responsibilities". I'm getting effen sick of the "Me! Me! Me!" mind-set that pervades our society. We're getting more like Europe every day. :angry:

[Machjo]

So many want to discuss "rights" and want to have iron-clad guarantees that their "rights" are protected. I'd like to see the same number of people as concerned with their "responsibilities". I'm getting effen sick of the "Me! Me! Me!" mind-set that pervades our society. We're getting more like Europe every day. :angry:

The two go hand in hand. If I have a right to freedom of religion, I have a responsibility to protect yours. If I have a right to an education, I have a responsibility to provide for yours too. Does that make sense?

Even the UDHR acknowledges it:

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Machjo

[Machjo]

So many want to discuss "rights" and want to have iron-clad guarantees that their "rights" are protected. I'd like to see the same number of people as concerned with their "responsibilities". I'm getting effen sick of the "Me! Me! Me!" mind-set that pervades our society. We're getting more like Europe every day. :angry:

Anotehr question:

Would you oppose the idea that government should not be allowed to pass laws that prevent one from working, such as minimum wages laws and such?

[TimG]

Would you oppose the idea that government should not be allowed to pass laws that prevent one from working, such as minimum wages laws and such?

Because such debates belong in the legislature - not the constitution.

[Machjo]

Because such debates belong in the legislature - not the constitution.

But the constitution is what frames the debate. For instance, if the constitution guarantees a right to employment, then one could argue that minimum wages violate that right. Of course it would be up to the courts to examine this, but should it be found that it does in fact stand in the way of employment, then minimum wage laws could be struck down.

Or let's say the constitution guarantees taht parents can choose their children't education, then one might use that to try to argue for school vouchers or allowing parents to bow out of the public system in some way. Or if the constitution should guarantee freedom of associatoin and from associaton, then one might argue that companies should not be allowed to force people to join a union as a condition of employment.

Of course these are just examples, but you can see how, depending on the details of the content of the constitution, legislation will have to conform to it.