Argus Posted February 1, 2018 Report Share Posted February 1, 2018 3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: I concur here. But here is another example: I want to hire a student to go on web forums and advocate for removing the right of women to vote. My intentions are anti-Charter, but my right to express myself is guaranteed as long as I am not spreading 'hate'. The government may not like my message but they aren't authorized to disallow me from receiving services based on that. You could write the rules that no one can hire people to do lobbying, say, against government policy. I frankly find it absurd how the government pays lobby groups to argue against its own policy and we've been doing it for decades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 1, 2018 Report Share Posted February 1, 2018 48 minutes ago, Gingerteeth said: Nonsense my point is still the same. The organizations wanting funding still have to respect charter rights and reproductive rights as I have said above. What the court limits has nothing to do with what I said. What right does the government have to demand people respect the Liberal Party's belief in reproductive rights? It's not their money they're giving away, it's mine. 48 minutes ago, Gingerteeth said: Religious people aren't prevented from expressing themselves or holding opinions. They just can't use funding to violate rights of others and their summer students. It's not a violation of anyone's rights to not support abortion on demand. Government cannot require you to support something like that which is against your religious beliefs. Even if it WAS a Charter right, which it is NOT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerteeth Posted February 1, 2018 Report Share Posted February 1, 2018 32 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. As has been pointed out to you by Argus and by me: they do not have to follow the charter, the charter describes the rights that government affords to the people. Reproductive rights are also not proclaimed in the charter. 2. Are you in favour of it though ? 1. Organizations, religious or not, have to respect people's rights. Doesn't matter if the charter affords it or not. 2. Have you stopped hitting your wife? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerteeth Posted February 1, 2018 Report Share Posted February 1, 2018 21 minutes ago, Argus said: What right does the government have to demand people respect the Liberal Party's belief in reproductive rights? It's not their money they're giving away, it's mine. It's not a violation of anyone's rights to not support abortion on demand. Government cannot require you to support something like that which is against your religious beliefs. Even if it WAS a Charter right, which it is NOT. My money as well which I don't want it to go to groups who want roll back rights for people. Doesn't need to be a charter right to be a right. It is a right afforded by the SCC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 1, 2018 Report Share Posted February 1, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Gingerteeth said: 1. Organizations, religious or not, have to respect people's rights. Doesn't matter if the charter affords it or not. 1. No they don't. They have to observe the law but they absolutely do not have to 'respect rights'. Why do you think that ? 2. I'm asking you a specific question - do you want to eliminate religious rights from the Charter ? It's not loaded - just a yes/no. Edited February 1, 2018 by Michael Hardner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 1, 2018 Report Share Posted February 1, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gingerteeth said: My money as well which I don't want it to go to groups who want roll back rights for people. So by your definition if the conservatives get into power you're fine with them denying any government grants or money to anyone who supports abortion. Have I got that right? Even if those grants are for things entirely unrelated to abortion. Quote Doesn't need to be a charter right to be a right. It is a right afforded by the SCC. The SCC does not afford rights. The SCC only interprets the Charter and the Charter only has impact on governments not on individuals. Edited February 1, 2018 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerteeth Posted February 1, 2018 Report Share Posted February 1, 2018 1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. No they don't. They have to observe the law but they absolutely do not have to 'respect rights'. Why do you think that ? 2. I'm asking you a specific question - do you want to eliminate religious rights from the Charter ? It's not loaded - just a yes/no. 1. Sure they do just like I have to respect a religious person's belief that abortion is murder I cannot discriminate against them for that as they are free to believe as gauranteed by the charter. They have to do the same for my belief that womem have rights over their body or else they are discriminating against me. 2. Have you stopped hitting your wife? 19 minutes ago, Argus said: So by your definition if the conservatives get into power you're fine with them denying any government grants or money to anyone who supports abortion. Have I got that right? Even if those grants are for things entirely unrelated to abortion. The SCC does not afford rights. The SCC only interprets the Charter and the Charter only has impact on governments not on individuals. Would violate reproductive rights. Belief that women have a right to abortion doesn't violate your rights. Your belief that women shouldn't have a right to their reproductive choices does violate women's rights. The SCC's ruling allows womem to have abortions that is what the government must follow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 1, 2018 Report Share Posted February 1, 2018 59 minutes ago, Gingerteeth said: 1. Sure they do just like I have to respect a religious person's belief that abortion is murder I cannot discriminate against them for that as they are free to believe as gauranteed by the charter. They have to do the same for my belief that womem have rights over their body or else they are discriminating against me. 2. Have you stopped hitting your wife? 1. You don't have to respect any such belief. You certainly can discriminate against people for individual beliefs. You're starting to get into a grey area if you discriminate in hiring people based on beliefs. 2. You have a fundamental misunderstanding on why Groucho's famous question was set up as a damnable riddle. The question assumes that you are currently hitting your wife. My question is straightforward: what is your view ? I guess you don't want to answer so I'll assume you want to get rid of religion then. Quote 3. The SCC's ruling allows womem to have abortions that is what the government must follow. 3. But no one is required to respect that law... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerteeth Posted February 1, 2018 Report Share Posted February 1, 2018 31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. You don't have to respect any such belief. You certainly can discriminate against people for individual beliefs. You're starting to get into a grey area if you discriminate in hiring people based on beliefs. 2. You have a fundamental misunderstanding on why Groucho's famous question was set up as a damnable riddle. The question assumes that you are currently hitting your wife. My question is straightforward: what is your view ? I guess you don't want to answer so I'll assume you want to get rid of religion then. 3. But no one is required to respect that law... Go back and find where I said I want to get rid of religion. Your question is loaded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 1, 2018 Report Share Posted February 1, 2018 5 minutes ago, Gingerteeth said: Your question is loaded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question "A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]" I'm erasing the slate and asking you flat out: "Do you want to eliminate special legal protection for religion ?". I am not assuming you do or do not, I am simply asking. If you don't answer I will make up my own assumption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerteeth Posted February 1, 2018 Report Share Posted February 1, 2018 39 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question "A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]" I'm erasing the slate and asking you flat out: "Do you want to eliminate special legal protection for religion ?". I am not assuming you do or do not, I am simply asking. If you don't answer I will make up my own assumption. Your question is still loaded and your penchant to keep repeating it like a brain dead parrot isn't helping your position. Ask appropriately and I will answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 1, 2018 Report Share Posted February 1, 2018 Just now, Gingerteeth said: Your question is still loaded and your penchant to keep repeating it like a brain dead parrot isn't helping your position. Ask appropriately and I will answer. OK - how about "What is your view on accommodating religion within the Canadian legal system ?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerteeth Posted February 1, 2018 Report Share Posted February 1, 2018 4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: OK - how about "What is your view on accommodating religion within the Canadian legal system ?" It is protected under the charter people are free to believe and I agree with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Me Posted February 1, 2018 Report Share Posted February 1, 2018 25 minutes ago, Gingerteeth said: It is protected under the charter people are free to believe and I agree with that. A question for you and others. Does protection extend to acting on those beliefs? In other words, if one believes that a fetus is a human life, would it not be the moral responsibility of the believer to take all legal means to protect those lives? If protection doesn't extend to actions, what protection to freedom of religion is actually provided by the charter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 1, 2018 Report Share Posted February 1, 2018 25 minutes ago, Gingerteeth said: It is protected under the charter people are free to believe and I agree with that. Ok. The subtleties of freedom play out as equal treatment by the Queen's government though. That means more than 'free to believe'. Freedom of conscience is a huge and complex area in which competing rights have to be addressed in the legal and political spheres: https://www.google.ca/search?q=freedom+of+conscience&oq=freedom+of+conscience&aqs=chrome..69i57.4587j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 What does freedom of religion mean ? Does it mean tax-exempt status ? Does it mean freedom to communicate religious messages ? How about freedom to discriminate ? Freedom to run a University or Hospital ? It's very complicated and difficult to navigate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 1, 2018 Report Share Posted February 1, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Gingerteeth said: Would violate reproductive rights. THERE IS NO SUCH THING. I don't know how many people have to tell you that, but if you actually take the time to read the supreme court ruling 4 of the 5 judges who voted that the then-current law was unconstitutional made it clear their primary issue was how the government ran the system. It was taking too long to make decisions in many cases, which endangered women's health, and in others the decisions seemed too arbitrary. Only one of the 9 judges said that there was an absolute right for a woman to get an abortion which trumped the state's right to legislate controls on abortion. Quote Belief that women have a right to abortion doesn't violate your rights. Belief does not violate rights. No. The government refusing to treat people the same because it doesn't like their opinions on abortion, though, DOES violate rights. Quote Your belief that women shouldn't have a right to their reproductive choices does violate women's rights. That is silly. A person's personal belief does not violate any other person's rights. For that matter, it is a matter of law, an individual cannot violate another person's 'rights'. There is nothing in law that says individuals or even groups of individuals have to respect the Charter. The Charter binds governments and ONLY governments. Individuals only have to obey laws. Quote The SCC's ruling allows womem to have abortions that is what the government must follow. The SCC's ruling says no such thing. Edited February 1, 2018 by Argus 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.