Rights and Freedom

[betsy]

If we are concerned about losing our rights and freedom, and altogether lose the Canada as our parents know it, you are right. There is a big cause for concern.

No, this cause for concern does not come from the "what-if" scenario that the Liberals are saying if Harper becomes the Prime Minister. He is not the "boogeyman",

The boogeyman is already in our midst, sitting in power....and changing the face of our country.

You think we have not lost anything yet? No, I'm not harping about the money now....for money is nothing when it is compared to what we are gradually and systematically losing.

The Liberals are relentlessly chipping away at our rights and freedom.....in exchange for votes and support from the minority groups.

Freedom of Choice

Freedom of Expression

Freedom of Religious Beliefs

Property Rights

All these have already been tampered with. And the Liberals are not through yet.

The people do not even get to decide. Judges that are appointed by the government gets to decide for us. Decisions are imposed on us.

True democracy is gone.

The younger generation do not even know the true meaning of democracy. How will they? They think this is democracy....it is all they've been exposed to and used to.

I don't know about you, but I surely would want to bring back true democracy before it is gone forever.

If we are concerned about the kind of environment we will bequeath to our children and grandchildren, we should start by tackling this immediate concern and preserve democracy in its true form.

[Renegade]

Democracy does not necessarily preserve rights and freedoms. Afterall, in rule-by-majority, the majority is able to impose rules which will deny minority its rights and freedoms.

The problem with rule-by-majority is the the minority can get screwed 100% of the time.

That is why we have the Charter of Rights. It is entirely appropriate that the courts and not the government interperet the Charter to protect our rights. So far they have done a remarkbly good job in striking down laws which deny our rights.

So, I'm somewhat unclear what your complaint is.

[betsy]

Democracy does not necessarily preserve rights and freedoms. Afterall, in rule-by-majority, the majority is able to impose rules which will deny minority its rights and freedoms.

The problem with rule-by-majority is the the minority can get screwed 100% of the time.

What about the minority imposing its will on the majority?

What about giving rights to one group by taking away rights from another?

I understand that there is no easy solution to make Canada the perfect place for everyone.....but by just changing things around hastily just so to gain support and votes, and opening cans of worms, without really studying the consequences it will entail....the government is just muddying up the situation. This will really screw up everyone later on.

If rules by majority is not acceptable, then we should not have democracy?

[I Miss Trudeau]

What about the minority imposing its will on the majority? 

What about giving rights to one group by taking away rights from another?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Give one good example of either. I won't hold my breath.

If rules by majority is not acceptable, then we should not have democracy?

Majority rule ought not be absolute.

[Renegade]

What about the minority imposing its will on the majority? 

What about giving rights to one group by taking away rights from another?

I don't see much evidence of the minority imposing it's will on the majority or rights given to one group by taking away rights from another. As IMT has asked, can you be more specific with examples.

I understand that there is no easy solution to make Canada the perfect place for everyone.....but by just changing things around hastily just so to gain support and votes, and opening cans of worms, without really studying the consequences it will entail....the government is just muddying up the situation.  This will really screw up everyone later on.

If rules by majority is not acceptable, then we should not have democracy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never said that rule-by-majority is not acceptable. What I said was that the freedom of the majority to choose must be limited by the respect for rights and freedoms for all. That is what our Charter of Rights and Freedoms does. It guarantees that our individual rights are not overridden by laws passed by the representatives of the majority.

[betsy]

What about giving rights to one group by taking away rights from another?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Give one good example of either. I won't hold my breath.

Property rights: Smoke ban

Though I understand the concern for health, nevertheless the simplest solution should have been the property owner, which is the owner of the establishment, should maintain his rights to choose which clientele he wants to cater to. After all, this business is his own investment. It is not funded by the tax payers money....therefore, although he caters to the public, it is not a public property.

If he decides he want to cater to people who smoke, he must put a sign outside warning that this is a smoking bar/restaurant.

People can and must exercise their freedom to choose whether to go in or avoid that place. The same goes for employees. When hiring, applicants must be forewarned that it is a smoking establishment.

I am a non-smoker, btw.

It would be different if cigarettes are illegal. But they are legal.

Smoking is not a crime.

So what the government had done was to take a drastic measure that took away from the owner of the property (tampering on his rights and freedom) to butter up to those who want to impose their will on others.

No one is forcing the clientele to go to this owner's property in the first place.

If the restaurants and bars will realize that there is a market for non-smoking, let them then choose if they want to cater to that market.

This is just one of the new laws or regulations that I can think of right now.

[Renegade]

Property rights:  Smoke ban

Though I understand the concern for health, nevertheless the simplest solution should have been the property owner, which is the owner of the establishment, should maintain his rights to choose which clientele he wants to cater to.  After all, this business is his own investment.  It is not funded by the tax payers money....therefore, although he caters to the public, it is not a public property.

If he decides he want to cater to people who smoke, he must put a sign outside warning that this is a smoking bar/restaurant.

People can and must exercise their freedom to choose whether to go in or avoid that place.  The same goes for employees.  When hiring, applicants must be forewarned that it is a smoking establishment.

I am a non-smoker, btw.

It would be different if cigarettes are illegal.  But they are legal.

Smoking is not a crime.

So what the government had done was to take a drastic measure that took away from the owner of the property (tampering on his rights and freedom) to butter up to those who want to impose their will on others.

No one is forcing the clientele to go to this owner's property in the first place.

If the restaurants and bars will realize that there is a market for non-smoking, let them then choose if they want to cater to that market.

This is just one of the new laws or regulations that I can think of right now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I actually agree with you on this one. However this is an indication of the majority (non-smokers) imposing rules on a minority (smokers) not vica-versa.

As far as I know these rules are relatively recent and none have yet made it to the Supreme Court as a challenge. So it may well be struck down if it infringes on an owner's right to choose.

BTW, prior to the non-smoking law, every bar had the option to be non-smoking, but very few exercised that option. Why do you think that is?

Also what do you propose is done to existing employees who choose not to work in a smoking environment if the owner makes a choice to have a smoking environment.

BTW, please learn to use the quote tags properly. It will make it a lot easier to see the demarkation between other's quotes and your response.

[Leafless]

I Miss Trudeau

You wrote- " Give one good example of either. I won't hold my breath."

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has removed the right of majority rule.

This alone has resulted in allowing minority diverse groups to impose their will of concerning rights associated with linguistis, marriage, religion, immigration.

The charter has allowed the federal government to dictate social policy under the guise of minority rights and has produced a pecking order of who gets what.

The Charter is a very powerful socialist document and like previously in other posts I advocate it's removal since the federal government can use this charter as a tool not only to attain perpetual power (votes) but to run the country as a cheap banana republic.

Rights were always previously associated and protected by provincial law with nothing written into the constitution.

[BubberMiley]

You still didn't give one example.

[Leafless]

BubberMiley

Two examples, sure.

(1)-SSM

(2)-Official bilingualism in the federal public service.

(3)- Religious freedoms in which a certain religion is able to obliterate certain religious customs pertaining to the major religion of the land Christianity.

(4) Mobilitiy Rights concerning allowing Quebec to disallow the gaining of livelihood pertaining especially to advertising in English in that province.

(5) Forcing provinces to adhere to minority rights when the other official language does not reciprocate nad has it's own linguistic legislation.

[betsy]

BTW, please learn to use the quote tags properly. It will make it a lot easier to see the demarkation between other's quotes and your response.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know how.

Above the reply box are a set of smaller boxes with font, size, color, http://, IMG, @, Quote, code

What I've been doing was highlight the phrase or paragraph then clicked on "quote". It's not coming out right. Help!

[BubberMiley]

BubberMiley

Two examples, sure.

(1)-SSM

(2)-Official bilingualism in the federal public service.

(3)- Religious freedoms in which a certain religion is able to obliterate certain religious customs pertaining to the major religion of the land Christianity.

(4) Mobilitiy Rights concerning allowing Quebec to disallow the gaining of livelihood pertaining especially to advertising in English in that province.

(5) Forcing provinces to adhere to minority rights when the other official language does not reciprocate nad has it's own linguistic legislation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(1) SSM doesn't take away any of the majority's rights, it just gives rights to a minority. It's doesn't hurt you at all.

(2) Official bilingualism wasn't based on the idea of minority rights. It was based on the concept of two founding cultures: French and English.

(3) The only major religion in Canada is secularism. If you're concerned about Christian rights, then you should be fighting for minority rights.

(4) English is the minority in Quebec, so again you should be fighting for minority rights in that case too. (The charter was the basis for striking down Bill 101.)

(5) I have no idea what you mean by "when the other official language does not reciprocate"

[Renegade]

Betsy, delete the second "" and it should look right. There should be only one close quote tag ie "" at the end of each quote. Unmatched tags will give you a problem. Also try the "Preview Post" button as it will give you an indication of what your post will look like.

[Leafless]

BubberMiley

"SSM just gives rights to a minority"- At the expense of Canadian democratic society with rights based on the CHARTER.

" Official bilingualism was based on the concept of two founding cultures." Call it what you want but the legal mechanism to enforce it is CHARTER RIGHTS-Equality Rights and Official languages of Canada Sec. 16-1.

" The only major religion in Canada is secularism." I think you are a very confused individual and debating any further you does not make any sense.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Property rights:  Smoke ban

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Business owners have been responsible for ensuring the safety of their workers for a long time. Hospitality has been the only industry that has been permitted to have dangerous levels of toxic gases released into the workplace continously.

[Guest eureka]

BubberMiley. I agree with you mostly. However, the English are not a minority in Quebec: they are the smaller language grouping (of the two major cultures in that PROVINCE. That is the legal position.

And, Bill 101 is alive and well. The Charter did not enable it to be struck down but allowed it to be continued where it did conflict.

Not to defend Leafless's obsession with the Charter but this is an example - the only one - where the Charter does allow the minority - French speakers - to impose their will on the majority. In Constitutional Law, it is highly unlikely that Bill 101 would have withstood the Court challenge to its entirety since there was no "Norwithstanding Clause."

[Slavik44]

1. Freedom of Choice

-Freedom to choose to marry a person of the same sex?

-Freedom to choose wether or not you can smoke pot?

-Freedom to choose what goes on in your bedroom?

-Freedom from the incitement of violence?

Those are freedoms and those are all freedoms that might possiby endangered by a CPC government, with the exception of pot being an as of yet un-established freedom, but the establishment of such being endangered.

2. Freedom of Expression

There is a fine line between freedom of expression and inciting violence against minorities, I will not protect someones right to incite violence. I do not belive that such things are rights or even privledges, they are crimes. If I was to hold a public meeting encouraging people to go kill a jew I belive I should go to jail, because my actions would be in violation of "the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

3. Freedom of Religious Beliefs

What about freedom from religous beliefs? Canada is not a theocracy and we cannot expect the Canadian government to enforce the rule of christianity. The freedom of religion includes the right not to be religous or subjected to religous law. More and more I am finding that instead of Religous freedoms being put on the line, freedom from religion is being offered and it is seen by many on the religous right to be a violation of Religous Freedoms, when instead it enforces the first half of that fundemntal freedom "freedom of conscience and religion."

4.Property Rights

The decay of Canadian property rights has been around since the early 1900's, while I will agree that there is a decay of these rights its blame falls squarely on the shoulders of every government in Canadain history, not Paul Martin or Jean Chretien. In fact when I went to the CPC website and clicked "our priorities" there was no mention of private property rights, under founding principles I also came up empty handed. When I looked under Key issues and each and every one of the subheadings no mention was made of Private Property.

[FTA Lawyer]

Property rights are not protected by the Charter. They were intentionally left out.

For those who keep demanding examples of one group's rights being trumped by another's via the Charter (as though is doesn't happen) shame on you...

The Charter is specifically designed to balance competing rights, and guide lawmakers in making decisions of when to favour one group's rights over those of another.

And if you want clear examples, for starters, try the debates (SCC cases) regarding abortion (Morgentaler), assisted suicide (Rodriguez, Latimer), affirmative action, freedom of speech (Keegstra), child pornography (Sharpe).

Every one of these cases has strong elements of the courts analysing competing rights and reconciling the conflict by deciding which should prevail.

And the list could go on almost endlessly...but I'm not going to waste time proving to some naysayers something as clear as the fact that water is wet.

FTA

[Riverwind]

In fact when I went to the CPC website and clicked "our priorities" there was no mention of private property rights, under founding principles I also came up empty handed. When I looked under Key issues and each and every one of the subheadings no mention was made of Private Property.

Out of curiosity. What gross injustice has been caused by the lack of private property rights in the constitution?

[BubberMiley]

BubberMiley. I agree with you mostly. However, the English are not a minority in Quebec: they are the smaller language grouping (of the two major cultures in that PROVINCE. That is the legal position.

And, Bill 101 is alive and well. The Charter did not enable it to be struck down but allowed it to be continued where it did conflict.

Not to defend Leafless's obsession with the Charter but this is an example - the only one - where the Charter does allow the minority - French speakers - to impose their will on the majority. In Constitutional Law, it is highly unlikely that Bill 101 would have withstood the Court challenge to its entirety since there was no "Norwithstanding Clause."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I may be wrong, but didn't Bourassa use the Notwithstanding clause to keep Bill 101 in place back around late 1988?

[Guest eureka]

The Clause was used by the Liberal government of Quebec in 1988. It was, however, only to override a SCC decision with respect to the language of signage.In 1993, laws were passed to lessen the prohibitions on English signage.

The sad thing about these laws is the perception of Canadians outside Quebec that the Laws are about commercial signs when they, in fact, invade every facet of life in Quebec. Mpst of the rest of Bill 101 has been upheld by our courts. English is, in effect, an illegal instrument of communication in Quebec even between English speakers in some commercial situations.

It also affects private life dee[ly and has, in the past, led to horrendous splitting of families into situations where the children are forced into education that is in a different language than the parents or siblings. That is less since that part was struck down by the SCC but still applies where parents, English speaking Canadians, did not receive their basic education in english.

[Leafless]

eureka

Concerning minority rights-

I might be wrong but do English taxpayers pay for their own schools in Quebec or are English minorities fully funded by all Quebec taxpayers like the French are in Ontario to fund their schools?

[BubberMiley]

There are regular public English schools, but immigrants and francophones are not allowed to attend them.

[Guest eureka]

Not only that, BuuberMiley, but an English speaking Canadian citizen who did not obtain his primary education in English, must send his children to a French school. The Courts upheld that in a case last year.

Would that be a denial of Mobility Rights?

[betsy]

I actually agree with you on this one.  However this is an indication of the majority (non-smokers) imposing rules on a minority (smokers) not vica-versa.

As far as I know these rules are relatively recent and none have yet made it to the Supreme Court as a challenge. So it may well be struck down if it infringes on an owner's right to choose.

BTW, prior to the non-smoking law, every bar had the option to be non-smoking, but very few exercised that option. Why do you think that is?

Also what do you propose is done to existing employees who choose not to work in a smoking environment if the owner makes a choice to have a smoking environment.

Thanks for the tip.

Okay, it may not be minority imposition on the majority....but my point is, property rights had been tampered with.

It may yet be taken to the Supreme Court as a challenge, and it may even be struck down....but don't you see what the poor property owner had to go through to protect his rights?

The needless expenses of battling a powerful government, who has appointed court judges that give biased or questionable ruling anyway.

Even if no restaurants exercise the option to be non-smoking, as a private owner of a private property....that is and it should remain an option. It is up to the private owner to decide which market he is trying to target since this is a business after all.

It is bad enough for these private owners to compete with big corporations who can afford easily to satisfy the whims of a fickle government. A lot of these are small businesses. The government had them going through various loops (a separate smoking room, proper ventilation, etc..)...to which they all tried to comply....and after going through all the expenses of renovations and compliance to regulations, the government finally decided to scrap the whole thing and just imposed the non-smoking law!

As for the existing employees, they can exercise their freedom of choice.

When they took on the job, they knew what was involved. Now if they considered themselves finally informed as to the dangers of second-hand smoke...the option is still there. Stay and inhale...or find another job.