Rights and Freedom

[FTA Lawyer]

Take my word for it, the Supreme God being referred to here is the Christian one.

Gee, I always thought there was just one God, which was the creator of everybody: muslims, jews, hindus, etc. But I'll take your word for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I'm not sure that religious leaders would all agree with you on that, but in any event, I only made the above comment based on our historical background as a majority Christian nation.

That is to say, in drafting that preamble, the drafters were not concerning themselves with political correctness...the history of our democracy comes from the notion of Monarchy being direct descendants from God, a.k.a Christ's dad.

The history is what it is, I'm not being an advocate for any religious viewpoint here.

FTA

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BubberMiley,

How is it a christian value to contemptuously deny basic rights to other people? I don't think the New Testament said anything about homosexuality, but it says a lot about respecting others.

From "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the ROMANS" Chapter 1, verses 26-27...

26 "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affectations: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:"

27 "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

I am not sure if 'meat' is spelled right, it is a rather old bible.

FTA Lawyer,

Well, I'm not sure that religious leaders would all agree with you on that, but in any event, I only made the above comment based on our historical background as a majority Christian nation.

Well said. It is 'fundamental religious conservativism' that seems an affront to many, and unfortunately this means, in our country, 'Christian'. Not a bad thing, but religion nonetheless.

[Guest eureka]

Excellent posts, FTA, but I have one cavil.

Quebec did not use the "Notwithstanding Clause" to maintain the traditions of its society. The history and tradition of Quebec is one of a Province with two equal languages and cultures. There was, of course, an interval of 26 years when English was the only official language and French became equal at Confederation.

The use of the Clause was to upset the traditional balance and to remove exisiting Rights in the Province. The view of "Nationalist" Quebeckers with respect to their claim of a distinct society is irrelevant, The distinctiveness is in their own minds and is the view that distinctiveness is to be achieved by the suppression of English and the creation of a monolithic French society - not that one does or did exist.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear eureka,

Unfortunately, they are not protected in law. Witness the Harris government in Ontario that quite deliberately reduced protections and there have been several workplace deaths as a consequence of the reduced legal protections.

I had not heard that any deaths were directly attributable to 'safety cutbacks'. I get the "Occupational Health and Safety" magazine, but it is mainly about Alberta. I'll have to take your word for it that there might be demonstrable 'cause and effect'. I can only assume that the changes were made to cut costs, and not 'to make the workplace more exciting'. I only hope you don't come back and say "Since they stopped firing alcoholics, workplace fatalities have risen 2%".

Unions are essential and in need of strengthening.

I disagree, because I think they are less profitable to the worker. WCB (such as it is), minimum wage laws and labour standards have replaced the most important things unions were for in the first place. Once upon a time, I agree, unions were indespensable. Now, hoever, workers simply pay double (union dues and taxes)for benefits they could be able to earn for free.

As I have posted a couple of times, Orwell once wrote that "Fascism is the counterattack of Capitalism on the Unions." We may not have degenerated into Fascism yet, but the counterattack of Capitalism has been very successful in the past thirty years.

I can only say that I believe that Orwell has it wrong. Fascists can use unions, pure Capitalists abhor them. As long as a union can be used as a tool by fascists, they will encourage them. What would really be trouble for Capitalists is if unions banded together not only their production power, (which, to some degree, can be replaced) but also their purchasing power, in a focused effort and direction, then they might have rekindled their purpose. As it stands now, they are all about 'self-service'.

It has been so successful that its main support comes from those who benefit from a strong union movement.

I think, as it stands, my benefit is about equal. However, if a union can force an employer to become unprofitable and/or close, then I must stand against them, for no more reason than 'they have not yet got it right'.

[BubberMiley]

Thanks for the bible lesson, Thelonious. I wasn't aware of that. But, eeew, do you really think they meant "meat?"

[Guest eureka]

T_Bag!

I think that if you look at the major developed economies you will find a very strong relation between disparity in income and wealth and in poverty rates with the strength of unionism.

The greatest disparity in the world at this time is to be found in the US - greater than in the developing countries by the way - and the Union movement there now covers only 12% of the working population.

This is not a question of unions forcing anyone out of business but of the protection of workers from both economic exploitation and from unsafe conditions.

There have been more workplace deaths in Ontario since Harris ( I have not looked for any figures but they have been reported). Safety standards were reduced by law and workplace inspections were greatly reduced. Unions were defeated by the government in a number of confrontations due to their lack of membership.

Harris set out to break unions that were already too weak to have any great effect on society other than in a few industries. The few strong public unions could not get public support for their resistance from a labour force that was otherwise un-unionized.

[Canuck E Stan]

Hey T-Bagger,

Safety standards were reduced by law and workplace inspections were greatly reduced.

I doubt you can back up this "greatly reduced stuff" you claim.

Safety standards for workers are better today than they ever have been.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Canuck E Stan,

QUOTE

Safety standards were reduced by law and workplace inspections were greatly reduced.

I doubt you can back up this "greatly reduced stuff" you claim.

Actually, this was eureka's work, not mine.

eureka,

The greatest disparity in the world at this time is to be found in the US - greater than in the developing countries by the way - and the Union movement there now covers only 12% of the working population.

Do you mean the US is 12% unionized?

This just got me thinking...

Capitalism= serve only one

Socialism= serve more than one

Marxism= serve everyone

[Leafless]

BubberMiley

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

The 1982 created Constitution Act required English provinces required English speking provinces to provide not only French language education but also separate schools and schoold boards for the miniscule number of Francophones outside Quebec.

There IS NO similar obligation put upon Quebec for the English speaking people in that province.

Also mostly all schools in Ontario provide French emmersion while in Quebec there is none or for that matter no English emmersion courses in officially bilingual New Brunswick even though there are over 70,000 Francophones who cannot speak English.

[FTA Lawyer]

Excellent posts, FTA, but I have one cavil.

Quebec did not use the "Notwithstanding Clause" to maintain the traditions of its society. The history and tradition of Quebec is one of a Province with two equal languages and cultures. There was, of course, an interval of 26 years when English was the only official language and French became equal at Confederation.

The use of the Clause was to upset the traditional balance and to remove exisiting Rights in the Province. The view of "Nationalist" Quebeckers with respect to their claim of a distinct society is irrelevant, The distinctiveness is in their own minds and is the view that distinctiveness is to be achieved by the suppression of English and the creation of a monolithic French society - not that one does or did exist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, okay, I can be taught a thing or two about the nuances of Quebec...merci.

FTA

[mowich]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes but do we want the courts making laws that govern our rights. Shouldn't it be the work of the federal government to do so? Just asking.

[mowich]

I think our country is changing. And while our preamble implies a Christian Deity, it may be necessary to adjust our beliefs and perhaps our constitution to include other denominations and religions, especially the more diverse our society becomes. As BubberMiley indicates, should our Supreme Being not include all faiths?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh puhlease leave the Constitution alone. Read what you will into the mention of God and his religious affiliation, I have a copy of the Constitution and I can't find a reference to his being a Christian.

As has been stated numerous times in these postings we have the freedom to choose how we worship, where and of what. No more need be done except maybe a little tolerance on all our parts.

[newbie]

I think our country is changing. And while our preamble implies a Christian Deity, it may be necessary to adjust our beliefs and perhaps our constitution to include other denominations and religions, especially the more diverse our society becomes. As BubberMiley indicates, should our Supreme Being not include all faiths?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh puhlease leave the Constitution alone. Read what you will into the mention of God and his religious affiliation, I have a copy of the Constitution and I can't find a reference to his being a Christian.

As has been stated numerous times in these postings we have the freedom to choose how we worship, where and of what. No more need be done except maybe a little tolerance on all our parts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're making my point. But FTA interprets that in the preamble, the "God" our country was founded on was based on, at the time, Christian values. My take on it is that to make us more tolerant as you suggest, we may at some time in the future have to alter our constitution to reflect that.

[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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes but do we want the courts making laws that govern our rights. Shouldn't it be the work of the federal government to do so? Just asking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well actually...

The courts don't make laws. They interpret the laws made by Parliament to determine whether or not they comply with the Charter. Sometimes, the government has overstepped its bounds, and the courts strike the law, or interpret it in such a way as to ensure it is consistent with the Charter.

It is always the right of Parliament to impose its will regardless of what any court in the land says, by using the notwithstanding clause. Politicians just love not using it because they can pass the buck on hard decisions and blame the SCC if the result is unpopular.

Why do you think the Liberal gov't put the reference to the SCC on same-sex marriage? Abdication of their responsibility as legislators to put laws in place and back them up with the notwithstanding clause if necessary.

Anytime the public actually wants Parliament to put the pants back on, all they have to do is let it be known that they won't crucify a politician who uses the notwithstanding clause to keep the courts at bay.

The problem is that Paul Martin has been driving the message hard that any politician who would use the clause is necessarily a tyrant who hates Canada and doesn't believe in minority rights...and the poorly informed public just eats it up.

FTA

[Guest eureka]

The Charter does indeed protect Property Rights. It protects them by reinforcing the right to live under the laws of the land.

Those laws are built around property rights. Indeed, the whole foundation of our society is lodged in property rights.

More than half of the Criminal Code is devoted to Property right

To try to "protect" property rights in a document would be a foolish exercise in futility as it would take several volumes of text to even try to say what property rights are.

[Argus]

The courts don't make laws.  They interpret the laws made by Parliament to determine whether or not they comply with the Charter.  Sometimes, the government has overstepped its bounds, and the courts strike the law, or interpret it in such a way as to ensure it is consistent with the Charter.

All quite proper - in theory.

Now back to the real world.

The lawyers who make up the Supreme Court were not, and everyone knows this, selected from the great unwashed cohorts of their profession because they were deemed to be those with the greatest legal knowledge, those who had demonstrated great wisdom and articulation in their decisions, those who understood the need to interpret law in an unbiased fashion.

No. The decsion on who to appoint to the SC involves a few guys in the PMO who talk it over. The conversation goes something like this.

"Uh, we need a new SC judge. They have to be from Quebec this time."

"It would be nice to appoint a woman, or an ethnic minority."

"Who do we have who thinks like us, especially on same sex rights?"

"We could help our donations if we appointed a Jew."

"The PM would look good if he appointed a visible minority."

"How about that Rafeem Gooly guy? I meet him at gallery openings all the time. He seems quite promising."

"Premier Charest likes a judge called Francois Bedard. He used to go to school with him."

In the end, they will settle on someone from the right province, with the right political connections and the right ideological beliefs who will hopefully make the kinds of rulings the party wants, and, if they can get credit for appointing a woman, or a francophone or a visible minority, whatever, then they will.

Great knowledge will play no part in their decision.

Great wisdom will play no part in their decision.

A history of moderate, intelligent, articulate decisions will play no part in their decision.

There is no saying that the two recent appointees, both clearly appointed because of their political activism on gay rights, has any more knowledge or wisdom than you do. But we are to treat their decisions as coming from a towering body of great legal knowledge.

If I appoint 9 arch conservative born-again Christian lawyers to the SC you know very well they will "interpret" almost every law differently than the judges who are there now. You can, if you so desire, "interpret" all sorts of laws in just about any way you want. Especially if you have a lot of biases and prejudices, and are a political activist, as the two recent judges were.

And, of course, those who get to be judges in the first place are not selected for their great wisdom or ability. They're political suckups, some of them, apparently, having bought their robes by giving free legal services to the Liberals in Quebec.

So please don't preach to us about how the SC only interprets laws, but doesn't make them.

[Argus]

Take my word for it, the Supreme God being referred to here is the Christian one.

Gee, I always thought there was just one God, which was the creator of everybody: muslims, jews, hindus, etc. But I'll take your word for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There may or may not be only one God. But how that God is described and the rules that God apparently has chosen for His people are vastly different depending on whose description and version of God you choose to accept.

Most of them are fairly silly at any rate.

[Argus]

How is it a christian value to contemptuously deny basic rights to other people? I don't think the New Testament said anything about homosexuality, but it says a lot about respecting others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Homosexual marriage is not and has never been considered a "basic right" by anyone at any time in history anywhere on this planet.

[Argus]

The greatest disparity in the world at this time is to be found in the US - greater than in the developing countries by the way - and the Union movement there now covers only 12% of the working population.

If you mean disparity in wealth you are quite wrong.

Harris set out to break unions that were already too weak to have any great effect on society other than in a few industries. The few strong public unions could not get public support for their resistance from a labour force that was otherwise un-unionized.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Unions declared war on Harris before he was even elected, and vowed to fight him tooth and nail on every issue - and did so. They set themselves up as his political enemies and there is no surprise at all that he returned their disdain. The public service union leaders cost their employees dearly for the sake of their own politics. Harris did not need to treat the OPSEU members he laid off as badly as he did, but given the obstructionism and venom of the OPSEU leaders he clearly saw no reason to care what happened to their members. Any more than the OPSEU leadership did.

In all your talk about unions, Eureka, some of which I agree with, btw, you leave out the fact that the leadership of the big unions is made up of people whose actions are based more on their radically left political ideology than the interests or welfare of their membership. In some cases they deliberately sacrifice their members interests in the sake of political ideology. This is one of the reasons there is so little affection for unions even among union membership. I know no one in my union who has much more than contempt for the head of PSAC, or for the entire PSAC leadership, for that matter. And if we were able to vote directly, none of them would be in office. Unfortunately, union democracy hasn't worked for a long time.

[betsy]

The institution of marriage as we knew it? Pleease. Again, why are you not out crusading to reinstate the previous laws for divorce? Why are you not boycotting advertisers of FOX TV shows like Married by America?

I don't see how my heterosexual marriage is in any way affected by SSM. Even if I had something against homosexuality, I think I could summon the strength to mind my own business enough to let them live as they want to live.

No-fault divorce had really diminished marriage, that is why I referred to this latest blow to marriage as the final nail.

Crusading against divorce is not the issue.

This discussion stemmed from the SSM as an example of a minority group imposing its will on the majority.

Some Liberal MPs were opposed to SSM. A couple of NDP MPs were also opposed to SSM, if I'm not mistaken, but were pressured to support the party's stance on the issue....or had voluntarily left the party(?).

Liberals did not abdicate from their responsibility by giving the task to decide to the court....not because of wanting to avoid deciding on an unpopular issue.

Martin simply wanted to make sure the law will pass, and knowing some of their MPs are opposed to it, they decided to ensure it by letting the court decide instead. Layton supported Martin in ignoring the majority.

MPs were inundated by calls and protests from their constituents....the people!

Some did not stop from there. They had taken out ads in various papers, demanding a referendum on the issue.

You may not see how your heterosexual marriage is in any way affected by the SSM, that's your business. But there are other people besides you....a majority, in fact...who see differently from you. Some of them are homosexuals too.

You know what, I wouldn't be surprised at all if a referendum was conducted among gays and lesbians...and find out that majority of them actually supports preserving the true definition of marriage.

I can...and I was minding my own business enough to let anyone live the way they want to live. But I do mind when they turn to me and demand, "Okay, now let's change the way you believe."

[BubberMiley]

Nobody will ever change the way you believe. And nobody's forcing anything on you. You don't have to have a gay marriage, if that's what you're worried about. You'll still be free to marry whomever you wish.

[Argus]

Nobody will ever change the way you believe. And nobody's forcing anything on you. You don't have to have a gay marriage, if that's what you're worried about. You'll still be free to marry whomever you wish.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can I marry my niece?

[BubberMiley]

Argus, what is it with you and kiddie porn and incest?

[Canuck E Stan]

Don't know about the niece marriage but.....

Woman weds dolphin

She kissed him, to the cheers of the spectators and then, after the ceremony was sealed with some mackerels, was tossed into the water so she could swim away with her new husband.

"I'm the happiest girl on earth," the bride was quoted as saying.

"I made a dream come true. And I am not a pervert."

[betsy]

And nobody's forcing anything on you.

Martin had just recently forced me ....and the majority...to accept the new definition of marriage. :angry: