Education, Language, Civil, Abortion Rights: State Level?

[August1991]

In Canada, we leave education entirely to the provincial level.

Language? We are officially bilingual at the federal level. Our federal government must communicate in both languages - that's all.

Civil rights? Huh? How private people deal with one another? Each province decides this in its own way. A mess.

Abortion? In Canada, we have a federal court decision that means abortion is legal up to birth date.

(Note: Some provinces do not have abortion clinics. Women must travel.)

=====

I favour State-rignts in a federal regime.

I reckon the US Supreme Court was correct to overthrow Roe-Wade.

 

[Michael Hardner]

I LIKE the post but not sure if I agree.

People who are nationalistic seem to me to favour strong rights for state/province.  I find that to be paradoxical.

[User]

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I LIKE the post but not sure if I agree.

People who are nationalistic seem to me to favour strong rights for state/province.  I find that to be paradoxical.

How so?

 

[August1991]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I LIKE the post but not sure if I agree.

People who are nationalistic seem to me to favour strong rights for state/province.  I find that to be paradoxical.

The US fought a Civil War on the right of separate jurisdictions to decide slavery.

Should provinces decide the language of education?

 

[August1991]

7 minutes ago, User said:

How so?

 

To me, the US federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 is antithetical to my Canada.

I understand the American issues.

Edited July 28, 2024 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

30 minutes ago, August1991 said:

The US fought a Civil War on the right of separate jurisdictions to decide slavery.

Should provinces decide the language of education?

 

I think provinces do that today. Yes. Hard to say, but states rights with regards to abortion seem to fly against having other civil human rights apply nationally. 

We had someone on here who had some institutional legal knowledge with regards to constitutions. I would like to hear from them.

[User]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

but states rights with regards to abortion seem to fly against having other civil human rights apply nationally. 

Abortion is not a "civil human right" outlined in our Constitution. 

 

38 minutes ago, August1991 said:

To me, the US federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 is antithetical to my Canada.

How so?

I imagine almost everything in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is already part of Canadian law if not more so, certainly the key components. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, User said:

1. Abortion is not a "civil human right" outlined in our Constitution. 

2. I imagine almost everything in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is already part of Canadian law if not more so, certainly the key components. 

 

1. Sure, I can see why you would say that. It's a rights issue though.

2. There still have been laws passed, rulings made and so on.

 

.

[User]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Sure, I can see why you would say that. It's a rights issue though.

It is simply a fact. It is a rights issue, a right-to-life issue for the babies being killed. 

[Moonlight Graham]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I think provinces do that today. Yes. Hard to say, but states rights with regards to abortion seem to fly against having other civil human rights apply nationally. 

We had someone on here who had some institutional legal knowledge with regards to constitutions. I would like to hear from them.

Constitutions set out what is state/provincial rights vs federal, including who should control undelineated rights.  These are essentially arbitrary and done through negotiation of the constitution between states/provinces when its written.

At the end of the day, popular support for state vs federal rights is about power and control.  Generally, people who favour abortion rights want the power and control to have those rights as widespread as possible, and the same goes for people who are against abortion.

For most people, supporting a right being state vs federal will simply depend on what benefits their cause the most.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Constitutions set out what is state/provincial rights vs federal, including who should control undelineated rights.  These are essentially arbitrary and done through negotiation of the constitution between states/provinces when its written.

At the end of the day, popular support for state vs federal rights is about power and control.  Generally, people who favour abortion rights want the power and control to have those rights as widespread as possible, and the same goes for people who are against abortion.

For most people, supporting a right being state vs federal will simply depend on what benefits their cause the most.

I absolutely agree with everything you've written here. But deciding who or what is a human being... Is there any way to argue that there should be variances in these definitions... Anywhere?

[Moonlight Graham]

8 minutes ago, User said:

It is simply a fact. It is a rights issue, a right-to-life issue for the babies being killed. 

It's a conflict of rights.  Right to life vs right to women's body control.  Thus people disagree.

[Moonlight Graham]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

I absolutely agree with everything you've written here. But deciding who or what is a human being... Is there any way to argue that there should be variances in these definitions... Anywhere?

Most people don't care.  People will define things as it suits them.  Quebec defines "free speech" as it suits them.

You can't fairly debate these things without empathy for the other side's position.  But when things are emotional, that doesn't often happen.

What's scary is that our courts will sometimes make decisions not based on the law, but on whatever suits their personal agenda/ideology.  And people won't complain about that unless it goes against their own biases.  Isn't it interesting how easily people will rally against democracy when it suits them?

Judges are typically unelected and should not be lawmakers.  If a judge interprets law based on their own biases then they're not doing it correctly, they're acting politically, which is not what courts and judges are designed to do.  If politicians choose a judge based on their political leanings, what does that say about those politicians?  You'd think we'd choose judges based on their ability to not have leanings at all.

[User]

3 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

It's a conflict of rights.  Right to life vs right to women's body control.  Thus people disagree.

Only one is explicitly called out in the Constitution. Abortion is not. Rights often conflict, and there is a clear hierarchy of them. In regards to life vs control of body... life wins. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

11 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Most people don't care.  People will define things as it suits them.  Quebec defines "free speech" as it suits them.

You can't fairly debate these things without empathy for the other side's position.  But when things are emotional, that doesn't often happen.

What's scary is that our courts will sometimes make decisions not based on the law, but on whatever suits their personal agenda/ideology.  And people won't complain about that unless it goes against their own biases.  Isn't it interesting how easily people will rally against democracy when it suits them?

Judges are typically unelected and should not be lawmakers.  If a judge interprets law based on their own biases then they're not doing it correctly, they're acting politically, which is not what courts and judges are designed to do.  If politicians choose a judge based on their political leanings, what does that say about those politicians?  You'd think we'd choose judges based on their ability to not have leanings at all.

I'm not talking about personal arguments, or the flaws of the justice system. I am asking you to give your opinion on how a valid discussion on fundamental rights could be set up in our system. 

 

[Moonlight Graham]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm not talking about personal arguments, or the flaws of the justice system. I am asking you to give your opinion on how a valid discussion on fundamental rights could be set up in our system.

We have these discussions, but i'm just giving my thoughts on the problems with these discussions.  The problem is that they are inherently political because people are political (they want power and control), these discussions are not objective scholarly debates on ethics and constitutional theory.  Even scholars now seem increasingly political, thanks to identity politics etc

[Michael Hardner]

39 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

We have these discussions, but i'm just giving my thoughts on the problems with these discussions.  The problem is that they are inherently political because people are political (they want power and control), these discussions are not objective scholarly debates on ethics and constitutional theory.  Even scholars now seem increasingly political, thanks to identity politics etc

Ok - I got that.  I guess I can take this as a kind of acknowledgement that the problem is difficult/insurmountable ?  

The discussions still have to happen.  I think if the 'what is a person ?' discussion HAS to happen, or similar discussions around "who is allowed to marry ?" or "who is allowed to discriminate, if anyone ?" ... it should happen at the highest level of jurisdiction possible, even globally if it means anything.

[Moonlight Graham]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok - I got that.  I guess I can take this as a kind of acknowledgement that the problem is difficult/insurmountable ?  

The discussions still have to happen.  I think if the 'what is a person ?' discussion HAS to happen, or similar discussions around "who is allowed to marry ?" or "who is allowed to discriminate, if anyone ?" ... it should happen at the highest level of jurisdiction possible, even globally if it means anything.

The side of the aisle that fought to eliminate the discrimination of Jim Crow is now defending the right to discriminate against whites and males.  All this time I thought we were fighting against discrimination but that was wrong apparently, now its about "power" and any universal ethics is thrown out the window depending on the race or gender involved.  Definitions are changed to suit political agendas.  It's scary how manipulative some people are, yet we keep falling for it.

You can't have a discussion on "what is a person?" when most of the population doesn't actually care and would change their answer immediately if the opposite suddenly benefited them more.  And its not about "women's rights" in this case, it's about "my rights", they use "women's rights" to guilt men into compliance.

The fact that more and more people are resisting this nonsense isn't surprising at all.  They're pursuing a race and gender war and they're going to get it if they keep it up.

[Michael Hardner]

34 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

 

You can't have a discussion on "what is a person?" when most of the population doesn't actually care and would change their answer immediately if the opposite suddenly benefited them more.   

This is another example of us talking past each other. You're talking about something entirely different than jurisdictional and the high-level questions I was asking. 

I guess we both made points then.

[herbie]

Your civil rights are not defines by the Province. You have the same right in the Yukon Territory as you do in Nova Scotia. Quebec insists it does but they're the same rights.

And it is a major crime to kill babies. Some people just are incapable of distinguishing a fetus from a baby, so the Court did for them and they don't like that. But you do have to travel outside the Province that's the size of a small city to get one.

Otherwise we could set up stupid laws like some states in the US where a certain drug used to treat cancer and Crohn's disease but can induce abortion in large doses is illegal to dispense or for insurance to pat for. For WOMEN but not for MEN.

 

[User]

8 minutes ago, herbie said:

Some people just are incapable of distinguishing a fetus from a baby

And some people are incapable of grasping the similarities. 

I can distinguish an elderly person from a child. They are both living humans. 

[August1991]

On 7/28/2024 at 6:08 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

Constitutions set out what is state/provincial rights vs federal, including who should control undelineated rights.  These are essentially arbitrary and done through negotiation of the constitution between states/provinces when its written.

 

Constitutions?

The US Constitution (hand-written) is remarkable because it was the first description of a federal state.

It is also remarkable because it provided a way to amend it.

====

The Dutch and Swiss had created such societies. You Americans put pen to paper.

[Moonlight Graham]

22 hours ago, August1991 said:

Constitutions?

The US Constitution (hand-written) is remarkable because it was the first description of a federal state.

It is also remarkable because it provided a way to amend it.

====

The Dutch and Swiss had created such societies. You Americans put pen to paper.

Thank you for granting me American citizenship.

[August1991]

On 9/8/2024 at 1:03 AM, Moonlight Graham said:

Thank you for granting me American citizenship.

WTF?

MoonlightGraham, whether Swiss or Dutch - both created a Republic before the 1700s,

[August1991]

On 7/28/2024 at 6:08 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

Constitutions set out what is state/provincial rights vs federal, including who should control undelineated rights.  These are essentially arbitrary and done through negotiation of the constitution between states/provinces when its written.

....

Agreed. But the US Constitution has Amendments.

(Unlike the Bible or the Koran, the writers of the US Constitution knew that it would have to change. evolve - to survive.)

The writers specifically added several to show how it could be done.

(They were indicating how to have sex so the DNA of kids could be different.)

As a Canadian, my favourite is the 10th Amendment. It makes explicit that power is control. And a "right" restricts the power of the State.

Our Charter of Rights is a pale imitation but is similar.

====

A "right" is a protection against the State. The State should not discriminate on eye colour

The State should not enforce "civil rights". If I choose to discriminate on religion, it is my choice.