Charter Of Rights And Freedoms

[Pellaken]

for lost

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/community/foru...ct=ST&f=3&t=521

[Lost in Manitoba]

Thanks Pell. After midnight I guess my brain shuts down.

[Craig Read]

The Charter is a document that is vague, and open to abuse. All Rights documents are used by the politicians and judiciary to advance certain causes and support special interests.

Either make it concise, short and clear or strike it down. As with most Canadian legislation there was little debate or understanding on what the Charter is supposed to do. Can someone explain to me how Gay Marriage is suddenly a Charter question ?

Does that mean polygamy, eating dogs [Koreans do that], witchcraft, and virgin sacrifices should all be Charter protected ?

[Scotchneat]

Here is an abbreviated history of gay marriage and the Charter.

First, Section 15 guarantees equality. There are enumerated grounds such as sex, race, national or ethic origin etc. , however, Charter jurisprudence recognizes analogous grounds ie minority groups that have been discriminated against but are not listed. For example, in Andrew v. Law Society of B.C. , non-citizens were found to be protected.

In the Egan case, homosexuals were found to constitute an analogous group meaning they could be protected under Section 15. In the Halpern, the court apply the logic of Egan to marriage. Basically, marriage protects and grants rights and benefits to people living together and having sex. The legal definition does not mention raising children or bearing children. Therefore, since gays can live together and have sex, they should be treated as the same as heterosexuals and be allowed to marry (in brief).

However, that's not the end of the story, because there is the s.1 (Oakes test) , so if the gov't can give a justifiable reason to stop gays from marrying then gay marriage won't be recognized. However, the only objective is to enforce moral principles which are not accepted by everyone, so gay marriage stands.

[Does that mean polygamy, eating dogs [Koreans do that], witchcraft, and virgin sacrifices should all be Charter protected ? ]

Laws against polygamy may violate freedom of religion under s.2, however, polygamy could create numerous social problem so it is a justified restriction of the freedom.

Eating dogs is already legal, if done humanely.

Witchcraft could be protected under s.2 depending on what you mean by witchcraft.

Virgin sacrifices are not protected: murder is not protected by the Charter (I'll be hearing from Neal F on this one)

[Craig Read]

Good arguments.

I was thinking of opening a Korean restaurant here in TO but my tree hugger friends informed eating dog is not allowed in Canada.

I don't think the Charter is being used for what it was intended - namely the protection of certain rights for each citizen.

I don't subscribe to the belief that equality of all groups is a fundamental human right. In that case, all sorts of perverted or non essential elements can claim protection.

Gay Marriage subverts the division of power between state and church. There in proof that these people do not suffer from psychological issues.

Same can be said for all deviant groups. Dog eaters should be allowed to open restaurants given the Charter's interpretation but that is restricted.

The Charter, if it should exist, needs to be rewritten.

[Lost in Manitoba]

Nothing really to add except friend s of mine went tree planting in Prince George,BC about 10yrs ago and on the way back they passed through a resteraunt in Vancouver where they supposedly served dog. (They declined, being tree huggers and all)

[Scotchneat]

Actually, for sanitary reasons, it may be difficult to serve dog at a restaurant. I mean there is no inspection process for dog, so it might be difficult.

I haven't eaten dog but I have had horse.

[Pellaken]

serve whatever you want really. serving human meet may cause some problems though.

[RB]

i actually like the charter of rights and feedom, it is vague enough to make allowance for inclusion for some good moral arguments.

the only problem i have is that we have not made up our minds, and allow outside influence to dictate what we stand for

[Scotchneat]

The fact that many of the Charter decisions are unpopular is a good sign. I guess many Canadian long for the days when change was a long time and the wishy washy approach was the Canadian way ie gay marriage if necessary but not necessarily gay marriage.

You've come a long way baby.

[Craig Read]

Well the Charter is so vague it is open to political and judicial activist abuse.

Gay marriage is used by the Lie-berals to buy votes and appear 'compassionate'.

Of course cutting the military is okay - but defending the family, the separation of powers, the idea that all citizens have certain rights and that minorities are no more elevated than the rest - well hey that does not 'send the right message'.

Neither does it buy sectoral votes.

The Charter is a sham document.

Rip it up.

[RB]

i don't dispute that the charter is a haven for law and justice to each according to his own by whatever means

working in conjuction with the human rights act helps protect agaist violations such as sexual orientation which is prohibited grounds for violations of basic rights. what i mean is we wish to accomplish fundamental freedom as in equality rights - give people a chance to be who they are.

i believe the youths of today are more accepting of those with different sexual orientation that the mature generation

[westcoast99]

Completely support.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Gugsy

[Lost in Manitoba]

You mentioned Mark Hall, Gugsy, and the Charter protecting his rights. Well I've also read where the Charter has protected the rights of prayer groups in public schools. Does 'equality' not eventualy 'equal' out? I mean that the Charter CAN equally protect liberal and conservative minded people.

[westcoast99]

Interesting point.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Gugsy

[Lost in Manitoba]

And the upper class prep school can stop white trash parents from attending their son's grad? Or, 'so sorry sir, we don't let coloured people eat at this resteraunt.'

Rules of conduct may be a more acceptable way of approaching the situation, such as no public display of affection (kissing, grinding on the dance floor, etc.)

Discriminate and judge on the behavior of the individual, not which class, gender, sexual orientation, or race he/she falls into.

[westcoast99]

Agreed

Edited August 11, 2015 by Gugsy

[Hugo]

Unfortunately, Lost, Freedom of Association means that you can exclude anyone from any private group on any grounds, because it does not grant right of admission to a group that has refused you.

So, yes, it would be within the rights of a private school to refuse admission to white trash or of a restaurant to refuse admission to blacks. Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I very much doubt that anyone could get away with those acts, in this political climate, but theoretically they would be able to.

[Lost in Manitoba]

I don't know about that Hugo. You may be right, I'm definitely not claiming to be, but it would seem that Freedom of Ass. doesn't overrule the prohibition on discrimination. I don't understand the concept you mention of 'be within the rights' and 'doubt that anyone could get away with those acts'.

And Gugsy. Like I say above, I am no expert, but I would say that if freedom of religion is a protected right, and religion is a choice of lifestyle and beliefs, than sexual orientation, which can also be said to be a choice of lifestyle and beliefs, should also be a protected right. Shouldn't it? I'm not sure but I really don't see a difference.

[Hugo]

Right, but Nazism is a combination of lifestyle and beliefs and therefore should also be protected. You see?

What I meant by not getting away with it, is that these days the lobby groups run things so much that private organisations can't claim their rights anymore. Look at that golf club in (I think) Augusta who is under attack for not admitting women. You may think this is a Bad Thing, but near my house a women's only gym has just opened. Why are they not being attacked for sexual discrimination?

Now, I have no objection to a women's gym. I also have no objection to a men's golf club. A private organisation should be able to exclude anyone they want - but they also have to bear the consequences! A private business could refuse to serve Jews, but when they lose business from boycotts, nobody should bail them out. Freedom of association, but not freedom from responsibility. By that example, it would be fine for people to boycott the Augusta golf club, but it's not OK for them to try and make a court force them into changing their admission rules.

Public organisations are different. Since they are paid for by citizens, all citizens should have right of membership.

[Lost in Manitoba]

What if you discriminate against a group so small and unknown and there are no activists coming to the rescue with rallies and boycotts?

[Hugo]

Define "discriminate against." Refuse to serve in a store? Well, too bad, and sorry if that rankles, but business owners have the right of refusal, whereas customers have no right to service.

Here's an example. Let's say I'm a big Nazi and I own and run the Big Nazi Convenience Store. A Jewish man comes in, and I tell him to get out and refuse to serve him. The store premises are my property. The store stock is my property. Why would I not have the right to tell somebody to leave my privately owned premises and to refuse to sell somebody my privately owned stock?

The reason does not matter, the fact is that it's all owned by me and I can do whatever the hell I want with it as long as it's not directly causing harm to anyone, and refusing to serve a Jew is not causing direct harm to him.

[KrustyKidd]

Define "discriminate against." Refuse to serve in a store? Well, too bad, and sorry if that rankles, but business owners have the right of refusal, whereas customers have no right to service.

If your refusal is based on anythng other than the other's behavior then it is not allowed.

Interesting though, you bring up something previously not seen by myself; descriminatory refusal to honor a business or employer because of his race or beliefs. Quite the can of worms for the racial warriors. Track down every passerby and haul their sorry butts into court for non purchases.

**** Side note to the sue monkeys. Here is a perfect way to make big $$$$$. Wear an SS uniform complete with jackboots and a Nazi flag and walk into any jewish owned store, better yet a kosher restaurant. When refused service get it all on the eyeglass big bro cam and take 'em to Liberal court.

[Lost in Manitoba]

Hugo, the supposed right you mention to discriminate were fought by people like Rosa Parks and MLKjr, and the entire civil rights movement.

I've wondered about that tangled argument before, if you owned a business why should you have to deal with customers that had lifestyles you didn't approve of?

I think you could look at it in a authoritarian vs. libertarian light, but essentially it is more of an egalitarian / social contract issue; your rights will be upheld unless they infringe on someone elses.

I see things in our society that runs contrary to that though. Curves for Women, Affirmitive action, etc...

[Hugo]

Hugo, the supposed right you mention to discriminate were fought by people like Rosa Parks and MLKjr, and the entire civil rights movement.

No, actually it was not. They fought against segregation law which was official public discriminatory policy. Rosa Parks was arrested and fined $10 plus $4 court costs for violating Montgomery segregation law, which was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on November 13, 1956, and overturned.

Discrimination by private individuals and their privately-owned institutions is a wholly different matter. I firmly believe, as Parks and King Jr. did, that public discrimination is wrong, but when you begin dictating to individuals who they may choose to associate with you are removing their freedoms, not adding to them.