If you are a classically liberal thinker like myself you probably believe in the notion of unalienable rights, which is to say Rights as a precondition to living ones life as a man; To me and those like me rights are an intrinsic necessity to living as opposed to merely existing in this world.
Well, the talking heads that wrote and lawyered the Charter don't believe in Rights like that. As a matter of fact I don't think they believe in Rights at all, only the power of the state.
The second sentence of the Charter is called "Rights and Freedoms in Canada" now that is a tall order, or at least you would think it would be a hard thing to cram into a single solitary sentence but the sentence really has nothing to do with Rights and freedoms and everything to do with who will allow you, and when you will be allowed to have rights and freedoms.
It states in full; "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
This is the first of many caveats in the Charter, and like all the others it is strategically placed to nullify any statement that could give the impression that Rights and Freedoms are a part of human nature as opposed to a permission granted to men at the whim of the state/government/some random constitutional lawyer.
Read that sentence. If you do so without mincing words you will immediately recognize its intent. Were you to simplify the sentence , boiling it down to its absolute meaning it would read... The Government has decided exactly what permissions you have to act and live your life and it will also decide when you will be permitted to do so.
In other words... your rights are what we say they are when we say they are.
So much for the "Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms".
3 comments:
Well said.
And in a democracy [the government and the governed being one and the same] how could it be otherwise? We negotiate rights with the others in our society, their rights end where mine begin- and vica versa.
Ian, it's quite simple. My rights are prerequisites for me to live my
life as a human being, they are not dependent on what others want or demand that they be.
My ability to draw breath and to exist in my own way is non-negotiable, my freedom is non-negotiable, the right to make, earn and keep the product of my labour is non-negotiable.
Certainly, properly construed rights among men do not conflict, they can not by virtue of their nature. The inclusion of ridiculous things like "minority rights" makes some men more
equal in some circumstances than others and that fact alone disqualifies them as what can rationally and properly be considered as rights of men.
Post a Comment