The Canadian Farce of Rights and Freedoms #2

Rights and Freedoms Permissions in Canada.

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".

The Canadian Farce of Rights and Freedoms

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a document that chains the people of Canada to a contradiction riddled and unapologetically statist perversion of the concepts of individual freedom and liberty.

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:"

This is the first line of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So, in a document that claims to innumerate and codify the rights and freedoms of the people of Canada the first sentence contains a statement which, if examined rationally and without compromise, would lead to such a host of contradictions that the whole thing ought to have been thrown out of any 1st year law class.

Principle is defined in part as; a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived:

If it is true that Canada recognizes the Supremacy of God then which God?

No, there is no scope here to quibble and claim as many progressively minded people do that the statement is a generalization regarding the spiritual nature of any and all belief in a supernatural deity or notion, because to claim that is to allow a multitude of contradictions.

Remember the word "principles"? Well religions in Canada - which are the earthy manifestation of "God" - who according to our charter is "supreme" - don't recognize or even allow the same principles to be exercised. While some sects of the Christian religion recognize in principle (and action) the right of two men or two women to marry, the Catholic God most certainly does not; and that is one of the more benign contradictions of the notion of "principle" that this fallacious statement incurs.

Who's principle wins?

What sort of principle (fundamental, primary, or general law or truth) if any is upheld?

If you claim that the sentence is merely a recognition of spirituality what principles do we hold as true and which ones are the ones our nation is actually founded upon?

If we as a society get to pick and choose which "principles" we allow our nameless, faceless, secular Deity-thing to actually count as our founding principles why do we bother even trying to shroud the first sentence of this aberration of Rights in a spiritual cloak in the first place?

As for the remainder of the sentence, I have no complaint with the principle of "the rule of Law". That is not to say that I don't have issue with the things that we have been saddled with as "Law" but I'll get into those points as I delve further into this despicable document.

In Other News...

Rain falls, Dogs bark and alcohol is addictive and bad for your liver.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that Alcohol should be banned any more than I would suggest dogs be surgically prevented from barking. The point is that the inconsistent and incomprehensible application of prohibitions in law create more problems than they solve.

Let each and every man decide what it is that he wishes to do with his own body and mind. So long as there is no initiation of force or fraud the government ought to have as much say about what I eat, drink, smoke, snort or inject as it does over how often I have a good bowel movement.

The Face of Anarchy

There seem to be a lot of young people who sing the praises of anarchy. Anarchism advocates;

“a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy. It seeks to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations.”
*

The Anarchist will tell you that it is the state or capitalism or the world bank, or some conspiracy of rich and powerful that is responsible for the woes of modern society. They will tell you that if we were all just free to act as individuals without the confines of state or multinational corporations with their laws and force, money and power we would all be better off.

Right.

Last weekend Toronto got to see what anarchy really breeds. It’s not peace, it’s not freedom, it is brutal, mindless violence and destruction. It is the law of the pack, and as an individual you are one with the pack or you are its prey.

Now I do not hold a Hobbesian view of man. I do not believe that a man must completely subordinate himself to a “sovereign” (state or king) or face a life that is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”, but I do believe that there is a proper place for the state as a protector of unalienable rights and those rights alone can make individuals sovereign.

The Anarchist dismisses the role of the state, and while they lay claim to some notion of rights they rely on the individual alone to assert his own individual sovereignty, they call for each man to be his own law. The result of course is that if one man's “law” is stronger than another's, by hook or by crook, with no one to counter their will or force, then the brute will win, and the weaker man will loose.

Now the Anarchists involved with the G20 protests would probably tell you that they only vandalized the apparatus of the state - police cars and the like - or the establishment - multinational corporations and banks. What is more they would claim that this vandalism is in keeping with their view of sovereign individuals, but those attacks are a dire warning to any real individual.

The small businessman ought not to heave a sigh of relief at being spared this weekend but he and everyone else ought to consider that under anarchy, the moment the mob recognizes you or your life’s work as established (and by definition, of the establishment) then you are doomed. Any right to property or person that you may have had while the mob’s focus was elsewhere is gone, suddenly you are not a person; you are not of the mob. You don’t matter.

Dog eat Dog is a euphemism often used in conjunction with capitalism and capitalists but I’ve yet to see a businessman operate with the sheer animal violence of the Anarchists. So when you watch TV tonight and you see the businessman cleaning his ruined storefront and when the news flashes the images of black clad hoodlums smashing burning and destroying bear in mind that you are seeing both the true face of capitalism (productive effort) and Anarchism (mindless destruction).

Forget the Colour of the Collar

Here is a question for you. What is the difference in principal between an embezzler and an unarmed bank robber?

What is the difference between stealing for a mob boss and stealing for a legal and legitimate organization?

The answer is of course none. There is no difference, theft is theft, force is force. So why do we have a distinction of "white collar" and "blue collar" crime?

Lady justice is supposed to be blind but do we as a society draw aside the blindfold just enough to let her know if the person standing accused has a good education or is more well to do? Apparently so.

The story of Benoît Corbeil makes that abundantly clear. The maximum sentence for theft over $5000.00 is life imprisonment, according to this chart, can you imagine our imaginary unarmed bank robber being sentenced for only 15 months after stealing $117,315? Could you imagine a judge entertaining an appeal on the grounds that such a sentence was "too onerous"?

It's time to put the blindfold back on Lady Justice and start handing out sentences for theft that reflect the actual crime.

By the way Corbeil, as far as you loosing your job at Université du Québec à Montréal that is something you should have considered before becoming a thief and a criminal.

Peace? Order?? Good Government!?!?

"In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." Ayn Rand

This travesty stems directly from a pragmatic (and cowardly) approach to law enforcement.

The fact that a massive operation would have to be undertaken by police to secure the Brown's rights and that native bands across the country would respond with force and violence means that the Browns are left without any rights.

That is the compromise here, a festering standoff, masquerading as "peace" for the rights of an innocent family.

Disgusting.

Less Than A Parent

Is this for the rights and interests of children or against the rights and interests of Fathers?

I understand the need to legally protect the rights of children in custody battles. Being minors their voice and interest can often be lost in their parents bitterness and sundry legal machinations.

But wouldn't it have been much more proper for Minister Nicholson to say;

"The interests of children must take priority over a father's a parents right to an equal parenting role after divorce,"

As spoken, the Minister is advocating the dismissal of one parents rights based soley upon sex. Many fathers already believe that in a divorce, the mother is given preferential treatment in custody and in today's day and age that is a crime.

The statement from the minister is nothing more than a glimpse at his own predjudice, and that of many other people. It is the predjudice that labels mothers as being the nurtuting, loving, child rearing masters of men, It is sexist, baseless, discriminatory and illegal.

It's high time that equality started to mean equality all the time for everyone in this country.

Missing The Point

I beg your pardon?

This is what happens when context is forgotten.

The context is not the fact that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi has terminal prostrate cancer. The context is that this piece of human flotsom was directly responsible for the brutal massacre of two hundred and seventy people.

Before Scottish justice minister, Kenny Macaskill releases al-Megrahi (if he chooses to do so) he should have to explain his rationale for doing so based on "compassionate grounds" to the families of every one of al-Megrah's victims.


Just in case you were wondering...
Com⋅pas⋅sion - {kuhm-pash-uhn} - a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering.

A Nation Of Laws, Not Of Men

Am I referring to America?

Nope not today. Today I'm talking about Honduras.

The recent Exile of leftist President Manuel Zelaya (background Q&A) from that small, mostly forgotten former Banana Republic has caused quite a stir. The OAS, the UN and even his divineness Barrack Obama have condemned the move.

Those of you who follow Uncommon Sense to any degree would know that normally it would take little else for me to support the Hondurans but those condemnations. However, add in Hugo Chavez's offer to reinstate his leftist friend (by force if need be) and Daniel Ortega's enthusiastic (one might say marionette-like) support for Hugo (reminds me of the way the old soviet block countries would issue similar scripted condemnations en-mass any time they perceived a threat the the Warsaw pact... ) and my support would seem to be clinched. But I'm not nearly so shallow.

The exile of Zelaya was a legal constitutional act undertaken by the military under orders from the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress.

THIS WAS NOT A COUP!

Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution a President that violates the principle of alternation of the Presidency or even proposes its reform, will "immediately cease in the exercise of office". So the simple act of proposing this reform (which no one is arguing did happen) removes a President from office ispo jure (by operation of law). (H/T)

As for his expulsion from the Country that too is covered in the Honduran Constitution under Article 42 which says in part; (*)

ARTICLE 42 .- The quality of citizen is lost:

5. For inciting, encouraging or supporting the continuity or re-election of the President of the Republic.

- In the cases referred to in paragraphs 1) and 2) the declaration of loss of citizenship will file
- For the cases of paragraphs 3) and 6) the statement will be made by the Executive Power by a government agreement,
- and for the cases of subparagraphs 4) and 5) also by governmental agreement, after the sentence handed down by the competent courts.

On top of all this constitutional authority the majority... let me say that again the MAJORITY of the Honduran Congress, the duly elected members of the Honduran government supported the removal of Zelaya, and it was Ordered by the Supreme Court of Honduras!

So why is this an issue? Why are Canada and the USA, the most mature and stable democracies in the Americas supporting the OAS and the Peoples Banana Republics of Venezuella and Nicaragua in condemning Honduras? We ought to be standing and cheering this triumph of law in a place that has had real Coups in the past.

Alas, once again we seem to be applying our own standards to a political system and nation completely disimlar to ours. There is no provision for revoking a citizenship in Canada and our supreme court would not (probably could not) issue such an order as quickly to prevent a would be dictator like Zelaya.

So the Hondurans are living by and abiding by their own constitution, and their constitutional law and we (speaking specifically of Canada and the USA) are siding with the politically correct collectivists of the OAS/UN and the real enemies of freedom (Chavez and his ilk) in condemning them for it.

Here is a young, stable, constitutionally formed Republic showing us what it really means to be a "Nation of Laws, not of Men" and we are censuring them for it.

Shame on us.

Escalating Crime

I'm not going to get into the rights and wrongs of this... in that I mean I am not going to chastise the cop for doing his duty by enforcing what is apparently a law in Laval. My question is this... How the hell did something as stupid as this get to be a law?

When did it become the purview of government (at whatever level) to protect us from something as pedestrian (pardon the pun) as falling down?

I think I see the rationale behind this and it is a direct result of government involvement in what aught to be a private concern - the provision of public transportation.

Picture this. A man is on an escalator and not holding onto the handrail. the escalator breaks down and stops suddenly. The man, not holding on falls down and is injured.

Being that the escalator's unexpected stop is the reason for his fall and the owner of the elevator is the city the man sues the city for causing his injuries.

The city looses the case for whatever reason, perhaps the escalator was not properly maintained. Having lost the case the city is forced to pay compensation for injuries (and in today's day and age probably pays for the man's "mental anguish" and "post traumatic stress injury" as well) and looks to ensure that this sort of incident will never happen again.

Now because the city has the legislated power of government in it's jurisdiction it solves the problem by making not holding onto the handrail of a public escalator a crime.

Enter our young woman and the cop... the result is almost predictable.

How would that scenario have played out in a laissez faire capitalist nation in which the government does not control business and has no responsibility aside from providing funding for the police, military and courts?

First of all the subway would have been privately owned... step #1 in ensuring freedom. So the owner of the subway may have been sued (as in the first instance) and the result may have been the same. This would lead to the business owner making his own policy.

That policy would probably consist of a sign telling patrons to hold the handrail and absolving the owner of any responsibility for injuries occurring as a result of a person not complying with the policy. So when the young woman reached for something in her purse she was not covered against injury should she fall.

She would not have been fined, she would not have been arrested. The resources of the state would not be wasted prosecuting a nonsensical bureaucratic edict and the police officer could have been out patrolling the streets, stopping or investigating real crimes.

Rand was correct (as she so often is) when she wrote...

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

Welcome to Canada Mr. Galloway

There has been quite some row over the Canadian government's decision to not permit British MP George Galloway to enter the country.

Reading the comments left at the link above it is easy to see that on one side you have those who see his support for terrorism (in the form of actual financial aid to Hamas) as the antithesis of Canada's position and on the other you have those useful idiots claiming that this is the conservative government clamping down on free speech.

Now I'm all for free speech, pure unfettered free speech, without any trace of censorship of any kind. I don't want the HRC to tell anyone what they can and can not say. You want to spout ignorance and hate, go ahead and prepare to reap what you sow.

But what Galloway is doing is not speech. His financial aid to terrorists is not the equivalent of a hate filled pamphlet, hell... Ernst Zundel was a Canadian citizen and we kicked him out of the country for writing about the kind of hate that Galloway pays for.

When it comes to Jews, Zundel lied, and Galloway helps ensure they die. For that simple fact I say we should welcome Mr Galloway into Canada.

Further, I suggest he enjoy his stay in Dorchester at the request of the Canadian Government and in concurrence with our laws.

The Unsentencing Circle

I have nothing to say about this except...

"Elders in a 24-member sentencing circle recommended that Pauchay not be sent to prison."

...

Thank you Judge Morgan.

Ignoble Savages

Enough is enough. Jonathan Kay hits the mark here, but he waivers from the final goal in my opinion.

As long as we compartmentalize our justice system into racial (native sentencing circles), religious (sharia law) and economic (white collar/blue collar) crime then we will never have any justice.

If Christopher Pauchay can commit manslaughter and does not bear the same punishment as the drunk driver that mows down a family then there is no justice.

If we allow one religion to gain quasi judicial powers but then take children from the parents of other religious sects when they try to live by their own moral code then our justice is arbitrary.

If when a businessman defrauds his company, stockholders and investors he doesn't do his time alongside the bank robber and thief then justice isn't blind, it's a bigot, and we as a society remain ignoble savages

"Government has no place in the bedrooms of the Nation"

Unless your one of them

Well I guess the definition of "them" as I use it here has changed, it used to include homosexuals, and before that there was the moral outrage of mixed marriage, and before that it was between religions and sects of religions...

Too bad no high-minded modern politician has ever really meant to abide by the ideals of freedom and liberty.

Do I support Polygamy? Polyandry? Polygyny? No, not explicitly. What I do support unequivocally is the right for every man woman and child to live their lives as they see fit, in complete liberty.

Let me spell this out. As long as you live your life without initiating force on any other human being I don't care what you do.

For the hard of thinking out there that means that in so far as the people involved in polygamy are all consenting adults in the maturity of their faculties it's none of our business as individuals or as a society what they do.

We are free to judge and even to condemn the residents of Bountiful as individuals, but to use the states monopoly of force against them is obscene, any prohibition on the private affairs of individuals is.

Some common sense from a politician (for a change)

From the Wall Street Journal. If he represents the "new wave" of Republicans, along with Governor's Palin and Bobby Jindal (among others), then maybe the Republican Party has the nucleus of a new team. Give them until 2012 to clean house internally and build a new platform on "Classical Liberal" principles like freedom of expression, property rights and the Rule of Law (or in the American idiom; "Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness") and they will have a winning combination. The chaos and economic uncertainty of the next four years won't hurt their chances either:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122670755063129989.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

Don't Bail Out My State
South Carolina's governor says more debt isn't the answer.
By MARK SANFORD

I find myself in a lonely position. While many states and local governments are lining up for a bailout from Congress, I went to Washington recently to oppose such bailouts. I may be the only governor to do so.

But I suspect I'm not entirely alone, as there are a lot of taxpayers who aren't pleased with Christmas coming early for politicians. And I hope these taxpayers make their voices heard before Democrats load up the next bailout train for states with budget deficits.

Several questions led me to oppose bailing out the states. They are worth asking, even if you supported bailing out Wall Street.

Who bails out the "bail-outor"?

Washington is short on cash these days and will borrow every dime of the $150 billion to $300 billion for the "stimulus" bill now being worked on. Federal appetites may know no bounds. But the federal government's ability to borrow is not limitless. Already, our nation's unfunded liabilities total $52 trillion -- about $450,000 per household. There's something very strange about issuing debt to solve a problem caused by too much debt.

Do you now have to be a financial "bad boy" to win?

Community bankers tell me that they are now at a competitive disadvantage for being careful about who to lend to, because others that were less disciplined will get a federal bailout. This is also true for states. Those that have been fiscally responsible will pay for or lose out to the big spenders. California increased spending 95% over the past 10 years (federal spending went up 71% over the same period). To bail out California now seems unfair to fiscally prudent states.

Was the economist Herb Stein wrong when he said that if something cannot go on forever, it won't?

Medicaid grew 9.5% annually over the past 10 years. That's unsustainable. But if Congress opens the checkbook now, there will be no reform.

Isn't government intervention supposed to be the last resort and come only when it can make a difference?

In 2008 bailouts became the first resort. Over the past year the federal government has committed itself to $2.3 trillion (including the tax rebate "stimulus" checks of last February) to "improve" the economy. I don't see how another $150 billion now will make a difference in a global slowdown. We've already unloaded truckloads of sugar in a vain attempt to sweeten a lake. Tossing in a Twinkie will not make the difference.

However, there is something Congress can do: free states from federal mandates. South Carolina will spend about $425 million next year meeting federal unfunded mandates. The increase in the minimum wage alone will cost the state $2.6 million and meeting Homeland Security's REAL ID requirements will cost $8.9 million.

Based on what I saw in Washington, the bailout train is being loaded up. Taxpayers will have to speak up now to change its freight, tab or departure.

Mr. Sanford, a Republican, is the governor of South Carolina.

An Army of Brownshirts?

Senator Obama has proposed a Civilian National Security Force with the same "power and funding" as the Armed Forces. As a student of history, this doesn't sound very comforting; since most totalitarian regimes developed parallel armed forces to the military (think of the Soviet MVD "Ministry of the Interior" troops for a simple example). While creating an army of Brownshirts or Stormtroopers may not be the reason for a Civilian National Security Force, we need to know what, exactly, it is. (I note that we potentially have lots of integration issues considering how our forces are intertwined through NORAD, Northern Command, NATO etc.)

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2008/11/01/civilian-national-security-force/

Civilian National Security Force
BY Herschel Smith

So Obama wants to quit relying on the U.S. military alone to implement U.S. national security objectives. Okay, in contemporary slang, The Captain’s Journal is “down with that.” So he’s going to get the State Department playing on the same side as the military? Er … maybe not.

“Just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well funded.” So the astute observer and deep thinker might reflect for a minute and be compelled to pose several questions (although the MSM won’t).

1. How will this Civilian National Security Force (hereafter CNSF) be just as powerful as men with guns, artillery, ordnance, war ships and aircraft?
2. What will make the CNSF “just as strong” as the U.S. Marine Corps?
3. How will this CNSF implement national security policy?
4. Since the 2009 budget includes just over half a trillion dollars for defense spending (The Captain’s Journal supports this, and calls for even more), and since it is judged that this CNSF be “just as well funded” as the military, where will this half a trillion dollars come from?
5. Finally, if he didn’t really mean that this CNSF would be the beneficiary of half a trillion dollars (to do with we don’t know what), then why did he say so?

At any rate, these questions seem to be compelled by the proposal. The best bet, however, is that the MSM won’t pose a single one of them (but we do get to add another snappy sounding category to our stable of articles - Civilian National Defense Force).

Ezra Wins A Victory

Of sorts...

This more than anything exposes the Human "Rights" Commissions for the capricious, malicious and malevolent group of petty apparactchik that they really are.

Like a bully that's had his nose bloodied by one of the little guy's he's been picking on the HRC's have run away in fear, but now isn't the time for us "Freespeechers" to pick up our books. Now is the time to chase the bastards down and finish giving them the thrashing they so richly deserve.

Fire. Them. All.

Fire. Them. All.

Thank you Ezra.

H/T SDA & No Libs

The National Post Gets It...

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

The article is one of those equivocation pieces the main stream media is so fond of, and in true style it paints a picture of modern (Canadian) man as a petty, selfish immoral brute that needs to be told what can and can not be said.

That mentality drags us all back to the darkest Dickinsonian days of the industrial revolution, where abuse, exploitation and racism abounded. But is that the kind of world we live in today? Are the majority of Canadians predisposed to racism and hatred? It’s a basic question, are we moral creatures or are we just animals with utensils?

I can tell you how some would like us to answer those questions, for it has long been the joy of traditional media to cast humanity in the worst light. To twist our society into a caricature where one is either an oppressor or a victim, with a dash of “Yes Veronica there is a Santa Claus” thrown in for stark contrast.

This perversion has been accepted over time by populations and governments. It has led us to the garden path we are on, strewn with fabricated rights like potted plants, for because we are so evil and so predisposed to harm, abuse and degrade other men we must be constrained against ourselves.

We can’t rely on human nature because human nature is weak and evil.

We can’t appeal to compassion because we are only animals incapable of caring.

In truth, it is possible to look at our society and see all of that, but the premise is incorrect.

The reason we see our society in decline is because of these potted plant rights. Because of them we can’t rely on hundreds of years of liberal thought and the few basic and true rights like liberty, equality and property because the fabricated rights we’ve created have weakened those inalienable rights and rendered them impotent.

With every new right, with every caveat included in our national laws we weaken our liberty. And those fabricated rights, incapable of sustaining themselves need to be watered and nurtured by fabricated bureaucracies who’s sole purpose is to ensure that the fabrication is given due consideration. And having precious little to do these bureaucracies seek to ensure their survival by perverting the weakness that they themselves have created in our society. Soon the garden path is a jungle, a jungle in need of a clear cutting.

There is not one, single solitary complaint brought to the CHRC that could not have been resolved with pre-existing law.

Ernst Zundel didn’t need to be tried in a kangaroo court, he needed to have the full weight of existing law rallied against him. Furthermore he needed to face the honest and righteous wrath of ordinary Canadians, he needed to be ostracized, to be loathed, and held up to contempt by every honourable, moral Canadian. And what is more is that we Canadians needed to do it. We needed to stand up as individuals and as a society to be counted, to counter the idea that we don’t care, that we are immoral and that we need to be prodded to act.

We don’t need the CHRC we need freedom of speech, freedom to speak in unvarnished, blunt and forthright language. We need to speak up and out for our society against racism, against intolerance against fanaticism and against all those who would seek to silence such speech.

As Ezra Levant has said time and again “Fire them all”

Signs of the Collectivist Apocalypse (SOTCA)

More rights ≠ More liberty

More rights ≠ More Freedom

More rights = A wrong

We are quickly sliding into the realm of a 'rights' tyranny. With every new "right" concocted by our hypersensitive, overly judicious, politically correct, namby-pamby nanny state, someone else looses a right.

Your right to ensure that the people you hire will do what it was that they were hired for in the first place is contravened by someone else's right to disobey and mooch. (H/T to Ezra)

Your right to free speech is contravened by someone else's (Syed Soharwardy) right to not be "offended".

Your right to have an opinion and express it is contravened by someone else's right to not have it published (McLeans Magazine & Mark Stein).

Your right to call someone an ass for being an ass is contravened by his right to not have his feelings hurt. (Kate at SDA vs. Richard Warman)

Your right to property is contravened by someone else's right to lay claim to that property (Caledonia).

Your right to protect the beliefs you hold dear is contravened by someone else's right to do what your belief tells you is sinful and immoral (Priest charged for Preaching that homosexuality is a sin).

So much for the freedom our rights were supposed to provide, but hey, NONE of our rights were ever guaranteed.

From our glorious illiberal ill-conceived and poorly legislated Charter of 'rights and freedoms'

(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and
b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.