Just A Thought
Why is opening a constitutional debate over the Notwithstanding Clause a bad thing for Canada, but opening one to enshrine property rights is not?
Stand up for Canadians: On January 23rd vote independent or spoil your ballot.
Why is opening a constitutional debate over the Notwithstanding Clause a bad thing for Canada, but opening one to enshrine property rights is not?
Stand up for Canadians: On January 23rd vote independent or spoil your ballot.
Designed by Gabfire slightly modified by stageleft
Because Stageleft, the right to own property is much more important than preventing discrimination.
I thought everyone knew that.
“the right to own property is much more important than preventing discrimination.”
Well, there you go, the hidden agenda – to hell with equality, liberty and freedom, my rights to own and use property are more important than your human rights.
A fan of Von Mises, I take it?
Man I sure hope you were being sarcastic…
Of course I was being sarcastic. And yes, I was taking a shot at their hidden agenda too.
Whew!
You’ll take away my IPod and my supply of Doritos when you can pry them from my cold, dead hands!
I think we all know what “property rights” refers to. Either guns, or consolidating the right to own the property stolen from the original inhabitants of this continent.
>>”I think we all know what “property rights†refers to. Either guns, or consolidating the right to own the property stolen from the original inhabitants of this continent.”
Would that include the land your house sits on, Ti-Guy? What’s stopping you from giving it back?
Opening the constitutional debate isn’t a bad idea.
Promising to remove the “N” clause on the spur of the moment in the middle of a TV election debate was the bad idea.
Would that include the land your house sits on, Ti-Guy? What’s stopping you from giving it back?
No, I only mean the property of people who think property rights are inalienable. Those people have to give the stuff back.
*roll eyes*
I am not sure I disagree with either option SL. lrC makes a good point about Martin’s timing on the NWC. I said as much in the other thread.
What I would like to know, sincerely, is what Libertarians mean by making statements such as “property rights should have been included in the Charter”. I have read phrases like this countless times but only now have I asked. What’s the hub bub?
The hubbub is that:
1) Section 1 states the Charter “guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it”, which is an exact definition excluding Charter guarantees of any rights and freedoms not “set out in it”; and
2) Two excellent opportunities (Sections 2 and 7) to mention property rights were passed up by the drafters (we know this was not a mere oversight).
Why would one not include “property” as a fundamental freedom or legal right except to hedge against the contingency of confiscating it?
I consider the volume demarcated by my derma to be private propery. Your mileage may vary. If we get rid of private property, then pace Trudeau, the state will have a place in the nation’s bedroom. It’s called the tragedy of the commons.
Thanks lrC I appreciate the response.
“Why would one not include “property†as a fundamental freedom or legal right except to hedge against the contingency of confiscating it?”
So the objection in general comes from the lack of protection from government to confiscate property (presumably for a reason of the “common good” such as a highway, development or government proposed new designation etc. etc.)
This is not a rhetorical question. Are their any examples of a modern Western democracy that entrenches property rights in the fashion some Libertarians in North America demand?
>>”No, I only mean the property of people who think property rights are inalienable. Those people have to give the stuff back.”
Very hypocritical of you, Ti-Guy.
*eyes not rolling*
>>”Because Stageleft, the right to own property is much more important than preventing discrimination.”
They’re both very important.
I thought everyone knew that.
First of all, Harper has always thought that property rights should have been included in the charter, as in the gov’t can’t just take it away without (a) good reason and (b) fair compensation. There was a case *gasp* in the US this summer where (going from memory, so may mess up the details) the city decided it wanted to build a (mall/office building/whatever) at a certain site & just… took the guy’s property, offering (again, by memory) either zip or below market value $ for it.
That being said, Harper has also been VERY clear that opening the constitution up for negotiation on just about anything is right up there with surgery without anasthesia on his list of fun ideas. If I recall correctly, he mentioned it when Martin opened the can of worms at the debates. From ctv.ca’s trascripts:
When I was watching this live, I took it to be a “yeah, well, in a perfect world” sort of statement, but maybe that’s because I am a small(c) conservative & have understood that to be an issue for some time. Hell, in a perfect world I’d be a millionaire & perpetual student. I have yet to quit my dayjob.
more here
He has stated, since then, on numerous occasions that he doesn’t intend to re-open the charter but will instead address some of the issues via reaching consensus with the provinces (i.e. fiscal imbalance).
PS: the property rights issue is a long-standing CPC issue (pre-CPC) with the party. When did the Liberals first raise the issue of ditching the notwithstanding clause?
Is the issue, from CPC point of view, that killing the clause is a bad plan (actually, yes, unless other checks & balances are put in place first) or that it was written on the fly & tossed out in a debate (i.e. not necessarily well thought out)?
But that wasn’t my question
One of the rationales for not getting rid of the Nothwithstanding clause that I heard many times from Conservatives (here and in Calgary and Edmonton) is that it opens up a whole constitutional can of worms described as “unnecessary”. These same people have openly supported entrenching property rights in the constitution – but do not bother mentioning that that to will require opening up the very same constitutional can of worms they complain about when Martin suggests it.
And that is why Conservatives are silly. Because its all about me, me, me, and anyone else is wrong. Period.
>So the objection in general comes from the lack of protection from government to confiscate property
There are two objections to the exercise of eminent domain:
1) Confiscation without reasonable cause.
2) Confiscation without fair compensation.
Recent cases in the US highlighted concerns of the former nature: homes and lands were expropriated not because the municipality desired to improve infrastructure, but because the municipality decided it wished to increase its property tax revenues.
There are also cases of unfair compensation (below current market value in the case of lands, or outright seizure in the case of firearms).
>One of the rationales for not getting rid of the Nothwithstanding clause that I heard
OK, you heard it. You may also safely discard it; it’s practically a nullity. The mere re-opening of debate is not a bad thing. Now you can move on to the substance: whether in the Charter as it is currently written, the clause is a useful protection against poor judicial judgement in view of the current structure of federal government in Canada.
throbbin, I disagree. If the conservatives were all about me, me, me, then re-opening the can of worms which is our Charter would be a plank in the platform. It is not, because while enshrining property rights is a (long-term) goal, it is not in the best interests of pretty much anybody to open that can of worms right now. The pressing issues are corruption at very scary highs and gov’t accountability and resolving healthcare issues and and and … way down the list are property rights.
It may not be a priority, but you Harper would Marry Paul Martin if it would give him the chance to enshrine Property Rights in the Charter. Just cause it’s not a high priority, it don’t mean he doesn’t want it. He just recognized that its not doable right now.
Per the NWC:
If that issue was so important, then why not bring it up at the beginning and attack Harper with it from the start. The simply fact is that it was brought in to try to provoke Harper into either agreeing with Martin or opposing it which would have produced great soundbites in future adds. The problem is that in the debate format it didnt allow for moments like that and as such Harper just ignored him.
Per the CWC NFC on property:
I remember a case in California about some homes on the coast near SF I think where the state used a similar law in the US to reposes the land. In that case the US law was inacted so you could produce major road arteries etc. In this case the city of SF decided those houses of lower middle class were to be destroyed for area re-development of higher value commercial property.
I have talked to a few people out here that have worked with the CPC in Edmonton and they indicate their intention is to put in riders (not sure if thats the correct legal speak) so that kind of thing cant happen – they want to have it include only roads, airports, hospitals, etc etc.
To my knowledge that is the extent of what they plan to do. That may all be BS but take it for what its worth.
Sorry for any spelling mistakes – the smell of oil and money makes my head spin
MYK