Quake3World

Canis wrote:

Law wrote:Looks like the topic is perhaps a little too complex for some.

This board gets filled with philosophical debates all the time. Its too much of a burden to get involved with every one of them.

My comment was more in reference of the post made by foo(l).

Law wrote:
Yes, perhaps one way of looking at it is to acknowledge that an excessively right-prone society is "too free".

mother russia would be proud of you, son.

Don't for a second believe that i'm not concerned with human rights.

I see what's going on here. Law is a fascist.

Yes that's it you got me.

Law wrote:Don't for a second believe that i'm not concerned with human rights.

you're concerned that people might get them and that they might be well defined and interpretable by the courts?

http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

now that's a charter.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:I see what's going on here. Law is a fascist.

Strawmen in vogue?

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:

Law wrote:Don't for a second believe that i'm not concerned with human rights.

you're concerned that people might get them and that they might be well defined and interpretable by the courts?

I'm concerned that peoples rights are already well represented through case law, that defining rights actually places limitations on them, and that a uniform implementation of rights ignores the fundamental freedoms of the individual.

Law wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:

Law wrote:Don't for a second believe that i'm not concerned with human rights.

you're concerned that people might get them and that they might be well defined and interpretable by the courts?

I'm concerned that peoples rights are already well represented through case law, that defining rights actually places limitations on them, and that a uniform implementation of rights ignores the fundamental freedoms of the individual.

But a Bill of Rights is likely going to recognize past case law and not nullify it unless it doesn't meet the universal standards set out in such a bill. Are you afraid the standards would be too weak?

examples from Candian Charter...

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.


And I do believe you're way off base in your last point. A modern Charter (when I say modern, I'm refering to a Charter drafted by a legislative body not by some tin pot tyrant) would validate rights and freedoms not ignore them. That is unless you are specifically refering to the abrogation of rights which might occur during war time or other rare circumstances. In a case like that, rights can be limited and I do find it troubling. But that's what courts are for, to determine the balance between the rights of the individual versus the security of all in a society.

It's very true what you say. As far as my last point I only mean it in relation to Australia. The Australian law experience has been one of varying laws in the different regions of such a vast territory. I don't see how a Bill of Rights can fairly apply a single approach to sensitive local issues throughtout the entire country. I prefer the respect of democratic opinion.

law students! *squee!*

Law wrote:I don't see how a Bill of Rights can fairly apply a single approach to sensitive local issues throughtout the entire country.

Usually a bill of rights covers universal, inalienable rights, such as freedom of speech and due process.

It can also cover much more, take the New Zealand BOR as an example:

-Life and the security of the person
-Democratic and civil rights
-Non-discrimination and minority rights
-Search, arrest, and detention
-Criminal procedure
-Right to justice

It may also be used to enshrine social democratic "rights" as law, rights that often entail compulsory wealth transfers from one group to another.

glossy wrote:law students! *squee!*

behave.

i go under black fellas law, fuck you white trash



wheres our apology from howard?

You are an indigenous Australian?

you have a problem with that?

Not at all. Do you have a problem with me asking?

ask away

no

Define indigenous. He was born to parents born there? Like "Native Americans," Aboriginals in Australia are not native to Australia. Whenever I fill out a form requesting ethnic information that says native american, I check the box.

naa nothing like that, i'm a wasp,
just pulling his chain

Yeah... I didn't mean you. The term "indigenous" is misleading.