Thursday, January 12, 2006

Uhm, what?

This is just about the dumbest thing I've read in a long time:
Mr. Harper’s radical proposal to include property rights in the Charter could be used to strike down laws that protect workers, children, unions and the environment.
What the fuck are they talking about? Can anyone please explain just how adding property rights into the Charter will affect laws that protect children? And, while you're at it, could you explain why they didn't mention puppies and kittens? After all, not having property rights in the Charter is the reason why we don't all harm puppies and kittens.

Then there's this:
Mr. Harper’s proposal is a fundamental change to the Charter. It would necessitate a comprehensive round of constitutional negotiations with the provinces, and require the approval of seven provinces and 50 per cent of the population to be implemented.
Uhm, sort of like if you were to, say, try and remove the notwithstanding clause?

Mr. Harper’s proposal to “protect” property rights borrows heavily from radical right-wing conservatives today in the United States who want to use the “protection” of property rights to prevent the United States government from regulating.
No, you absolute simpleton morons. They are trying to use the "protection" of property rights to fight against the ridiculous Kelo ruling which allows governments to take your home so that some "big corporation" (TM) can set up shop where you once had your kitchen. These "far right radicals" (TM) are fighting to keep Wal-Mart and Yacht clubs from taking over poor neighbourhoods.

It's not about regulating, it's about your home being your castle.
As Prime Minister Paul Martin told Mr. Harper during the Leaders’ Debate Tuesday night, “America is our neighbour, it’s not our nation.”
So then why is the Prime Minister trying to get rid of the notwithstanding clause? Remember, the U.S. has no notwithstanding clause and what the Supreme Court says goes. Sounds like someone is forgetting that America is our neighbour, not our nation.



Anonymous Anonymous said...

The dumbest thing you've heard in a long time? No you mean the dumbest thing you've heard in 12 hours. The last dumbest thing was yesterday but what was formally the most successful political party in the Western world.

7:41 p.m.  
Anonymous ollivia said...

"Can anyone please explain just how adding property rights into the Charter will affect laws that protect children?"

Sure... (I realize this was a rhetorical question, but it's important that you aren't too narrow minded.) By giving *individuals* private property rights, the government is giving up the right to that property, or access to that property, more importantly. (It's not as much about giving people rights over the land as it is forcing the gov to give up rights over others' land.) So, if a child is playing on a piece of *now privately accessed* property, and, say, that child comes across a land mine, then the government can't march onto that property, seize the land, and save other children who might find themselves similarly situated. (Even if laws are broken, private property is a hurdle to jump through, one the gov now doesn't have to consider.) The argument for saving the environment is less of a stretch. Think of the stream in Orono. If you could do whatever you wanted with that, you might bull dose the area and build condos or a pig farm, and then that pristine environment would be gone forever. See how that works... Point is, the fear - as with most situations where power changes from the government's hands to the individual's hands - is that there will be no regulators, no one specifying just how the property should be used. Except, that is, the owner. Imagine that... chaos. (Weddings in Orono... the horror.) Because, when it all comes down to it, the government doesn't think that individuals are people with the same values, thoughts, desires, likes, rationale and reasonability as the politicians and regulators.

9:51 p.m.  
Blogger CanadianTruth said...

Couldn't figure it out either. I don't see how you draw that line. Then again, I don't think like a liberal.

11:30 p.m.  
Blogger P. M. Jaworski said...

I'm still not totally clear on how it might affect protections given to children. The case you cited is, I think, a fairly obvious case where private property is easily overridden. If the government suspects something like landmines, and have *good reasons* for thinking there are landmines, then a Charter right to private property is not going to be forceful enough to prevent the government from getting in there and "saving the children."

Of course, as you and I both agree, the thing the government doesn't want is to be stopped from building yacht clubs and allowing Wal-Marts to come into poor neighbourhoods. Poor people are terrible when it comes to giving the gov tax revenues, and Wal-Mart can offer a fat campaign contribution. All you have to do is get their land.

At any rate, I'm still not perfectly clear on how private property in the Charter prevents regulations that keep kids from sitting on landmines.

11:34 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home