I'm right and you're wrong!

[Cube Inmate]

I don't usually get many responses to my philosophical questions, but I've gotta ask this anyhow. There have been seemingly endless debates lately about "rights" in this country and that other one down south:

-Smokers' rights (other thread, and the inspiration for this question)
-Gay rights
-Health care rights
-Right to die (or kill a vegetable -- Terri Schiavo)
-Prisoners' rights (Guantanamo Bay prisoners)

It goes on and on and it's driving me nuts. Quite frankly, I don't believe there IS such a thing as "fundamental human rights." In my opinion, humans are no different from lions & tigers & bears, except for the fact that we seem to believe we're fundamentally better...perhaps "divine" in some religions. The "fundamental" rights that are argued in front of the courts are nothing more than words on a piece of paper. Our Charter of Rights does not apply in (e.g.) China, so how can they be "human rights?" -- They're simply Canadian rights, and then only because they're written down. Besides that, how can something be "fundamental" if it's constantly changing? Does anybody here believe that our interpretation of "human rights" will be the same in 100 years as it is now? Not bloody likely.

I am thankful that we've got the Charter of Rights as something to protect *certain* aspects of my safety and security. That said, I'm tired of it being used to "invent" rights every time someone disagrees with someone else! If you keep using something like that to invent frivilous rights, then it detracts from its real value, which is to protect our life, security, and freedom of thought. I think I might be an anarchist...at least after a beer or two.

[/rant]

[Winsor_Pilates]

I don't understand the point of you rant. Are you simply saying that the rights that we hold on to, are not natural in their origin?
So what?
Sure Canada has invented it's charter, and that charter doesn't apply to everyone, everywhere, but that doesn't mean the charter is void of rights and should not be used to defend peoples rights on social issues. Rights are not natural, and not fundamental, but they are still appliable and very real. That's really all that matters. It's just like laws. They're not fundamental either, but we are still expected to follow them.

[shoestring]

You have a right to
Reap what you sow.
Do unto others ,.....
Only the strong survive.

Forget it, you have no rights.Well you could fight for some. :angry:

[Thunderball]

I kinda get where you're coming from, but its the sad reality that people will take advantage of the good nature of anything or anyone. In Canada, its wrapping themselves in the Charter, Constitution or some other legislation to ram through something frivolous and occasionally an affront to the rules and sensibilities of society. In China's case, its the abuse of human rights knowing full well that no one will bother to stop them cause it would carry a massive cost. I suppose if there's any pattern in humanity its cleverness and disregard leading the way.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates@Jun 23 2005, 10:02 PM
I don't understand the point of you rant. Are you simply saying that the rights that we hold on to, are not natural in their origin?
So what?
Sure Canada has invented it's charter, and that charter doesn't apply to everyone, everywhere, but that doesn't mean the charter is void of rights and should not be used to defend peoples rights on social issues. Rights are not natural, and not fundamental, but they are still appliable and very real. That's really all that matters. It's just like laws. They're not fundamental either, but we are still expected to follow them.

That's exactly my point--you interpret well.

Our justice system and government are now technically founded on the Constitution, of which the Charter is a part. Thus, instead of governing our own society now, we're governed by a piece of paper that was put together over 20 years ago. WHY? Because people seem to think that the Charter is beyond questioning...that these "rights" are somehow divinely issued, or something.

I've come to believe that they're not. And the constant invocation of the Charter as an argument for frivilous matters is starting to tick me off.

In that health care case, a lawyer for the Canadian Labour Congress put forth the argument that employment in the national public health system should be considered a fundamental right for the employees. That's the kind of frivilous thing I'm talking about. The argument was rejected, but there are still people out there who believe that was a valid argument! Ridiculous!