GUI

[Keith Mastin]

> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Keith Mastin wrote:
>> Just the idea of rights is a limitation on them. We are 'given' rights
>> so they can be taken away.
>
> I will agree that rights are an artificial construct.  I do not
> agree that they can be arbitrarily withdrawn.  If they could, a

October 1970? Trudeau imposed Martial Law, hundreds were detained without
arrest, very few were ever charged. I wouyld say that those rights were
artificially withdrawn.

The "individual rights and freedoms" are enshrined to attempt to keep the
lid on police and government officials from literally making laws on the
street. The fact that were are "granted" these "rights and freedoms" means
that if one is not "granted" them they do not exist.

> judicial system would be unnecessary: the simple act of investigation
> would prove guilt and the prescribed sentences would be sufficient
> in all cases.  Similarly, you would not need courts to mediate
> contract disputes -- because every clause would be considered
> binding, even if they contradicted the law.

You are confusing "rights and freedoms" with "the rule of law". The 2 are
notmutually exclusive, nor are they dependant on each other.

> The rights of an individual are often circumvented for the good of
> society.  For example: a person has little right to descriminate
> on age, race, religion, sex, and so forth.  Similarly, some laws
> have anti-circumvention clauses built into them because some people
> believe that contracts can override the decree of governments.  This

The law is a binding contract on all individuals, which can only be broken
by government. This is the purpose of the notwithstanding clause of the
Charter of rights and Freedoms.

> is a disadvantage of the individual, because alternative power
> structures can be imposed.  It is also against the interest of
> governments, because it would compete with their powers.
>
> Finally, there is (IMHO) this absurd notion that groups can have
> rights.  Any substantial group would have the ability to enforce
> their will upon individuals through coercion.  I would also suggest
> that on group doesn't have the same rights as individuals: the
> government and its agencies are bound by due process to ensure that
> their actions are responsible.

All that is really important is that the "appearance of justice" is
ensured and imposed. This is now a tenet in Canadian law, set down by the
Supreme Court of Canada in a constituational ruling regarding the rights
of citizens upon arrest. I don't have the exact citation handy, but I'm
sure that if I dig out all my old university papers I can find it.

The whole idea here is that the courts have admitted that they cannot be
fair and just 100% of the time, but they can do their best to appear to be
fair and just. From the courts point of view, this makes absolute sense as
the appearance of justice makes the whole sham look like it's a good
thing. I can disagree all I want, but my opinion won't amount to a hill of
beans in the courts view, so I just STFU. :)

-- 
Keith
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml