GUI

[Byron Q. Desnoyers Winmill]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Keith Mastin wrote:
> > I do not agree that they can be arbitrarily withdrawn.

> October 1970? Trudeau imposed Martial Law, hundreds were detained without
> arrest, very few were ever charged.

I should have said, 'I do not agree that they should be arbitrarily
withdrawn.'  Reality and the ideal rarely coincide.

> The fact that were are "granted" these "rights and freedoms" means that
> if one is not "granted" them they do not exist.

Are you suggesting that freedom cannot exist outside of a legal
framework?  I would hope not.  Then again, I probably say that
because I only accept governments as a lesser evil -- which is to
say that there are people out there who crave unnecessary control
over others, so it may as well be done in a self regulating
institution.  (Why else would governments be set up in several,
ideally opposed, branches?)

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

I may be able to agree with you if you would explain how we could be
granted rights and freedoms without the rule of law.  (Though I can see
how the rule of law doesn't imply rights and freedoms.)

> The law is a binding contract on all individuals, which can only be broken
> by government.

People can, and do, break laws all of the time.  In some cases,
they can do so in front of a police officer (or some other government
official) and expect little consequence.  My understanding is that
governments are also bound by those laws, unless they write themselves
in as an exception.

(I'm assuming that you are not talking about passing legislation, since
both individuals and governments can create binding contracts.)

> This is the purpose of the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of
> rights and Freedoms.

The notwithstanding clause is infrequently invoked and I was under
the impression that was related to various levels and branches of
government.

> All that is really important is that the "appearance of justice" is
> ensured and imposed.

I don't understand what you mean by the "appearance of justice."

> The whole idea here is that the courts have admitted that they cannot be
> fair and just 100% of the time

That should be obvious, since the notion of fair will vary from
person to person.  While this may cause me some pains, at least I
am not forced to agree with some of the more reactionary members
of society.

Byron.
--
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