Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Our Rights

Exactly What Rights Do We Have?

As anyone who has taken a course in basic logic knows, there are two ways to win a logical argument; you prove by evidence that such and such is the case, or you argue successfully that so and so must be the fact of the matter, because nothing else can be.

This may be applied to an argument about what rights we have. We are deprived of a supporting argument in favour of a specific property rights by virtue of it having been deliberately omitted from our Constitution Act of 1982. And coincidently there is no description of what (private) property is. It doesn’t exist. It is left to Law Court Judges to rule in specific and narrow cases and all so far have supported the State’s Right over the citizen.

I am convinced that each and every one of us can prove in a Court of Law that we have all of the rights that we claim to have by proving that most of the laws in the Criminal Code of Canada could not exist if we did not inherently have the right not to be deprived of any specific right in the first instance. There could not be a law against shoplifting, for instance, if it wasn’t a fact in law that the chocolate bars on the grocery shelf are the rightful property of the shop owner. And therefore it is unlawful for any person to deprive, or attempt to deprive the rightful owner of his property. Ipso facto: the shopkeeper has property rights, even though our Constitution Act does not say so. Murder could not be named as a crime if we did not all have the right to life. Women could not be protected against rape if they did not have, in this country at least, the exclusive right to determine with whom they will have intercourse.

The Criminal Code of Canada is a very large volume; even the Pocket Edition will not fit into any pocket that I own. It contains (2004 edition) 1555 pages that are

Printed with type of this size.

So, there are many laws that can only have been derived by virtue of our right to material property, wealth, intellectual property, security of person, freedom from physical and sexual abuse and myriads of lesser rights. There is even a specific law (CCC 323 (1) that protects owners of oyster beds. Therefore, persons who own oyster beds obviously have the exclusive right to the product of them. My biggest fear is the Supreme Court of Canada, as presently mandated, will selectively extinguish, one by one, those they wish to see gone. I imagine they will leave oyster beds alone for the time being.

However, before important laws are obliterated I would strongly recommend that anyone who is charged with the offence that the person did something to protect loss of personal property of any sort, dig into the C.C.C. and use that wealth of evidence to support the contention that IF it is an offence in the Criminal Code of Canada to deprive, or attempt to deprive a citizen of any personal property, then the right to that property must exist. To argue otherwise would be illogical and contrary to the essential elements of peace and good order. Maybe this explains why Canada seems to be coming progressively more disorderly.

If this all be true then we can justly demand that our Justice Department rewrite the laws that clarify our Rights. This means an amendment to The Constitution Act of 1982, or more likely, a complete re write followed by a National Referendum. This process is the only way that we can undo the injustice done to us all by Pierre Trudeau in collusion with all one thousand provincial and federal parliamentarians twenty six years ago. In 1982 not one MP or MLA in this country raised a serious word of objection to this most undemocratic of Acts that poses as the Law of the Land. I’ll repeat that. Not one of our elected representatives objected to a new Basic Law for Canadians that left out the most basic of Rights. Which means simply that our elected representatives, all of them, had something besides the welfare of we the people on their minds 26 years ago.
Or maybe they just can’t think!

We had better start raising hell because ’meek and mild’ obviously won’t cut it!

No comments: