[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

Sometimes creatures like Donald Trump use it to kick seniors out of their houses so he can build another golf course or another godawful casino.

He lost that one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Coking

[andyt]

Funny how this seems to have become a US vs Canada on property rights, yet we were given an example of Utah's use of confiscation that's as egregious as BC's. And Utah is not the only state to do this. So for all the vaunted protection in the US constitution, it doesn't seem to mean very much in reality.

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

No, you're wrong. Property rights are well entrenched in common law in Canada. There are thousands of caselaw references. Plus there's Section 26 of the Charter. If you think property rights are somehow better protected anywhere in the world than in Canada, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Then maybe you need to tell the people at the Vancouver Sun how wrong they are.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Privat ... story.html

$1:

While most of the industrialized world has guaranteed property rights within their constitutions, indicating the value they place on ensuring a free society, Canada hasn’t.

And while common law tradition recognizes outright expropriation should never occur without compensation, Canadian governments have given themselves the power, through the passage of laws and regulations, to expropriate private property without consultation or compensation.

Ergo: You have no property rights, just privileges that can be vacated by the merest act of a bureaucrat.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

Funny how this seems to have become a US vs Canada on property rights, yet we were given an example of Utah's use of confiscation that's as egregious as BC's. And Utah is not the only state to do this. So for all the vaunted protection in the US constitution, it doesn't seem to mean very much in reality.

I'm not sure how that's the case when I illustrated at length how California isn't much better than Canada.

[andyt]

So then what are you raving on about?

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Ergo: You have no property rights, just privileges that can be vacated by the merest act of a bureaucrat.

You can repeat that as often as you like but you still haven't a clue what you're talking about.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

So then what are you raving on about?

So your new tactic to shut down opinions you don't like is to accuse people of 'raving' when they're posting arguments with citiations to support them?

Oh, and shouldn't you be accusing me of homophobia or racism and then outraging yourself over it? That's your usual tactic.

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Ergo: You have no property rights, just privileges that can be vacated by the merest act of a bureaucrat.

You can repeat that as often as you like but you still haven't a clue what you're talking about.

And you can repeat that as often as you like and you'll still be wrong.

[Lemmy]

I'm not wrong and I don't know how or where you ever got this loony notion in your head in the first place, but, as I've said, we have reams and reams of case law that prove you're wrong, plus Section 26 of the Charter. A couple of minutes on Google is all you need to see that you're wrong.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to keep telling this lie every few months but that's what it is. So what's your motivation?

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

A couple of minutes on Google is all you need to see that I'm wrong.

Your own government says you're wrong.

http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/ ... p268-e.htm

$1:

CONCLUSION

This paper has presented a number of possible arguments for and against the inclusion of property rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As noted in the paper, it is unknown how Canadian courts would define "property" for this purpose. It is clear, however, that the entrenchment of property rights in the Charter would do more than simply protect those who own real property from expropriation without compensation. If "property" were interpreted by the courts more broadly than in the traditional sense, the entrenchment of property rights could also have positive effects for those persons who do not own real property. If the interpretation of the term "property" is to include what is known as the so-called "new property" of government benefits, as is the interpretation of the term in the United States, presumably recipients of such government benefits could not be deprived of them without a fair hearing.

The entrenchment of property rights in the Charter would also entitle those whose property rights were infringed to use the remedy section of the Charter (s. 24(1)). This provision, combined with the safeguards provided by s. 1 of the Charter, would protect property rights from arbitrary interference.

tl;dr... If you had property rights then there would be no debate about the need to enumerate those rights as protected in your Charter.

[shockedcanadian]

Lemmy Lemmy:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Ergo: You have no property rights, just privileges that can be vacated by the merest act of a bureaucrat.

You can repeat that as often as you like but you still haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Why are you attacking him while denying the system we actually have? What has he said that has been dishonest? Yes, some of this is clear as mud, but, without a doubt, at least legally private ownership in Canada is limited at best, non-existent at worst. Canadian private ownership details. Look under the terms "land tenure".

The Queen is the sole legal owner of all land in Canada, that is the legal ownership on record. Nothing in our constitution usurps this. When you "own it", you are the "holder" (holdership) of the land. I am willing to bet if any of us looked at sample deeds or land transfers, there is a mention somewhere in regards to the Crown.

China is adding private property rights in their constitution, why not Canada? This isn't about anything other than the hope of many to have Canada extend individual rights. Both in terms of property ownership and right to self determination.

I am not totally against eminent domain in very specific cases. I am also of the opinion that if someone doesn't want to sell their property, you have to go through many years, processes and offers before you can enact the forfeiting (with a generous payment) of this land. Only in a very strong argument of public benefit and through various negotiations that fail should this be allowed.

Anyone wanting to build a hotel or casino, is not a valid use of this law. Purchasing to build a water line that has no other route, or vital road infrastructure, CAN qualify; again, after great deliberation.

That's my two cents on the issue. As it is, Canadians do not have protected private ownership rights.

[DrCaleb]

'Property' however consists of more than just 'land'. Your car is property, your cell phone, the clothes an your back . . .does the State own those?

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

'Property' however consists of more than just 'land'. Your car is property, your cell phone, the clothes an your back . . .does the State own those?

Where your own government's analysis of the status of property rights in Canada is that they effectively don't exist then I'd be inclined to say that there's no controlling authority to limit what property can be taken from you by government decree.

Credit to your government though for acknowledging the need for properly enumerated property rights.

[Lemmy]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

As it is, Canadians do not have protected private ownership rights.

Yes we do. There are thousands of cases that prove that. Just search them on Google. They're not hard to find.

[shockedcanadian]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

'Property' however consists of more than just 'land'. Your car is property, your cell phone, the clothes an your back . . .does the State own those?

That's a separate issue which has no place in this discussion. Of course the state doesn't own these assets, but, the state has legal right to access to these in the process of a criminal investigation. So DNA evidencefrom your clothes, phone records if you are a terrorist etc.

This is completely different from property, which is an immovable, static and limited asset. It is also required for community development and progress, whether in development of homes, or telephone lines, sewage etc. It is why it is such a valuable assets to own for investment purposes and a sense of pride and accomplishment to those who want to pursue their desire for liberty.

What kind of country does Canada want to be?