[uwish]

I believe their are inalienable human rights, those rights that can not be removed. Self defense for example. Property rights are entrenched to a certain degree, yes the government can expropriate your land BUT they must compensate you at fair market value. They can't just come in, kick you off and say fuck off.

[andyt]

uwish uwish:

I believe their are inalienable human rights, those rights that can not be removed. Self defense for example. Property rights are entrenched to a certain degree, yes the government can expropriate your land BUT they must compensate you at fair market value. They can't just come in, kick you off and say fuck off.

Rights are removed and added all the time. We have some pretty strong restrictions on self-defence, for instance - often too strong. Rights come from the people and what they are willing to fight for.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

Rights come from the people and what they are willing to fight for.

This much is true.

[BartSimpson]

eureka eureka:

Would you consider "Due Process" one of those inviolable Rights enshrined in your Constitution, Bart?

Nope. Due process is not an individual right from my perspective. Instead it is a protection of civil liberties that functions by restricting governmental avarice.

Due process is how the government goes about lawfully depriving you of your civil liberties when you've been accused of a crime. See, the prosecution would like to just accuse people of sh*t and throw them in jail but we've got rights and for them to deprive anyone of their rights without fomenting a revolution we've agreed as a society that the proescution of an individual has to be public and that a jury of citizens has the final word on matters of innocence or guilt regardless of jury instructions from the bench.

eureka eureka:

Your enshrined rights are on a Yo-yo string except for the couple like that relating to murderous toys that have powerful money interests to tell you that they are immutable.

Ironically, those 'murderous toys' come in quite handy when we're debating our rights with subjects of the Crown.

Funny thing, a British legal team in Philadelphia today made the case that the US Declaration of Independence was illegal under British law and I agree. The point that the emasculated scholars from Britain failed to grasp is that rights trump law. Further, rights backed by the force of arms and people willing to use them thoroughly trump law.

As we have seen most recently in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, and Libya.

Which makes me think of Samuel Adams' comment to the Loyalists:

Samuel Adams Samuel Adams:

If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, then depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

Freedom, liberty, and rights are messy things and not for the faint of heart. If you like the transitory security of surrendering your rights in return for someone else making the important decisions in your life then feel free.

Myself, I've inherited what Samuel Adams and his fellow Americans fought and died for and I won't give it up without spilling blood. My birthright was bought for me in blood and it will not be taken from me without blood.

People like you cave in over pedantic and narcissistic things like healthcare.

And that makes me think of Jacob and Esau.

$1:

29 Once when Jacob was cooking a stew, Esau came in from the field, and he was famished. 30Esau said to Jacob, ‘Let me eat some of that red stuff, for I am famished!’ (Therefore he was called Edom.*) 31Jacob said, ‘First sell me your birthright.’ 32Esau said, ‘I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?’ 33Jacob said, ‘Swear to me first.’* So he swore to him, and sold his birthright to Jacob. 34Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew, and he ate and drank, and rose and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.

What was secured by Isaac at a great cost was given away by Esau for the temporary comfort of a bowl of soup and a piece of bread.

I read what you and others of your mindset have written in this thread on the matter of rights and I wonder at how easily you give away what was secured for you on the Plains of Abraham, in Flanders, at Passchendaele, again at Dieppe, and annointed in Italy.

Brave men fought, killed, bled, and died so you could mock their sacrifice by giving it away for health care and a promise from your betters that you'll be safer if you're defenseless.

Were you really who you pretend to be you'd grasp this. But you're not a veteran of the British Army of the early 1950's, you're just a poseur who's trying to lend credibility to a treacherous argument by clothing himself in the memory of real men.

See, I've had this discussion many times over the years and what it always comes down to is that I'm willing to kill and die for my rights and the rights of others. Are you willing to kill or die to deprive anyone of them?

[eureka]

Waxing poetical are we, Bart? Just a pity you could not make a little sense and do a little thinking before you put it down.

If you did know me, you would take that back. Fighting for Rights is what I have spent decades doing. I was one of the founders of an organisation that, as one of its side issues, forced Trudeau to amend his Bill C60 and take a couple of objectionable points from the Charter. I chaired the policy and communications committees of that Movement which was founded on the inspiration of an article I wrote for the Montreal Star

But that does not matter. What you say is blowing in the wind and why should I believe your resume when you call me a liar. I suspect that you are merely bragging.

But, to just cut through your derivative verbiage, Rights do not trump law. Rights can not exist without law. It is law that secures Rights and the enforcement of that law.

That finding of the legal team I am aware of. Emasculated! What a silly comment. I have also been aware of the illegality of the Declaration for as long as I can remember. I have been aware that it was treason. And I could not care less.

If you want the truth of what Adams and others of that breed did fight and die for it was for self aggrandisement. There was only one "man of the people" at the deliberations that brought about your Constitution - Stevens was his name if I recall correctly.. It was a conference to enshrine the privilege and prosperity of your landowners and merchants.

I could be reminded of many things about those times. They do not include the propaganda of Paine and Adams and their silver tongued deception of the ordinary people.

If you do not consider "Due Process" a Right, then why is it based on an interpretation of your Bill of Rights? And what are civil liberties but Rights?

I could go on but I do not feel the necessity to respond to your feeble attempts to denigrate me personally and all who actually believe in the Rule of Law opposed to your Anarchist views.

[ShepherdsDog]

And the psychosis continues to produce even more fantastic delusions. They really need to look at some atypical antipsychotics for your treatment.

[Tricks]

eureka eureka:

If you did know me, you would take that back. Fighting for Rights is what I have spent decades doing. I was one of the founders of an organisation that, as one of its side issues, forced Trudeau to amend his Bill C60 and take a couple of objectionable points from the Charter. I chaired the policy and communications committees of that Movement which was founded on the inspiration of an article I wrote for the Montreal Star

I think we need to keep a running tab on eureka's accomplishments and accolades, because at this point, he's pretty much Jesus.

[ShepherdsDog]

Tricks Tricks:

eureka eureka:

If you did know me, you would take that back. Fighting for Rights is what I have spent decades doing. I was one of the founders of an organisation that, as one of its side issues, forced Trudeau to amend his Bill C60 and take a couple of objectionable points from the Charter. I chaired the policy and communications committees of that Movement which was founded on the inspiration of an article I wrote for the Montreal Star

I think we need to keep a running tab on eureka's accomplishments and accolades, because at this point, he's pretty much Jesus.

There's another patient on his floor claiming that

[eureka]

Then perhaps you should ask some Montrealers about the Freedom of Choice Movement. Or contact Graham Heard, managing editor of the Montreal Star at that time and later vice President of CTV - he knows who I am and what I did.
Two members of that organisation, Dr. Winifred Potter and Gordon Roback publicly debated Warren Allmand about Bill C60.

Bill C60 was modified as a result before passing to become the Charter.

[raydan]

eureka eureka:

Then perhaps you should ask some Montrealers about the Freedom of Choice Movement. Or contact Graham Heard, managing editor of the Montreal Star at that time and later vice President of CTV - he knows who I am and what I did.

You don't want to tell us what regiment you were in to conserve your anonymity, but this information, you're willing to share.

Now I'm confused.

[eureka]

Don't be confused. I am willing to say a lot about political facts. I am not willing to discuss personal matters.

And, as I said, I derive no pleasure or satisfaction from thinking about those years.

[ShepherdsDog]

raydan raydan:

eureka eureka:

Then perhaps you should ask some Montrealers about the Freedom of Choice Movement. Or contact Graham Heard, managing editor of the Montreal Star at that time and later vice President of CTV - he knows who I am and what I did.

You don't want to tell us what regiment you were in to conserve your anonymity, but this information, you're willing to share.

Now I'm confused.

Don't worry raydan...he's full of shit.

[Tricks]

Unsurprisingly, I can't find anything you just posted relating to Trudeau, you'd figure if it had such an impact it would be readily available.

[Tricks]

eureka eureka:

Then perhaps you should ask some Montrealers about the Freedom of Choice Movement.

Can't find anything by that name from that time period.

$1:

Or contact Graham Heard, managing editor of the Montreal Star at that time and later vice President of CTV - he knows who I am and what I did.

No mention of someone by that name relating to the Montreal Star or CTV that I can find.

$1:

Two members of that organisation, Dr. Winifred Potter and Gordon Roback publicly debated Warren Allmand about Bill C60.

what would the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs have to do with Bill C60? Also, I can't find any mention of Potter, Roback, Allmand relating to each other or C60. Albeit I haven't searched all that thoroughly, but I have to work in 15 minutes so sue me.

EDIT: found it.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 99,4188565

Fuck that was hard to find.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

Bill C-60, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen’s arrest and the defences of property and persons) (short title: Citizen’s Arrest and Self-defence Act), was introduced and received first reading in the House of Commons on 17 February 2011. It received second reading on 22 March 2011, and died on the Order Paper when Parliament was dissolved on 26 March 2011.

maybe this is what the nutter was jabbering about