Group and positive rights tend to exist as infringements of individual rights but are intentionally in the Charter to free the hands of the state to create and dispense rights and entitlements unconstrained by a more robust constitution. Combined with identity politics, the results and "abuse" can be socially corrosive. Such abuse has been quite significant in such areas as the grievance industry which includes the SCOC and governments and where their awarded rulings have raised "expectations" of a minor racial legacy "ownership" of Crown land to a level that would threaten the "legitimacy" of the existence of the nation of Canada.
As for the notion of positive rights, P. J. O'Rourke said it best: “It’s not an endlessly expanding list of rights - the ‘right’ to health care, the ‘right’ to food and housing. That’s not freedom, that’s dependency. Those aren’t rights, those are the rations of slavery - hay and a barn for human cattle.”
Group and positive rights tend to exist as infringements of individual rights but are intentionally in the Charter to free the hands of the state to create and dispense rights and entitlements unconstrained by a more robust constitution. Combined with identity politics, the results and "abuse" can be socially corrosive. Such abuse has been quite significant in such areas as the grievance industry which includes the SCOC and governments and where their awarded rulings have raised "expectations" of a minor racial legacy "ownership" of Crown land to a level that would threaten the "legitimacy" of the existence of the nation of Canada.
As for the notion of positive rights, P. J. O'Rourke said it best: “It’s not an endlessly expanding list of rights - the ‘right’ to health care, the ‘right’ to food and housing. That’s not freedom, that’s dependency. Those aren’t rights, those are the rations of slavery - hay and a barn for human cattle.”
''Such state-imposed inequality may or may not be justifiable. That’s a debate that doesn’t interest me right now.''
Goes on to give 1 side of the debate haha
Thank you, Sir.
To summarize: we are all unequally equal. Kinda. Perhaps. But only if some judge decides. Or not.
Clear?
It should have to be proven that the individuals in each and every case are truly disadvantaged, with specific examples.
Generalities, without specific evidence, should not be admissible.