The concept of “negative” and “positive” rights is fairly simple and straightforward: Negative rights are prohibitions from government intruding on an individual’s personal liberty, whereas positive rights are promises of restraint from government intruding on an individual’s personal liberty.
But the employer does not have the right to charge the employee thousands of dollars per day in punitive fines for striking.
Ronald Reagan fired the PATCO strikers and win plaudits for taking a stand against unions run amok. He wouldn't have had that reputation if he'd fined them instead.
If the concept of rights really were simple, we'd all be prosperous, living with stable and peaceful anarchy. Sadly rights have never been understood. Take John Adams' Alien and Sedition Act. Take FDR's freedom from fear...
The concept of rights IS simple. However, it also entails an acceptance of absolutism that is at odds with much of the rest how we navigate society.
Free speech is a prime example. The first amendment proscribes Congress from passing any law that abridges the freedom of speech. The ban is unequivocal.
Yet people routinely are bothered by the freedom allowing people to engage in bigoted, prejudicial speech. And so they are persuaded to accept equivocation and condition on something that is unequivocal and unconditional.
We see the same thing with the Second Amendment, which forbids any regulation or prohibition regarding the right to keep and bear arms.
Rights are by nature simple. However they are also challenging, for there can be no freedom without the freedom to offend.
The Judge's 'opinion' was an incoherent travesty. Once again proving Canada has no commitment to freedom. Our courts are deferent to government authority to the point of why bother having them? The restrictions were 'suspended' and the government keeps saying they can bring them back. As such, the judge had a duty to listen to the evidence and damages brought forward. She further preposterously claimed it was not in the public's interest to go further since it was 'moot'. In other words, seven million (or more) Canadians (out of 38 million) are of no interest to the courts.
Could you believe this in an ostensibly free and democratic advanced industrial nation?
I never liked our Charter because of its wishy-washy, water-downed language. I made that point in the 90s in a political science class at university much to the surprise of the class. And it was weakened to, as usual, placate Quebec. Our most authoritarian province. I'm at the point where the country should ask Quebec to leave, and start over and re-write the Charter. It needs to be strengthened. But if the people have no appetite for it which is presently the case, we will continue our sad, slow descent into nothingness. We no longer shared common bonds and values.
Peckford just realized you can't compromise with LIBERTY as they did.
Nice example of one of one of the major problems with court challenges of arbitrary government edicts. Courts love to dismiss them by claiming the challengers have no standing because they themselves were not injured, and if the government reverses an edict, then courts will dismiss a challenge as moot, as we see here.
Well, this will not be hard to do...... https://gettr.com/post/p1vfxbna8ce
Employees have an absolute right to withhold their labor by striking.
But employers also have the right to fire workers if they don't show up for work. :)
But the employer does not have the right to charge the employee thousands of dollars per day in punitive fines for striking.
Ronald Reagan fired the PATCO strikers and win plaudits for taking a stand against unions run amok. He wouldn't have had that reputation if he'd fined them instead.
Indeed, David. History is the great teacher. If only we would choose to read and listen and act accordingly!
If the concept of rights really were simple, we'd all be prosperous, living with stable and peaceful anarchy. Sadly rights have never been understood. Take John Adams' Alien and Sedition Act. Take FDR's freedom from fear...
The concept of rights IS simple. However, it also entails an acceptance of absolutism that is at odds with much of the rest how we navigate society.
Free speech is a prime example. The first amendment proscribes Congress from passing any law that abridges the freedom of speech. The ban is unequivocal.
Yet people routinely are bothered by the freedom allowing people to engage in bigoted, prejudicial speech. And so they are persuaded to accept equivocation and condition on something that is unequivocal and unconditional.
We see the same thing with the Second Amendment, which forbids any regulation or prohibition regarding the right to keep and bear arms.
Rights are by nature simple. However they are also challenging, for there can be no freedom without the freedom to offend.
One of the Charter's authors, Brian Peckford, just discovered that the hard way.
https://www.sasktoday.ca/north/local-news/federal-court-tosses-constitutional-challenge-to-travel-ban-5998811
The Judge's 'opinion' was an incoherent travesty. Once again proving Canada has no commitment to freedom. Our courts are deferent to government authority to the point of why bother having them? The restrictions were 'suspended' and the government keeps saying they can bring them back. As such, the judge had a duty to listen to the evidence and damages brought forward. She further preposterously claimed it was not in the public's interest to go further since it was 'moot'. In other words, seven million (or more) Canadians (out of 38 million) are of no interest to the courts.
Could you believe this in an ostensibly free and democratic advanced industrial nation?
I never liked our Charter because of its wishy-washy, water-downed language. I made that point in the 90s in a political science class at university much to the surprise of the class. And it was weakened to, as usual, placate Quebec. Our most authoritarian province. I'm at the point where the country should ask Quebec to leave, and start over and re-write the Charter. It needs to be strengthened. But if the people have no appetite for it which is presently the case, we will continue our sad, slow descent into nothingness. We no longer shared common bonds and values.
Peckford just realized you can't compromise with LIBERTY as they did.
Yet even with unambiguous wording such as we have in the US Bill of Rights, government will infringe and the courts will uphold those infringements.
Nice example of one of one of the major problems with court challenges of arbitrary government edicts. Courts love to dismiss them by claiming the challengers have no standing because they themselves were not injured, and if the government reverses an edict, then courts will dismiss a challenge as moot, as we see here.