Every parent has the right to raise their child in any country. The only difference is whether said country recognizes that right.
In Canada, they're polite enough to tell you what they're going to do so you can counter them. The fastest way to get someone to go John Rambo on your ass is to mess with their kids.
That's what a right is. A document the government recognizes as attributing power to you over the government. It doesn't exist in Canada. Everyone always has the ability to take matters into their own hands but then you'll be sacrificing your life in the process.
A right is something you have, even if there is no government at all.
I have the right to defend my own life, for example, even in the midst of total anarchy. My defending my life has nothing to do with someone else telling me that I'm allowed to do so. A right doesn't guarantee that I'll succeed, but it's mine if I can make it happen.
The government merely recognizes these rights. The reason they do so is that they understand, if they're wise, that not recognizing certain rights will inevitably lead to a situation where the people will have no incentive to follow any of their other laws either.
Back to parental rights, no government in the world, not even China or North Korea, actually has the power to arbitrarily seize their people's children if their people don't allow it. It would be a bloodbath, yes, but any attempt to do so at a national scale would result in the collapse of the government, period.
That's why governments always try to divide and conquer. If this NDP MP was saying "no parent should be allowed to raise their own child at all", he'd already be lynched. He gets away with it because he couches it in divisive language: "abusive parents need to be stopped", we'll let 'good' parents keep going" etc.
I'd wager almost every Canadian who has had their kids taken by the government up until this point largely allowed it to happen. There's a reason FnCS doesn't take kids in the suburbs: they go after the parents who either can't or won't defend themselves. They know what happens when they go after someone who is willing and able to fight back and, usually, they don't even try. When they do, it's inevitably national news, and they hate that because they know they can't win if every parent they tried to interfere with fights as hard.
What makes something a right is whether you're willing to give up everything beneficial that you receive from your government before giving it up. The reason the right to "life" is at the top of almost any Bill of Rights is that no one is going to let themselves be arbitrarily killed just because it's the law that they can't fight back. They could be tricked or coerced into something (like MAiD) but if they're approached by a stranger on the street who tells them "I will kill you now" and attacks them with a knife, fight or flight will activate and consideration for thr law becomes a distant second.
That's what I mean regarding parental rights. I will raise my kids and I will protect them, and if the government says otherwise, I will give up any and all benefit I currently enjoy from following their laws. No piece of paper changes that.
Anyone who wouldn't do that for their kids, has no right to be a parent, and no piece of paper changes that, either.
Your idealistic view of what "rights" are is just exactly that: your idealistic view.
In reality, rights are powers the government grants you via a piece of paper. If you try to utilize powers you aren't granted, you go to prison or worse.
In reality, anyone with enough power has the right to do anything because no one can stop them.
I get your point, but this is statist thinking.
Every parent has the right to raise their child in any country. The only difference is whether said country recognizes that right.
In Canada, they're polite enough to tell you what they're going to do so you can counter them. The fastest way to get someone to go John Rambo on your ass is to mess with their kids.
That's what a right is. A document the government recognizes as attributing power to you over the government. It doesn't exist in Canada. Everyone always has the ability to take matters into their own hands but then you'll be sacrificing your life in the process.
No, it's not.
A right is something you have, even if there is no government at all.
I have the right to defend my own life, for example, even in the midst of total anarchy. My defending my life has nothing to do with someone else telling me that I'm allowed to do so. A right doesn't guarantee that I'll succeed, but it's mine if I can make it happen.
The government merely recognizes these rights. The reason they do so is that they understand, if they're wise, that not recognizing certain rights will inevitably lead to a situation where the people will have no incentive to follow any of their other laws either.
Back to parental rights, no government in the world, not even China or North Korea, actually has the power to arbitrarily seize their people's children if their people don't allow it. It would be a bloodbath, yes, but any attempt to do so at a national scale would result in the collapse of the government, period.
That's why governments always try to divide and conquer. If this NDP MP was saying "no parent should be allowed to raise their own child at all", he'd already be lynched. He gets away with it because he couches it in divisive language: "abusive parents need to be stopped", we'll let 'good' parents keep going" etc.
I'd wager almost every Canadian who has had their kids taken by the government up until this point largely allowed it to happen. There's a reason FnCS doesn't take kids in the suburbs: they go after the parents who either can't or won't defend themselves. They know what happens when they go after someone who is willing and able to fight back and, usually, they don't even try. When they do, it's inevitably national news, and they hate that because they know they can't win if every parent they tried to interfere with fights as hard.
What makes something a right is whether you're willing to give up everything beneficial that you receive from your government before giving it up. The reason the right to "life" is at the top of almost any Bill of Rights is that no one is going to let themselves be arbitrarily killed just because it's the law that they can't fight back. They could be tricked or coerced into something (like MAiD) but if they're approached by a stranger on the street who tells them "I will kill you now" and attacks them with a knife, fight or flight will activate and consideration for thr law becomes a distant second.
That's what I mean regarding parental rights. I will raise my kids and I will protect them, and if the government says otherwise, I will give up any and all benefit I currently enjoy from following their laws. No piece of paper changes that.
Anyone who wouldn't do that for their kids, has no right to be a parent, and no piece of paper changes that, either.
Your idealistic view of what "rights" are is just exactly that: your idealistic view.
In reality, rights are powers the government grants you via a piece of paper. If you try to utilize powers you aren't granted, you go to prison or worse.
In reality, anyone with enough power has the right to do anything because no one can stop them.