Let's not throw the baby with the bath water. The idea of human rights allow for most of the freedoms we take for granted.
The mistake was to proclaim rights without mentioning their respective responsibilities. I don't have the right of free speech: I have the right and the duty to tell the truth.
The Western liberal language of "human rights" has been hijacked by all of the forces in the world that don't believe in those rights and refuse to uphold them, but use them instead as a weapon against the only peoples who have ever cared about them.
The UN, comprised of corrupt, oppressive third-world governments, shrieks about "human rights" whenever any Western country says they're going to do something about human trafficking and illegal migration, so they can continue to use the prospect of emigration to the West as a means of diffusing political doscontent at home. George Soros and the WEF will crackle about "human rights" whenever you propose depriving them of their legions of cheap slave labor. The Israelis and the Arabs will both unironically use "human rights" as an excuse for continuing to massacre each other. The Climate Change Cult will cite "human rights" as justification for insisting we de-industrialize our economies and destroy our own standard of living. And Justin Trudeau will preach about the "human right" to not be exposed to a virus, something utterly impossible to protect people from in the first place, as a reason to deprive 20% of his own populace of their human rights.
That language at this point is so utterly pozzed that I'm not sure it's salvageable.
That word right there, is curiously absent in most modern rhetoric. "Duty". As well as "truth". Scary words to the regressives trying to corrupt what's left of Western nations and Western culture at large.
The main reasons it needs to be scrapped is that it was written or heavily edited by one side of the political spectrum, ''jurisprudenced'' by pozzed or ''usefully-neutral'' judges, and only one side of the political spectrum is forced to follow the charter.
Bruce Pardy, Law Prof @ Queens U has spoken about the fact that the Courts have adopted a pozzed "living tree doctrine" interpretation from Day 1 from its enactment in the 80s.
He reviewed at some point one of the first cases to use the Charter: female retired cops complained they didn't get full RCMP pensions like the men did because the vast majority of the women only worked part time. The Courts awarded them full benefit payouts because: Women.
It was essentially the US Women's Soccer Team case about 35 years early.
The Charter, unironically, needs to be abolished. Human rights are a terrible thing and have caused significant damage to our society.
Let's not throw the baby with the bath water. The idea of human rights allow for most of the freedoms we take for granted.
The mistake was to proclaim rights without mentioning their respective responsibilities. I don't have the right of free speech: I have the right and the duty to tell the truth.
The Western liberal language of "human rights" has been hijacked by all of the forces in the world that don't believe in those rights and refuse to uphold them, but use them instead as a weapon against the only peoples who have ever cared about them.
The UN, comprised of corrupt, oppressive third-world governments, shrieks about "human rights" whenever any Western country says they're going to do something about human trafficking and illegal migration, so they can continue to use the prospect of emigration to the West as a means of diffusing political doscontent at home. George Soros and the WEF will crackle about "human rights" whenever you propose depriving them of their legions of cheap slave labor. The Israelis and the Arabs will both unironically use "human rights" as an excuse for continuing to massacre each other. The Climate Change Cult will cite "human rights" as justification for insisting we de-industrialize our economies and destroy our own standard of living. And Justin Trudeau will preach about the "human right" to not be exposed to a virus, something utterly impossible to protect people from in the first place, as a reason to deprive 20% of his own populace of their human rights.
That language at this point is so utterly pozzed that I'm not sure it's salvageable.
The problem is so many people have no sense of morals
You have the right lie, too. Morality is not in the purview of the the legislature, it is society's role to police morality.
Doesn't society do that through laws?
Nope. Society can't make laws.
That word right there, is curiously absent in most modern rhetoric. "Duty". As well as "truth". Scary words to the regressives trying to corrupt what's left of Western nations and Western culture at large.
The main reasons it needs to be scrapped is that it was written or heavily edited by one side of the political spectrum, ''jurisprudenced'' by pozzed or ''usefully-neutral'' judges, and only one side of the political spectrum is forced to follow the charter.
Bruce Pardy, Law Prof @ Queens U has spoken about the fact that the Courts have adopted a pozzed "living tree doctrine" interpretation from Day 1 from its enactment in the 80s.
He reviewed at some point one of the first cases to use the Charter: female retired cops complained they didn't get full RCMP pensions like the men did because the vast majority of the women only worked part time. The Courts awarded them full benefit payouts because: Women.
It was essentially the US Women's Soccer Team case about 35 years early.