[ql06] Re: PUBLIC: Civil liberties
- From: Sheldon Erentzen <sheldon.erentzen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: ql06@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 09:28:44 -0400
enough of the abstract, civil rights in general stuff. The specific
article that this discussion sprouted from was concerning the denial of
Charter rights to suspected terrorists not convicted terrorists. Though
the media is focusing on immigrants, whom the public seem to think are
subclass citizens before the law, what about the canadian citizens who
have been arrested and detained for months on end who have eventually
been proven innocent. There are two cases I know of in the states...and
at least one I know of here.
I just want to get it straight Mark. If a family member of yours (a
daughter, son) happened to come under suspicion for terrorist behaviour
you'd smile and say it's for our own good when the police took them
away. You wouldn't demand some proof first. You wouldn't say--hey, my
kids are innocent till proven guilty. You'd say it's better to be safe
then to be sorry and who knows what my kid's get up to. And while they
sat in jail...completely alone...without any contact from the outside
world, you'd speak in the abstract about the neccessity of curtailing
civil rights in order to save the rest of society.
I hope your kids don't get into trouble, cause it sounds like their
father's already thrown their Charter rights out the window.
cheers,
sheldon
p.s.--just trying to bring this discussion home instead of in the air
where it seems to be staying
mark bumstead wrote:
>:-)
>
>You caught me on the theatre bit. I had theatre but without a reference -
>which I am way beyond doing at this hour - it sounded plagiaristic.
>
>We'll have to differ on Zundel. I disagree that he can spout shit wherever
>he chooses. In private, he can blow chunks for all I care - as long as
>chunks isn't his dog. But when he spouts off in a public forum, he should
>be held accountable for the accuracy of those words. He holds himself out
>to be an expert, and just as a doctor who knowingly gives dangerous advice
>is held accountable for that advice, so should Zundel be.
>
>Ya, it was Brownstone, which to me is a type of building, not a judge.
>
>Yes, economic tyranny of the minority is wrong also. When a small,
>incestuous group controls the economy, the little guy - in this case the
>majority - does not have equal opportunity: there is no equality as you say
>law is about. Not sure where that comes from, but hey, everyone has an
>opinion. ;- ) Mine is that law is about balancing power: it takes from the
>strong, and gives to the weak. Isn't that the real thrust of Human Rights
>legislation: assisting those without the power to help themselves? If they
>held the balance of power, they would use it to get what they wanted
>without legislation.
>
> Mark Bumstead
>
>
>
>>Mark writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Going for the minor message over the meta-message? You can do
>>>better than that, Ken.
>>>
>>>
>>I was going for the inherent facts in your argument, albeit in a playful
>>way, coz this IS email, brother.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I am pro free-speech, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded
>>>room.
>>>
>>>
>>The phrase is actually "crowded theater". Meaning a PUBLIC place, not a
>>room (which is usually private).
>>
>>"Speech" is not about private places, but public places.
>>
>>Zundel has a right to speak his shit wherever he wants. And he is not
>>screaming fire.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I believe in due process, but "a toilet isn't a
>>>bathtub" to quote Blackstone J.
>>>
>>>
>>Do you mean Harvey Brownstone? The Prov. Ct. grad from this aft?
>>
>>Blackstone was a different chap, with much more referential weight.
>>
>>
>>
>>>And yes, minority tyranny is wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>Does that include economic tyranny of a few?
>>
>>Should a few people have the total ability to dictate to a massive
>>plurality?
>>
>>Just asking...
>>
>>
>>
>>>Life is about attaining balance.
>>>
>>>
>>Dunno about life... but law is about equity.
>>
>>Ken.
>>
>>--
>>Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you
>>have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you
>>against the present.
>> -- Marcus Aurelius
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
