Group rights don't supercede Individual Rights

[TomFoolery]

First of all, this writer doesn't have his facts straight, and using it has a centerpiece for discussion perpetuates misleafing ideas.

For instance:

The state cannot refuse pension rights to a cross-dresser for example, but no citizen can be forced to hire one in an office if he does not want to.

I think its pretty clear that the Charter makes allowance for legislation like the Human Rights Codes that prohibit discrimination in hiring.

So, with a white elephant like this floating in the article, I really have to question the acuity of the knowledge and thought process of the writer.

[WestViking]

I will believe you mean it when the next All Adult private business opens without a shriek of ANTI FAMILY! ANTI CHILD! going up to the highest heavens...or when the first Smoking Airline, Smoking Bar or Smoking Anything opens for business without somebody suing to have it immediately closed down -- on the basis that nobody has any right to dictate who will and will not be allowed on his or her private premises or to structure his or her business according to personal preference -- in some matter that does not involve sexual intercourse.

Until then, the default premise is that ONLY Group Rights exist in Canada.

Interesting take Kate, but tell us, please, who comprises this 'group' you speak of?

[WestViking]

The Bruker case involved a contractual promise signed by Bruker’s ex-husband to grant her a Jewish divorce, a “Get”, in the event of a marriage breakdown. Her ex decided to renege on the written promise claiming that this was a religious matter and freedom of religion superceded contractual obligations. The Supreme Court said no. It upheld contractual obligations, the foundation of the rule of law, and said that freedom of religion was a personal matter and could not overrule, nor be imposed on, secular societal norms.

I wish that was the case, but it was not. The court instead claimed the authority to order people (and churches) to violate their conscience if they feel the 'public consequences' of doing so would be good enough in their opinion. A VERY dangerous precedent.

From the Globe and Mail story:
http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2//view ... 9e08411bf6

Writing for the majority, Madam Justice Rosalie Abella said that courts are empowered to referee religious disputes provided they "take into account the particular religion, the particular religious right, and the particular personal and public consequences — including the religious consequences — of enforcing that right."

I found the ruleing online at

http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2007/2 ... scc54.html

A fuller quote says:

In deciding cases involving freedom of religion, the courts cannot ignore religion. To determine whether a particular claim to freedom of religion is entitled to protection, a court must take into account the particular religion, the particular religious right, and the particular personal and public consequences, including the religious consequences, of enforcing that right.

In other words, freedom of religion only applies if they want it to apply.

The defendant in this case claimed that his religious views allowed him to avoid contractual obligations. His religious views did not prevent him from making a contact, so claiming that religious views except him from fulfilling the contract is inane. Religious beliefs are not a deli where one can pick up and use those beliefs most convenient at the time discarding the rest.

[GreyBowel]

The Bruker case involved a contractual promise signed by Bruker’s ex-husband to grant her a Jewish divorce, a “Get”, in the event of a marriage breakdown. Her ex decided to renege on the written promise claiming that this was a religious matter and freedom of religion superceded contractual obligations. The Supreme Court said no. It upheld contractual obligations, the foundation of the rule of law, and said that freedom of religion was a personal matter and could not overrule, nor be imposed on, secular societal norms.

I wish that was the case, but it was not. The court instead claimed the authority to order people (and churches) to violate their conscience if they feel the 'public consequences' of doing so would be good enough in their opinion. A VERY dangerous precedent.

From the Globe and Mail story:
http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2//view ... 9e08411bf6

Writing for the majority, Madam Justice Rosalie Abella said that courts are empowered to referee religious disputes provided they "take into account the particular religion, the particular religious right, and the particular personal and public consequences — including the religious consequences — of enforcing that right."

I found the ruleing online at

http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2007/2 ... scc54.html

A fuller quote says:

In deciding cases involving freedom of religion, the courts cannot ignore religion. To determine whether a particular claim to freedom of religion is entitled to protection, a court must take into account the particular religion, the particular religious right, and the particular personal and public consequences, including the religious consequences, of enforcing that right.

In other words, freedom of religion only applies if they want it to apply.

The defendant in this case claimed that his religious views allowed him to avoid contractual obligations. His religious views did not prevent him from making a contact, so claiming that religious views except him from fulfilling the contract is inane. Religious beliefs are not a deli where one can pick up and use those beliefs most convenient at the time discarding the rest.

Hutterites pay their taxes in much the same way urban reserves do. In other words, individual Hutterites don't pay income tax. They used the freedom of religion arguement to say that giving taxes to the government is, in essence, a tithe and they are only suppose to tithe to the church. I guess, it is much the same logic that JW use when they do not listen or encourge the National Anthem. Obviously, both ignore that whole, "Give to Ceaser, what is Ceasar's due".

[Kate Shaw]

I will believe you mean it when the next All Adult private business opens without a shriek of ANTI FAMILY! ANTI CHILD! going up to the highest heavens...or when the first Smoking Airline, Smoking Bar or Smoking Anything opens for business without somebody suing to have it immediately closed down -- on the basis that nobody has any right to dictate who will and will not be allowed on his or her private premises or to structure his or her business according to personal preference -- in some matter that does not involve sexual intercourse.

Until then, the default premise is that ONLY Group Rights exist in Canada.

Interesting take Kate, but tell us, please, who comprises this 'group' you speak of?

The Group of the Permanently Offended.

[Kate Shaw]

By the way:

It's spelled Supersede.

Supersede is the only word in the English language that ends in -sede.

[WestViking]

Hutterites pay their taxes in much the same way urban reserves do. In other words, individual Hutterites don't pay income tax. They used the freedom of religion arguement to say that giving taxes to the government is, in essence, a tithe and they are only suppose to tithe to the church. I guess, it is much the same logic that JW use when they do not listen or encourge the National Anthem. Obviously, both ignore that whole, "Give to Ceaser, what is Ceasar's due".

That is a bit different because individual Hutterites do not own anything - all property belongs to the group, and they are not paid for their labour in the traditional way. However, if a Hutterite or reserve Aboriginal was to enter into a contract (for purchases of a vehicle for example) he would be expected to adhere to the contract.

[TomFoolery]

Looking through the various "spins" on the ruling (but, to be fair, I havne't read the ruling itself) -

I agree with West Viking's assessment and hope that this was indeed the basis of the ruling, and not some cock-eyed progressive rationalization hat just happened to come to the same fortunate conclusion.

The whole basis of civil law is the freedom to enter into contract, and the absence of provisions to the contrary - an implicit agreement to have the public civil courts enforce the terms of the contract (which, actually need not occur, because one can have resolution of conflict take place through an arbitrater, priest, etc.)

It is doubtful that the terms of the contract specified the dispute resolution mechanism, and therefore defaulted to Public Courts - which is why they are there.

Hopefully this makes sense to FD'ers.

[Grig]

The defendant in this case claimed that his religious views allowed him to avoid contractual obligations. His religious views did not prevent him from making a contact, so claiming that religious views except him from fulfilling the contract is inane.

Nothing in his religion forbids him from granting a get, and there was a contract in place legally obligating him to grant one. The court could have easily just said that and ruled against him on those grounds, but they went much further claiming a very broad and loosely defined power to set freedom of religion aside if they think it serves some good (in their mind) purpose. They didn't say there was no freedom of religion issue, they claimed power to set freedom of religion aside at their whim.

[WestViking]

The defendant in this case claimed that his religious views allowed him to avoid contractual obligations. His religious views did not prevent him from making a contact, so claiming that religious views except him from fulfilling the contract is inane.

Nothing in his religion forbids him from granting a get, and there was a contract in place legally obligating him to grant one. The court could have easily just said that and ruled against him on those grounds, but they went much further claiming a very broad and loosely defined power to set freedom of religion aside if they think it serves some good (in their mind) purpose. They didn't say there was no freedom of religion issue, they claimed power to set freedom of religion aside at their whim.

The parties were married in 1969. Divorce proceedings were commenced in 1980 and three months later, the parties negotiated a Consent to Corollary Relief. Paragraph 12 of the agreement stated that the parties agreed to appear before the rabbinical authorities to obtain a Jewish divorce, or get, immediately upon the granting of the divorce. The civil divorce became final in 1981, when the husband, M, was 48 and the wife, B, was 31.

A wife cannot obtain a get unless her husband agrees to give it. Without one, she remains his wife and is unable to remarry under Jewish law. In this case, despite the wife’s repeated requests, the husband consistently refused to provide a get for 15 years, by which time the wife was almost 47. The wife sought damages for breach of the agreement. The husband argued that his agreement to give a get was not valid under Quebec law and that he was protected by his right to freedom of religion from having to pay damages for its breach.

The trial judge found that the agreement was valid and binding and that a claim for damages based on a breach of this civil obligation was within the domain of the civil courts. The Court of Appeal allowed the husband’s appeal. It found that because the substance of the obligation was religious in nature, the obligation was a moral one and was therefore unenforceable by the courts.

[free_life2]

Section 15 (1) & (2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms lists the groups that are protected not just the fact they are a Canadian citizen. Following that is the French language 'rights' group.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Official Languages of Canada

This ruling has effectively stated that judges will decide if your religious freedom applies to real life situations or not.

[littleharbour]

There are no group rights in Canada. The Charter protects individual rights and freedoms. The Canadian Human Rights Act protects individuals, not the groups they may belong to. The HRCs are misinterpreting the law when they hold that statements of opinion may subject some members of a group to ridicule. Unless a complainant can show that there is real and present danger to an individual, a specific person, a respondent cannot be held as having committed an infraction of the law. <a href=http://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skca/doc/2006/2006skca41/2006skca41.pdf>Owens vs Saskatchewan</a> is a startling precedent. I strongly suggest that members download and read it.

The Charter as written protects individual rights. The Charter as interpreted by the Supremes protects group rights over individual rights. The latter view trumps the written text. As for the notion that Trudeau was a bastion of individual liberty, what BS. Most of the early Charter cases were decided by lefty, group rights judges that Trudeau personally appointed. Mulroney merely compounded the problem by appointing a succession of 8 judges to the SCC, all who were liberal in their ideology.

[GreyBowel]

Hutterites pay their taxes in much the same way urban reserves do. In other words, individual Hutterites don't pay income tax. They used the freedom of religion arguement to say that giving taxes to the government is, in essence, a tithe and they are only suppose to tithe to the church. I guess, it is much the same logic that JW use when they do not listen or encourge the National Anthem. Obviously, both ignore that whole, "Give to Ceaser, what is Ceasar's due".

That is a bit different because individual Hutterites do not own anything - all property belongs to the group, and they are not paid for their labour in the traditional way. However, if a Hutterite or reserve Aboriginal was to enter into a contract (for purchases of a vehicle for example) he would be expected to adhere to the contract.

Everytime I've done business with a Hutterite, they either paid or were paid with cash. But you are correct there are differences.

[OmniCog]

A document by the Elite, for the Elite, and exercised by the appropriations of authority from you, I, and everyone else alive at the time.

Good one. And very true. While the US Constitution was drawn up by average but men of high intelligence, the Canadian charter was drawn up by elitist lawyers and politicians for their own ends.

If you every read the thing it is like reading a bunch of namby pamby politicians trying to see every angle trying to please all the grasping greedy groups out there and further their own corporate masters as well. It goes on about bilingual New Brunswick to an unnessary degree. It has a clause called the notwithstanding clause that says that governments may ignore it at their pleasure. It is an utter embarrassment, and I as an average Canadian repudiate it as a stinking political mistake of huge proportions.