Federal Court Judge Michel Shore dismissed Christopher Bennett’s claim that, for him, marijuana is a holy sacrament and thus him smoking it is protected under the Charter as a freedom of religion. Judge Shore said that Mr. Bennett’s pot smoking is a “life style choice.” Yes it is a life style choice, but so are all religions.
A person must decide to belong to a religion. Even if they are born into that religion they are still given a choice at some point in their life (at least in this society). Some religions require a very strict commitment and others are more liberal, but there is no religion in the world that doesn’t come with a particular life style. This makes being a member of a religion a life style choice, the same as being a pot head or being a hipster is a life style choice.
So why would being religious be a life style that is particularly protected?
At least on the surface it would appear that belonging to a particular religion is the choice that has led to the most discrimination in history. It wasn’t until the early 19th century that the British allowed Catholics to be public employees and it doesn’t take much education to think of much more horrific discriminations based on religion. There is, however, another life style choice that has been more consistently discriminated against than belonging to any religion, and that is atheism.
It wasn’t until very recently that someone could be an atheist openly and not fear public ire at best and horrible death at worst. Yet we have no specific protection for atheists beyond the normal protection of freedom of expression.
There are other less notable examples that also don’t receive special comment in the constitution. For example, at a certain time in Russian history bearded men were legally discriminated against. There is no provision anywhere in the charter that assures beard growers that this will never happen in Canada, besides of course the same assurance that the baby faced among us have in the section referring to the freedom of expression.
It is puzzling to me why, if freedom of expression is enough to protect atheists and beards, the choice of religion would need special mention. If the purpose of the constitution is to ensure that people can live their lives as they wish (within reasonable limits) then why does one particular set of choices need extra protection? Why should the individual’s reason behind the choices he/she make have any significance?
In a truly free society Mr. Bennett should not have had to justify his life through religion. All he should have had to say is “it is my choice and I am not hurting anyone.” Case shut.
Showing posts with label political theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political theory. Show all posts
Occupy Toronto has no right to St. James Park
On Tuesday the City of Toronto issued eviction notices to the Occupiers at St. James Park, I am sure in response to my post on Monday. A group of the Occupiers went to a judge for an injunction claiming that the eviction would violate their charter rights. The judge put a stay on the enforcement of the eviction notices until he had heard the arguments on Friday. This puzzles me.
I am not a lawyer. I have zero legal training, but I believe that I have a reasonable grasp on the constitution for a layman. I would have thought that this would be a pretty open and shut case. Isn’t it pretty well established that in Canada if you want to protest on public ground you need a permit? I hadn’t thought that this was a controversial limit on free speech.
As I say I am not an expert on constitutional law, but that doesn’t really matter because regardless of what the judge decides this is a reasonable limit on free speech and the Occupiers should be removed.
Lorne Gunter put it pretty well in his column published earlier today:
It is a key point that the Occupiers are restricting the ability of others to use the public space. This restriction is a cost that the rest of the public who may wish to use the park must pay. At the same time the Occupiers are completely ignoring the usual method of assigning usage of this public good. Essentially the Occupiers, by claiming exclusive use of the park, are demanding a public subsidy for their free speech.
Here we come to one of the misunderstood aspects of the right to speech and peaceful assembly. For it to be truly peaceful you cannot force others to pay for it. Magazine owners do not have a responsibility to publish everything that is submitted to them. I am not obligated to listen to every speaker with equal attention. And no one has an exclusive claim on a public good for the purposes of voicing an opinion.
The people presently squatting at St. James Park have the right to say and believe what they like, but that right does not allow them to continue to squat on public land.
I am not a lawyer. I have zero legal training, but I believe that I have a reasonable grasp on the constitution for a layman. I would have thought that this would be a pretty open and shut case. Isn’t it pretty well established that in Canada if you want to protest on public ground you need a permit? I hadn’t thought that this was a controversial limit on free speech.
As I say I am not an expert on constitutional law, but that doesn’t really matter because regardless of what the judge decides this is a reasonable limit on free speech and the Occupiers should be removed.
Lorne Gunter put it pretty well in his column published earlier today:
You don't have an unreserved right to live in a public space, no matter how fervent your opinions are nor how noble you believe your cause is. Your actions diminish the ability of other citizens to enjoy that public space, too. By demanding that you be permitted to camp out in a city park until income parity is reached or caps to CEO pay are legislated or the dictatorship of the proletariat is achieved, you are, effectively, insisting your rights trump those of other members of the public who may wish to use the common space differently. What gives you that right?
It is a key point that the Occupiers are restricting the ability of others to use the public space. This restriction is a cost that the rest of the public who may wish to use the park must pay. At the same time the Occupiers are completely ignoring the usual method of assigning usage of this public good. Essentially the Occupiers, by claiming exclusive use of the park, are demanding a public subsidy for their free speech.
Here we come to one of the misunderstood aspects of the right to speech and peaceful assembly. For it to be truly peaceful you cannot force others to pay for it. Magazine owners do not have a responsibility to publish everything that is submitted to them. I am not obligated to listen to every speaker with equal attention. And no one has an exclusive claim on a public good for the purposes of voicing an opinion.
The people presently squatting at St. James Park have the right to say and believe what they like, but that right does not allow them to continue to squat on public land.
Liberty and equality
A couple of days ago I posted a video that explained why liberty is more important than equality. Yet there are some equalities that are important and not hostile to liberty.
Liberty or equality?
It is pretty clear that the main social goal of many socialist activists, such as the Occupiers, is equality. The problem is that equality does not mean life is better. Equality is not something that intrinsically improves the well being of individuals or the prosperity of society. Equality should not be the goal, liberty should be.
I will allow Milton Friedman to explain why:
I will allow Milton Friedman to explain why:
A quick review of the Canadian Index of Wellbeing
Gross Domestic Product measures the market value of all the goods and services produced in a given territory in a certain amount of time. This measure is often used by economists, social scientists, and politicians as a proxy for a territory’s wellbeing. This is despite the fact that pretty much anyone who knows anything about GDP would readily admit that it does not adequately reflect wellbeing nor does it even capture all economic activity. So there have been attempts made from a wide range of sources to replace the GDP and find some objective measure for the wellbeing of a population.
The latest attempt comes out of the University of Waterloo by the “Canadian Index of Wellbeing Network” headed by Roy Romanow.
It is a deeply flawed index.
Fundamentally the problem is that it attempts to measure wellbeing by using indicators that are laced with the values of the authors rather than an objective measure.
For example, why is democratic engagement fundamental to wellbeing? If I am satisfied to be ignorant of the process of government, why is this harmful to my wellbeing?
Furthermore why is the indicator for global engagement the Net Official Development Assistance as a percent of gross national income? Why is this form of international cooperation more significant than say free trade or military alliances?
The education section of the Index is even rifer with the value biases of the authors. Instead of focusing on educational outcomes the authors look at additional superfluous indicators such as socialization. They also look at student to teacher ratios and how many people attend post-secondary education. This stuff may be important to education and they may not be, either way they are not objective measures of the quality of education in society (If 100% of the population graduated from a high school system that failed to teach them to read that would not be a good outcome). It is pretty clear that these indicators are included because the authors think that they are important not for any objective reasoning.
There are other problems with the Index. The standard of living section alone deserves to be ripped to absolute shreds. But I think if they have succeeded in anything it is in underlining exactly why it is so hard to come up with a true objective scientific measure of wellbeing.
Wellbeing has to be defined theoretically; it is an ideological question. It is impossible to remove completely from any such index any hint of ideological allegiance because you have to make choices about what is and is not important. So we should recognize this Index for what it is and what it is not.
It is not an objective scientific measure of the wellbeing of Canadians.
It is an interesting (or not depending on your bias) aggregation of varied data.
It is not a replacement for GDP as an accepted proxy for wellbeing.
The latest attempt comes out of the University of Waterloo by the “Canadian Index of Wellbeing Network” headed by Roy Romanow.
It is a deeply flawed index.
Fundamentally the problem is that it attempts to measure wellbeing by using indicators that are laced with the values of the authors rather than an objective measure.
For example, why is democratic engagement fundamental to wellbeing? If I am satisfied to be ignorant of the process of government, why is this harmful to my wellbeing?
Furthermore why is the indicator for global engagement the Net Official Development Assistance as a percent of gross national income? Why is this form of international cooperation more significant than say free trade or military alliances?
The education section of the Index is even rifer with the value biases of the authors. Instead of focusing on educational outcomes the authors look at additional superfluous indicators such as socialization. They also look at student to teacher ratios and how many people attend post-secondary education. This stuff may be important to education and they may not be, either way they are not objective measures of the quality of education in society (If 100% of the population graduated from a high school system that failed to teach them to read that would not be a good outcome). It is pretty clear that these indicators are included because the authors think that they are important not for any objective reasoning.
There are other problems with the Index. The standard of living section alone deserves to be ripped to absolute shreds. But I think if they have succeeded in anything it is in underlining exactly why it is so hard to come up with a true objective scientific measure of wellbeing.
Wellbeing has to be defined theoretically; it is an ideological question. It is impossible to remove completely from any such index any hint of ideological allegiance because you have to make choices about what is and is not important. So we should recognize this Index for what it is and what it is not.
It is not an objective scientific measure of the wellbeing of Canadians.
It is an interesting (or not depending on your bias) aggregation of varied data.
It is not a replacement for GDP as an accepted proxy for wellbeing.
Reason and bleeding-heart libertarians
I'm sympathetic to the idea of "bleeding-heart libertarians" although I am cautious about what specific values you want to include under the umbrella of "social justice." Social justice is too often used as a slogan for values that are inherently antagonistic to a free market system, such as economic equality.
Yet if by social justice you are talking about environment, fairness, and prosperity, then yes libertarians have the solution for these issues.
Yet if by social justice you are talking about environment, fairness, and prosperity, then yes libertarians have the solution for these issues.
Paul McKeever of the Freedom Party responds to my post
This post, that I published yesterday explaining why I was voting for the Libertarian Party and not the Freedom Party, was picked up by the National Post’s Full Comment page this morning. Freedom Party leader Paul McKeever responded in the comment section with this:
All of this makes me think that Mr. McKeever has missed my point.
This is what I wrote yesterday:
And so his explanation of libertarianism is beside the point. Why not encourage moral subjectivists to be members of your party? Why condemn them when you can work with them towards a mutual political goal?
I should say that I do not wish the Freedom Party or Mr. McKeever ill. I would have voted for them if I didn’t have the Libertarian Party as an option. My one and only issue with the Freedom Party is that they allow a narrow and largely irrelevant ideological distinction to get in the way of building a more united and stronger non-statist movement.
Hello Hugh:
Just one correction. Freedom Party does welcome you and does want your vote.
For all of the reasons you cite, voting FP is the best choice for anyone who wants the sorts of changes we are proposing (see here: http://www.freedomparty.on.ca/... ). As always, everyone who supports Freedom Party's planks is welcomed by FP. Our candidates, supporters, members, and voters include a wide variety of people, having a wide variety of different beliefs or philosophies. Whether you live your life according to one philosophy or another is of no importance to me, or to Freedom Party. If you support Freedom Party's planks, you are a Freedom Party person, and that support is all that matters.
There are many people who genuinely want more individual freedom. One convenient/common handle often used by such a person is "libertarian". However, the reality is that a great number of people who label themselves "libertarian" are not advocates of "libertarianISM". Libertarianism is a word that refers to a failed, irrational, and morally subjective anti-government electoral strategy and movement. Libertarianism is, in fact, the strategy of the Libertarian party.
For those interested in why I condemn libertarianism (not those who merely, out of convenience, refer to themselves as "libertarian"), and for all who want to understand - properly - what "libertarianism" truly means and entails - I would encourage the National Post's readers to read/watch the following:
From my personal blog: "If you want freedom…" Q&A: Libertarianism - http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/pa...
Video: "Damned to Repeat It" - http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/20...
Regards,
Paul McKeever
Leader, Freedom Party of Ontario
All of this makes me think that Mr. McKeever has missed my point.
This is what I wrote yesterday:
I won’t bother going into the difference between objectivism and libertarianism because one is a moral philosophy and the other is a political philosophy. By insisting the Freedom Party is objectivist, rather than libertarian, Mr. McKeever is basically saying that you have to not just agree with his policies, but also agree with the moral philosophy of Ayn Rand.
Plenty of people’s political philosophy is rooted in their personal moral philosophy. I would wager that this is true of most people. But from different origins political movements come together around specific political principles and goals. It doesn’t matter why two people agree that the political principle is good, as long as they can work together. I don’t care that Mr. McKeever is an objectivist, because I agree with his political goals.
And so his explanation of libertarianism is beside the point. Why not encourage moral subjectivists to be members of your party? Why condemn them when you can work with them towards a mutual political goal?
I should say that I do not wish the Freedom Party or Mr. McKeever ill. I would have voted for them if I didn’t have the Libertarian Party as an option. My one and only issue with the Freedom Party is that they allow a narrow and largely irrelevant ideological distinction to get in the way of building a more united and stronger non-statist movement.
Should I vote Freedom or Libertarian?
Voting tomorrow in the Ontario election will be difficult for me. I have never had as much difficulty making up my mind on how I would vote for an election as I have for this one. For the first time I have been given the opportunity to vote for one of two political parties that both have important things to say and are both offering platforms that will bring about true prosperity to the province of Ontario. I have had to take a serious look at both political parties and decide who it is that truly deserves my vote more. I speak of course of the Freedom Party and the Libertarian Party.
I am fortunate that both political parties are running a candidate in my riding (St. Paul’s) and so I don’t have to pick between vomiting and not voting.
Both parties offer a vision of a more modest state that does not unnecessarily interfere with the lives of the individual and recognizes the free market as the primary driver of prosperity. There are some nuanced policy differences but the differences are so small or so technical that there isn’t much to choose between them. I would feel comfortable that with either platform the individuals in Ontario will be better off.
So without policy to offer me a guide to choose I turn my eye to the parties as organizations.
I have to say I have been impressed with the Freedom Party during this election. I have posted several of their adverts, and with one notable exception, they have been the best political adverts of this campaign. They are clear, to the point, and offer a policy idea that makes me stand up and cheer (screw you Liquor Control Board of Ontario).
Furthermore the Freedom Party leader has been able to attract a decent amount of media attention given the low profile of his party. They have also organized themselves enough to run candidates in most of Ontario’s ridings. This is no small accomplishment for a political organization that is perpetually strapped for resources.
The Freedom Party has worked hard to earn my vote whilst the Libertarian Party has been pretty much invisible.
Still, I can’t bring myself to vote for the Freedom Party and the reason I can’t is the party’s leader: Paul McKeever.
Some of you, if not most of you, are likely pretty confused by all of this.
“Hang on!” you may be crying out, “what do you mean there are two libertarian parties? Why would there be two parties splitting the libertarian vote? It’s not like there are so many of you to begin with.”
The explanation to your reasonable confusion is silly: Paul McKeever insists that the Freedom Party is objectivist and not libertarian.
I won’t bother going into the difference between objectivism and libertarianism because, as my friend Peter Jaworski points out here, one is a moral philosophy and the other is a political philosophy. By insisting that the Freedom Party is objectivist rather than libertarian basically Mr. McKeever is saying you have to not just agree with his policies but also agree with the moral philosophy of Ayn Rand.
Plenty of people’s political philosophy is rooted in their personal moral philosophy. In fact I would wager that this is true of most people. But from different origins political movements come together around specific political principles and goals. It doesn’t matter why two people agree that the political principle is good, as long as they can work together. I don’t care that Mr. McKeever is an objectivist because I agree with his political goals.
This isn’t good enough for Mr. McKeever. In fact he can be pretty insulting about it. He has on several occasions spoken derisively about libertarians. To my mind this means he doesn’t really want my vote. If ideological purity is what he wants then he doesn’t want me.
So I will be voting Libertarian Party because I agree with the party’s policies and the party leader doesn’t purposefully alienate me.
I am fortunate that both political parties are running a candidate in my riding (St. Paul’s) and so I don’t have to pick between vomiting and not voting.
Both parties offer a vision of a more modest state that does not unnecessarily interfere with the lives of the individual and recognizes the free market as the primary driver of prosperity. There are some nuanced policy differences but the differences are so small or so technical that there isn’t much to choose between them. I would feel comfortable that with either platform the individuals in Ontario will be better off.
So without policy to offer me a guide to choose I turn my eye to the parties as organizations.
I have to say I have been impressed with the Freedom Party during this election. I have posted several of their adverts, and with one notable exception, they have been the best political adverts of this campaign. They are clear, to the point, and offer a policy idea that makes me stand up and cheer (screw you Liquor Control Board of Ontario).
Furthermore the Freedom Party leader has been able to attract a decent amount of media attention given the low profile of his party. They have also organized themselves enough to run candidates in most of Ontario’s ridings. This is no small accomplishment for a political organization that is perpetually strapped for resources.
The Freedom Party has worked hard to earn my vote whilst the Libertarian Party has been pretty much invisible.
Still, I can’t bring myself to vote for the Freedom Party and the reason I can’t is the party’s leader: Paul McKeever.
Some of you, if not most of you, are likely pretty confused by all of this.
“Hang on!” you may be crying out, “what do you mean there are two libertarian parties? Why would there be two parties splitting the libertarian vote? It’s not like there are so many of you to begin with.”
The explanation to your reasonable confusion is silly: Paul McKeever insists that the Freedom Party is objectivist and not libertarian.
I won’t bother going into the difference between objectivism and libertarianism because, as my friend Peter Jaworski points out here, one is a moral philosophy and the other is a political philosophy. By insisting that the Freedom Party is objectivist rather than libertarian basically Mr. McKeever is saying you have to not just agree with his policies but also agree with the moral philosophy of Ayn Rand.
Plenty of people’s political philosophy is rooted in their personal moral philosophy. In fact I would wager that this is true of most people. But from different origins political movements come together around specific political principles and goals. It doesn’t matter why two people agree that the political principle is good, as long as they can work together. I don’t care that Mr. McKeever is an objectivist because I agree with his political goals.
This isn’t good enough for Mr. McKeever. In fact he can be pretty insulting about it. He has on several occasions spoken derisively about libertarians. To my mind this means he doesn’t really want my vote. If ideological purity is what he wants then he doesn’t want me.
So I will be voting Libertarian Party because I agree with the party’s policies and the party leader doesn’t purposefully alienate me.
Niall Ferguson: 6 killer apps for prosperity
Niall Ferguson lectures on the importance of certain ideas and institutions for prosperity.
I don't share Mr. Ferguson's optimism regarding the progress of some of the emerging countries in Asia. I get the impression that they are trying to download half the app and it won't work like that.
I don't share Mr. Ferguson's optimism regarding the progress of some of the emerging countries in Asia. I get the impression that they are trying to download half the app and it won't work like that.
Is the Premier Office too powerful?
With the debate in the provincial election mostly focused on the leaders, I think this is a good opportunity to take a moment and consider if the Premier of Ontario has too much power compared to the other political institutions.
In politics money isn't everything
The importance of money in politics is usually exaggerated. Consider the recent Republican victory in New York.
Money raised:
Bob Turner (R) $200,000
David Weprin (D) $500,000
Having more money is an advantage certainly, but you can't buy an election.
Money raised:
Bob Turner (R) $200,000
David Weprin (D) $500,000
Having more money is an advantage certainly, but you can't buy an election.
Conservatives should be libertarians
A moral code held up by force rather than conviction is not a benefit to social conservative ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)