Metallikid wrote:Local_NG_Idiot wrote:Metallikid wrote:Except it's not for huge parties it's for ANYONE, go read the article. And for the other two who said what human rights are being violated, I said very clearly, our Charter right to Assembly. The enforcement of these sorts of draconian rules cannot be trusted to police officers and these laws are far too overreaching. You want to close casinos, fine, that's not the same as saying you cannot see other people, your family and friends, in the privacy of your own home. These warrants will be rubber stamps. Especially for those that live alone this is worse than house arrest without having committed a crime. You guys really don't understand what happens historically when governments take these sorts of essentially emergency powers for themselves and how hard it is to remove draconian rules like these, that's exactly why this is dangerous. Abuse and loss of our rights is serious and you guys also don't seem to realize that that's what separates free, Western societies from authoritarian non-Western societies, the fact that our rights do come first and can't be infringed upon.
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/U.N. Declaration of Human Rights
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
As well as:
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
Canada, in it's charter of rights has the right to freedom of expression, with of course limitations on hate speech, calls for violence, exploitation of children etc....
Canada's charter of rights with regards to freedom of assembly have the similar limitations even prior to the pandemic. Specifically with the definition of 'Harm'.
Again, you don't understand what human rights are.
You're wrong. You can't declare a peaceful assembly harmful, and abrogating the Right to Assembly could only ever be done temporarily on an emergency basis with clear and consistent justification, not indefinitely and by law. This is overreach from a government I think we would all agree is not run by the smartest or most moral actors. It's run by people who are trying to stay in power and they think by overreaching and taking away our rights is the best way to do this because the level of fear that has been drummed into people could only rightly be classified as a hysteria. A virus that could very well become endemic does not give them the right to permanently abrogate the Right to Assembly, which is what this is, especially since we have had other pandemics in the past and these sorts of laws were never put in place.
And separately we are a signatory to the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights and these laws are directly conflicting with what I have laid out in my previous post.
I'm wrong? Not according to the Canadian Supreme court:
The Supreme Court of Canada decided in the case R v Oakes that limits to Charter rights and freedoms can be justified if the government can show there is a pressing and substantial objective for the law and if the means chosen to achieve the law’s objectives are proportional to the burden imposed. To decide if the means are proportional, the objective must be rationally connected to the limit, the limit must minimally impair the Charter right, and there must be a balance between the benefits of the limit and its deleterious effects.
but keep thumping your chest and screaming about this one all you want. You don't know how Canadian human rights or laws work.
Furthermore, as far as your claims of draconian rule, etc....Quebec already had the 'no visitor' laws earlier in the year when cases were high. When the numbers came down, they lifted those orders and people were free to visit one another again without the people of Quebec revolting. So there is precedence of Quebec balancing the objectives and burdens proportionally.
