Rights

[garb811]

After some pondering I‘ve decided that this is the appropriate Forum to put this in. I‘m on the soapbox though so unless you wish to read a rant, kindly move on to another post.

In the thread entitled "If I need an answer..." in the Infantry forum the statements were made that a person had the "right" to call himself by a nickname of his choosing and he also had the "right" to insult someone. Although I know this not to be true I clicked over to The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms just to check and nowhere, and I must emphasize nowhere does it state in that document that someone has the "right" to call themselves by whatever they wish (in fact, some provinces, such as Quebec, have laws restricting what you can name your child or legally change your name to), nor do they have the "right" to insult someone. Perhaps the closest you can get is the "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression" which is not a "right" but a fundamental freedom but I will note that in the case of a pseudonym it is a stretch by any means and in the case of insulting someone...well...perhaps you should review Part VIII of the Criminal Code, Offences Against the Person and Reputation. This covers the extreme end of the spectrum but I can assure you that many a person being charged for inciting hatred has tried to use the defence of "...it was only an insult directed at him/her/them...". Although calling someone an idiot, baby killer etc definately doesn‘t qualify for prosecution under the Criminal Code it certainly isn‘t enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a "right" let alone a fundamental freedom.

Now, one other thing you need to read regarding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is Section 32, Application of Charter. This is a partial quote:

"32. (1)This Charter applies

a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and

b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province."

It does not apply to individuals except in areas where laws regarding their interaction are defined by national or provincial law. This is a discussion board hosted on a private server by an individual on his private time and funds and, as the first page states, it has no connection at all with any governmental agency. Nor, thankfully although there is starting to be pressure exerted to change, is it in a medium that is governed by government regulations, such as TV or radio. The use of pseudonyms on this board is soley at the discretion of the owner of this board. If he decides tomorrow that everyone on this board must use their first and last name and have a non-hotmail/yahoo/msn/privacyx...whichever free email service you want to bring up, he can and there is absolutely no recourse available to you. You either comply or are banned.

Now that I‘ve been rambling on forever I‘m going to cut to the meat (editorial note: it‘s actually more along the lines of a side of beef) of the matter for those who are still here.

The invocation of "rights" has become epidemic not only in the CF but in our society as a whole. It is no longer a privilege but a "right", and once it is a "right" it no longer gives the person wielding that "right" any sense of obligation in return, they only go looking for more "rights" to invoke. "Rights" have also been used by special interest groups, lawyers and judges to change the social, moral and legal fabric of our country since the invocation of the Charter. We have steadily been moving away from the British system of unwritten Common Law, where the collective good is emphasized over the rights of individuals towards the system modeled after the US which is based on Napolionic Law, where the individual is greater than the group. If you rent a house or apartment, it‘s your "right" to stay there even if you don‘t bother to pay any rent and the owner is forced to go to court to obtain an injunction to evict you. It‘s your "right" to smoke where ever you want. It‘s your "right" to posses child porn as long as it‘s for your own use and you don‘t pass it around. It‘s your "right" to have a drivers licence, even if you have been convicted three times of impaired driving. It‘s your "right" to be a parent even if you barely have the capacity to take care of yourself, let alone a baby. If you work a weekend, it is your "right" to have days off CTO in return, never mind the fact that those in the Reg Force are paid 24/7/365. If you happen to be out of the geographical area over a meal hour then it is your "right" to be paid the monies for a meal claim even if you didn‘t bother to stop and eat. If a unit has the informal policy that Fridays are usually a stand down at about 1400 hrs if nothing is going on, if something does come up, people are quick to forget that being stood down at 1400 hrs on Friday is a privilege and not a "right". It‘s your "right" to take leave anytime you want, no matter what the op tempo is and it‘s also your "right" not to go on a tour just because it happens to be a bad time for you...even if you‘ve been having the bad time for the last two years, never mind, it‘s still your "right" to be assessed with the same standards as someone who has been on two tours in that time frame, and let‘s not forget that it‘s your "right" to be given extra points on that merit board because you have been able to take courses which make you more valuable to your trade, compared to the poor soul who has been away more than he has been home. It‘s your "right" to phone in sick for two days a month with no questions asked, your "right" to be placed on stress leave because you are unable to take the pressure of your job and it‘s also your "right" to be promoted immediately after you come back to work after said sick leave because, well, you placed high enough up the merit list and nobody is going to rock the boat by not signing off on the promotion lest you invoke your "right" to redress (OK...this one is a right, but it‘s not via the Charter!) and your "right" to complain of harassment. Incentive pay is now also a "right". Think back to the last person who actually was denied the next incentive, even when their performance has obviously been below standard or even when they have been charged. And, thanks to a certain review panel, it is now your "right" to be given your rank back after you have done a stint in the digger, unless you are specifically sentanced otherwise. Some groups have even gone to court trying to assert the "rights" of animals. I can go on but I‘m sure I‘m beating the proverbial dead horse here...

To sum up, we have to stop invoking "rights" that don‘t exist and stop elevating privlages, rewards and discretionary acts to that mythical level. When we see people doing this, we have to start reaching out and giving them a shake to bring them back to reality.

Lastly, if you are going to quote something, at least go out and do a bit of research to see if it actually says what you are claiming it does! I don‘t expect people to be lawyers or Rhodes scholars on here but the least you can do is take a moment to do a bit of rudimentary research to substantiate your claim, especially when it‘s a document that is written in easy to understand terms.

OK, off my high horse, rant mode off.

[ 16-03-2001: Message edited by: garb811 ]

 

[RCA]

and don‘t forget the "right" to own weapons.

I assume one reason for your well-written rant is the direction the CF is taking and I would like to add my comments.

-"and your "right" to complain of harassment" - In the CF this is a right and the complaint must dealt with.

Although I am from the "old school" I have just come off the Harassment Advisors (HA)course which has opened my eyes. The Army is changing and either we change with it or it will be changed for us. Nobody will disagree with one‘s "right" to be treated with "respect and dignity" by everyone they work with. Any arguments that you can bring up does not get away from that. Nobody should be discriminated against or be a victim of abuse of authority or hazing. I defy anyone to argue against that. These "rights" are gurenteed by th Charter of Rights for all Canadians (not for just those outside the military.) Who can tell me that "mess gossip" is right or rasists jokes are ok in the mess. And DND policy addresses this. This not political correctness, just the right thing to do. And before anyone thinks this new, this has been in effect since 1982 but DND never properly addressed it. Now we are paying the consequences

If you carried on your military career thru the proper principals of leadership you have nothing to fear. If you power trip then change or face the consequences.

And lastly I would recommend any NCO or officer who hasn‘t to take the HA crse. It is time well spent. The more who take it the faster we can put the nonsence behind us and carry on with our jobs.

 

[garb811]

Whoops! The comment in brackets broke up the sentence and made it seem like I was saying that complaining of harassment was something I disagreed with. This is not true, like RCA I am a HA and have been for quite awhile. I have handled my share of files both founded and unfounded and firmly support the system that is in effect. Before I inserted the comment the sentence read:

"...by not signing off on the promotion lest you invoke your "right" to redress and your "right" to complain of harassment." By inserting a comment to clarify and attempt to avoid an inconsistency it obviously made the sentence read differently than intended and caused the same result. The intent was to show a situation where the invoking of that right was not appropriate and quite obviously I failed.

Am I upset about the way the CF is headed? Definately but it‘s because to the majority of the people out there it‘s now a 8-4 job with weekends off and not a way of life like it once was. The fact that policies have been introduced to deal with situations that shouldn‘t have been tolerated in the first place doesn‘t faze me because, having been on the receiving end, I don‘t have any time for people who act in this manner.

 

[Mud Crawler]

Garb, i said nick name, not name.I know parents cant call their chil whatever they want.Some guy wanted to call his daughter some stupid name like "Spatule".Cmon!The father was even arguing that she wouldnt be laughed at in school because he couldnt figure any word game that rhymed with spatule and was pejorative.I can tell he hasnt been to school in a long time!The fact that children are less consious about the consequences of what they say make them even more prone to hurting someone.Also,
1.No one has teh right to prevent anyone from speaking(outside of speciel occasions like in court where you have to abey a judge, or anyother instances like that)
2.It isnt as much "you have the right to insult whoever you wish to" but the"You can‘t prevent anyone from saying what they have to say".Proof; your not justified hitting anyone because they insulted your mother or wife;you can‘t sue someone because what they said didnt please you(insults) because it is too easy stating one person caused psychological(yes it is psychological) aftermath.Sorry Garb, it‘s the way the Law is.

 

[garb811]

OK Mud, quote me the portion of the Charter that enshrines in law your "right" to use whatever nickname you wish. You were the one who stated that this was something that was protected by the Charter so prove it. I‘ve provided the link to the online version so it shouldn‘t be too difficult for you to pull it up for me.

As for the rest of your post, you‘ve merely strengthened my position of the harm that the misinterpretation of the Charter is doing to this country. In your mind, your "right to free speach" allows you to say whatever you wish, when you wish and allows you to do it without recourse, thereby giving you a right without a balancing obligation. This would law which emphasizes the rights of the individual, aka Napolionic Law. I, on the other hand, firmly believe in the freedom of speech however I also believe that that freedom must be tempered with some obligation as to the possible impact it can have on others and society as a whole. This is law which emphasizes the rights of the group, aka Common Law.

Fortunately, contrary to what you seem to believe, there are legal limitations on your being free to say whatever you wish. Take a look in the Criminal Code, particularly the sections dealing with Criminal Harassment, Uttering Threats, Assault and Defamatory Libel as a start. Provocation is an interesting section which you may wish to read if you think you can stand back and say whatever you wish without immediate results. It would have to be something extreme but there are instances when someone could bury their knuckles in your throat and not be charged with assault.

BTW, you‘ll also find that people have taken people to court in the past for things that have been said and that they have won a substantial amount of money.

Anyways, here‘s another link that‘ll be useful for you so you can go and read all the CCofC spections I‘ve mentioned:

Criminal Code of Canada

Sorry Mud, this is the way the law is and my profession makes me quite conversant with it.

 

[Mud Crawler]

Why don‘t you prove me that I‘m not free to use the nick name i want on this post and any post and I‘ll stop arguying.And if my opinions offend you, well...SUE ME!

 

[Soldier of Fortune]

LISSEN,
I didn‘t mean to offend anybody, it was just a question. I am sorry I asked it, I would delete it if I could. I didn‘t direct it at ANYBODY, it was just a question.

And with regards to my NICKNAME, it‘s actualy a name of a magazine, so why dont you talk to the magazine about it!

 

[ender]

Soldier of Fortune,
I‘m really sorry. I was unnessesarily harsh with you there. (I tend to be a bit snappish on forums, I‘m much politer in real life.) Sorry again.

 

[Soldier of Fortune]

Its o.k., I should never have posted it.

 

[RCA]

To Soldier:

If you don‘t ask quetions, you don‘t learn things. you had a valid question on your mind and you had the gumption to ask it. Don‘t apologize. Sometimes we think everyone one on this board are roughly the same ages and background and you have proved us wrong and I‘m sure we all learned a lesson from it.

So don‘t shy away, your input from your prospective is unique and appreciated.

 

[garb811]

Mud:

Let me refresh your memory since obviously you no longer remember what it was you wrote:

"1.He (as anyone) has the right to wear the nickname he wishes. It‘s called the Canadian Charter of Human Rights."

As I‘ve previously proven, this "right" is nowhere it that document, no matter how much it is set into your mind that it is.

Your opinions don‘t offend me, no matter how mistaken they are. What does offend me, and the reason I posted, was your attempt to add legitimacy to your mistaken opinion by invoking the Charter. Quite obviously you couldn‘t even be bothered to research if it was something contained in the Charter prior to your original post. It also appears that you cannot be bothered to read the document after you have been challenged on your mistaken invocation/interpretation of it.

Now, having said that, unless you have something more constructive to add than "Yeah...well my dad can beat up your dad!" like a six year old in the school yard, I‘ll let the matter rest.

SoF:

No worries, this is nothing like used to go on here...whatever happened to the out of shape OCdt anyways? Last I heard from him he was saying he was off running 20 miles a day and eating snakes with the Green Berets or something...but I digress. The purpose of this board is to stimulate discussion and thought. Quite obviously you have done that, even if it wasn‘t intended, Soldier of Fortune is a fine nickname even if it is a tad un-Canadian, most of us prefer to serve for something more than money. I read more than my share of that magazine back in my youth. Of course, that was back when people actually were allowed to take out adds looking for SoF‘s or employment as one and I still had all of my hair. At least I still have all of my teeth...for now.