I Have A Right To My Rights, Right?
August 30, 2009 · By Sean
So, lately I’ve been hearing a lot of people complaining about what they have a right to, or not as the case may be. And amazingly enough, I’m hearing it less from teenagers and more from adults. Rational and logical minds tell us that there are certain fundamental and universal Human Rights (Human Rights Commissions aside as we’ve seen that the words “Rational” and “Logical” have little to no association with those entities). However, what I’m hearing are frankly, bastardizations of Rights and pathetic rationalizations of convenience masquerading as rights. I think we’re getting pretty darned close to those HRCs here.
Today, society is in a rapid freefall into an atmosphere of entitlement. Just because someone wants something, or is inconvenienced by something, there is a sudden formation of some kind of pseudo-right out of this nebulous feeling of dissatisfaction. This person then becomes very self-righteous in their own defense and waxes poetic about the injustices they face or are forced to carry. The suddenly inspired Right provides them with an anchor to which they tie themselves and their complaint for security.
Never mind for the moment that it’s purely an outright fabrication, or that it’s a wholesale lie. Instead look into the mindset of such people and be afraid. They truly, and honestly believe that they are entitled to this mythical Right. By themselves, this isn’t really a concern. But when others who hold the same insecurity or the same complaint hear about it, they are almost immediately indoctrinated into this early forming cult, and as more and more people come to believe the lie, the more convincing it seems. Soon enough, someone will drag this into the HRCs in some kind of whining complaint about the atrocities committed against them. The HRCs in their neverending mission to justify their existance will seek some way to justify this person’s complaint through which they can then hold others to account. Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we set out to decieve.
Let’s step away from that for a moment and consider another mythical right. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as set out by the UN (when the UN actually meant something that is), in Article 13 it states:
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
Many people have bastardized this into giving them rights to specific modes of transportation (or movement). Take airlines for example. How does someone have a right to fly to their destination. Denying someone access to an airplane or to travel by one hardly violates their right to freedom of movement. No one is preventing them from reaching their destination by other means, yet airlines are continuously afflicted by Human Rights complaints. Likewise, no one has a right to a Drivers Licence either, but that doesn’t prevent them from taking a bus or a train or a boat right? And when it comes right down to it, even if they were denied use of any or all of those modes of transportation, they can always put one foot in front of the other. Afterall, mankind has enjoyed the ability to walk since even before Homo Erectus became the dominant species on the planet. But, since the hard-done-by individual is inconvenienced (or worse yet, embarrassed), suddenly their rights are being trampled.
And so, the dangerous path continues: Want becomes expectation. Expectation becomes entitlement. Entitlement becomes a Right. Right?
Wrong. But in this environment where the HRCs are creating a type of chill when it comes to offending someone who could then (with their help) turn it into a Human Rights Violation, people are becomming more and more afriad to call a spade a spade and rightfully give the complainer a verbal slap up the side of the head about their so-called “Right” to whatever. The politically correct B.S. needs to be put into its grave once and for all so that the grown-ups can get down to business without fear of being persecuted simply for having a different opinion or saying something offensive.
Sean Calder in 1909: Voting is a privilege, not a so-called “right”.
Hi Robert, at the risk of circling the wagons, I think you’re being rather uncharitable to Sean. I’d say that he ably lays out the groundwork for the case of negative liberties v. positive liberties. The freedom and liberty we enjoy today in Canada grows, primarily, from negative liberties. The more we insist on a “right to…” something, the more we move away from principles of western liberalism.
That we’re arguing about the “right not to be offended” and whether or not freedom of speech is an American concept (both of which have been propogated by HRCs), as well as the right to publicly-funded IVF treatment shows how far we’ve come (those without elemental freedoms worry not about socialized IVF treatment) and how far we’ve strayed (freedom of speech should never be treated so callously).
I will agree with you that Sean’s take is not sufficiently nuanced for an in depth discussion of positive and negative liberties (and I have a quibble or two about which I might post), but as a blog post, I’d say it serves as a solid introduction to the topic.
I don’t think I’m being uncharitable enough. Sean, like the rest of those who buy into this swill, believe the ongoing evolution of rights and freedoms should grind to a halt. That is the real betrayal of principles of western liberalism.
Robert, contrary to what you might think, I’m not against the evolution of Human Rights. However, my major complaint is where the line exists between what is a privilege and what is a right, otherwise how crazy can “future Rights” be?
Would it be reasonable for me to start advocating that I have a right to demand service from a private business 24 hours a day, 7 days a week regardless of the cost to the viability of said business and if they deny my that right I can have them charged for violating my Human Right to that?
Robert, I seriously doubt you believe that there is no line or that one should not exist at all. What I want to know, is where IS it and who will start standing up for it?
Robert McLelland: “Ongoing evolution of rights and freedoms” seems to conflict with western liberal principles.
Take, for example, the concept of “inalienable rights” advanced by Western liberal philosophers like Locke, and tossed aside by the likes of you and your beloved HRCs who want rights and freedoms to “evolve” – in other words, you want moral busybodies to engineer society to their own whims at gunpoint. That sounds nothing like western liberalism.
Jonathan, you’re right. It doesn’t have the style and nuance to adequately cover the topic. That’s probably because was was in a bit of a rant and it was late, so I sacrificed finesse in order to get it out there.
That being said, I truly hope that it IS a launching point for further discussion and/or attention.
And Robert, if you have anything constructive to contribute to it, I would be thrilled to have you participate.
Would it be reasonable for me to start advocating that I have a right to demand service from a private business 24 hours a day, 7 days a week regardless of the cost to the viability of said business and if they deny my that right I can have them charged for violating my Human Right to that?
Yes it would be reasonable. That’s my point. You aren’t guaranteed success in your advocacy but you are free to advocate for whatever rights you feel you should have. That’s how the process works and you, most likely because you disagree with some outcomes, have decided that the process itself should be shut down.
I guess McLelland likes the lobbyist system – aristocracy of pull.
Scary, I don’t think that’s right. My reading of Robert’s comment is that Human Rights Commissions/Tribunals are an appropriate adjudicator for issues of human rights and “human rights” (I infer from his post that he does not believe that all claims made to HRCs are inherently valid).
I disagree with him on that, both because of the procedures they have in place and because their is no democratic accountability (at least not directly), however, a debate about human rights and the role of these Commissions and Tribunals should not be conflated with the adverse effects lobbying has on our political culture.
McLeod:
My slight hyperbole aside, I take issue with entrusting a few political appointees with the task of arbitrarily deciding our morality. Robert’s vision of the system has us lowly ingrates prostrating themselves in front of the “experts”, waiting with bated breath for the possibility of some crumbs of freedom to be tossed in our direction. Meanwhile, those that have the inside track on the system are feasting on the spoils that they have rightfully earned as “remedy” for the transgression of their newly discovered rights, which come into being only by fiat declaration of those same “experts”.
Not at all dissimilar to the system of government that balances competing interests only on the basis of political and financial pull.
Okay sure Robert, I could advocate for it, but if they actually made that a Right could you seriously accept that? Is that a reasonable Right? Can it be considered Universal or Fundamental?
I don’t think the process itself should be shut down, but I think that there should be some kind of understanding and delineation as to what exactly constitutes a Right, and what does not. Without that kind of clarification, how can we possibly function as a society if it’s possible that every want and whim has the potential of becoming a Right?
Every whim and want doesn’t have the potential of becoming a right though. Establishing a new right is a complicated and drawn out process that typically involves the Supreme Court and parliamentary legislation. This weeds out the whims and wants.
I should point out that a few of you are in error in thinking that the various HRCs establish new rights. They don’t. They are in the rear of the process and only render judgements in cases that infringe upon already established rights.
Robert, Robert. Just look at what Barbara Hall has restructured her organization to become – dedicated to the “advancement” of human rights. You don’t need to change the Code to invent a new human right, there’s plenty of “policy” that can be invented from the ambiguity of the current Code.
For example, the OHRC just issued new policy statements on the discrimination on the basis of “family status”, issuing new requirements to every employer in the province to become “family friendly”. As part of this policy, it is now even discriminatory to require an employee to work for a specific number of hours, as that may conflict with “family obligations.” That, to any casual observer, is pulling new “rights” out of thin air.
As well, the HRC does not render judgments. That’s the HRT.
The restructuring took place because of new legislation passed by parliament and the statements on family status are in line with the Ontario Human Rights Code. Nothing you’re referring to was done unilaterally by the OHRC,
I have to wonder though, when I see something like this:
It seems to be that the OHRC is being crafted into a more advocacy role coupled with administrative oversight of the Tribunals.
Personally, this makes me more than a little uncomfortable. I would hope that maybe this legislation and new arrangement promotes a more responsible and genuine focus on rights without undue interference. I can also see enormous potential for this system to degenerate into a modern version of the Inquisition.
While I agree the the advancement of Human Rights is a necessary and admirable process, there must be a balance. There must also be those who keep those feet on the ground and respect the balance between reason and imagination.
Can we at least agree that there has to be some kind of balance?
McLelland: You haven’t responded to the OHRC “creating” new rights wrt workplace equality. Just take a look at their new approach to housing equality too – brand new restrictions on homeowners. Yes, they were given legislative approval, but that still punches a hole in your theory that HRCs can’t create rights.
Calder: It seems to me that any “advancement” of human rights always results in curtailed freedom. Instead of making things more just and fair, it’s moving the spectrum of “rights” away from freedom and towards equality. Considering equality requires more work and more power for government apparatus than freedom, it’s easy to see why bureaucrats want to move in that direction.
The HRCs and Ts are redundant. All their functions can be carried out by existing bodies:
Labour issues: Provincial Labour Relations Boards
Housing issues: Provincial Landlord/Tenancy adjudication bodies
Hate Speech: Criminal code
Sure but the only balance I would accept is one delivered through a free market.
I am not too sure what rights anybody has but if you want something you should either:
1) pay for it yourself
or
2) be the gracious recipient of a donation.
Anything else would not be right, as far as I am concerned.
Sean,
You make a peculiar assumption in the following statement:
I am sorry to say but you are 100% wrong. A justification of rights has no logical derivation except from an other assumption and it has no universality. I challenge you to prove your point and I tell you right now: you will never succeed. Nobody ever has. The most convincing so-called proofs boil down to circular reasoning whereby the initial premise is assumed to be true in one way shape or form.
Not that there is anything wrong with that. Rights are not objects nor is there any law of nature which acts to uphold them either. They can only exist in your mind. A right is most properly defined as a demand or an expectation to which you (or anybody else) feels entitled without any requirement of universality. Whether you like it or not, a right is an entitlement.
Just out of curiosity: Do cats have the right to chase mice?
Anybody know?
[...] Below, Sean Calder introduces the debate of postive v. negative rights. In the comments, Robert McLelland of myblahg.com objects to the notion that human rights are a settled matter and will not evolve any further (hopefully that is a fair representation of his comment). Sean, in a reply, does not take up the idea that human rights are a settled matter. He argues with Robert about where the evolution has taken us, and where it might need to end. [...]
[...] surprised I’m the first one around here to mention this. Apropos of the little debate going on around here, it seems that even Human Rights Commissions aren’t fans of Human Rights [...]