Canadian Politics - Healthcare

[St Leo]

CHAPTER 11: POLITICAL RIGHTS

21. Every person has a right of petition to the National Assembly for the redress of grievances.

22. Every person legally capable and qualified has the right to be a candidate and to vote at an election.

CHAPTER III: JUDICIAL RIGHTS

23. Every person has a right to a full and equal, public and fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, for the determination of his rights and obligations or of the merits of any charge brought against him. The tribunal may decide to sit in camera, however, in the interests of morality or public order.

It may also sit in camera in the interests of children, particularly in matters of divorce, separation from bed and board, marriage annulment or declaration or disavowal of paternity.

24. No one may be deprived of his liberty or of his rights except on grounds provided by law and in accordance with prescribed procedure.

25. Every person arrested or detained must be treated with humanity and with the respect due to the human person.

26. Every person confined to a house of detention has the right to separate treatment appropriate to his sex, his age and his physical or mental condition.

27. Every person confined to a house of detention while awaiting the outcome of his trial has the right to be kept apart, until final judgment, from prisoners serving sentence.

28. Every person arrested or detained has a right to be promptly informed, in a language he understands, of the grounds of his arrest or detention,

29. Every person arrested or detained has a right to immediately advise his next of kin thereof and to have recourse to the services of an advocate.

30. Every person arrested or detained must be brought promptly
before the competent tribunal.

31. No person arrested or detained may be deprived without just cause
of the right to be released on undertaking, with or without deposit or surety, to appear before the tribunal at the appointed time.

32. Every person deprived of his liberty has a right of recourse to habeas corpus.

33. Every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law.

34. Every person has a right to be represented by an advocate or to be assisted by one before any tribunal.

35. Every accused person has a right to a full and complete defense and has the right to examine and cross-examine witnesses.

36. Every accused person has a right to be assisted free of charge by an interpreter if he does not understand the language used at the hearing.

37. No accused person may be held guilty on account of any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, did not constitute a violation of the law.

38. No testimony may be used to incriminate the person who gives it if he does so under the protection of the tribunal, except in the case of perjury.

[St Leo]

CHAPTER IV: ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS

39. Every child has a right to the protection, security and attention that must be provided to him by his family or the persons acting in their stead.

40. Every person has a right, to the extent and according to the standards provided for by law, to free public education.

41. Parents or the persons acting in their stead have a right to require that, in the public educational establishments, their children receive a religious or moral education in conformity with their convictions, within the framework of the curricula provided for by law.

42. Parents or the persons acting in their stead have a right to choose private educational establishments for their children, provided such establishments comply with the standards prescribed or approved by virtue of the law.

43. Persons belonging to ethnic minorities have a right to maintain and develop their own cultural interests with the other members of their group.

44. Every person has a right to information to the extent provided by law.

45. Every person in need has a right, for himself and his family, to measures of financial assistance and to social measures provided for by law, susceptible of ensuring such person an acceptable standard of living.

46. Every person who works has a right, in accordance with the law, to fair and reasonable conditions of employment.

47. Husband and wife have, in the marriage, the same rights, obligations and responsibilities.

Together they provide the moral guidance and material support of the family and the education of their common offspring.

48. Every aged person and every handicapped person has a right to protection against any form of exploitation.

Such a person also has a right to the protection and security that must be provided to him by his family or the persons acting in their stead.

CHAPTER V: SPECIAL AND INTERPRETATIVE PROVISIONS

49. Any unlawful interference with any right or freedom recognized by this Charter entities the victim to obtain the cessation of such interference and compensation for the moral or material prejudice resulting therefrom.

In case of unlawful and intentional interference, the tribunal may, in addition, condemn the person guilty of it to exemplary damages.

50. The Charter shall not be so interpreted as to suppress or limit the enjoyment or exercise of any human right or freedom not enumerated herein.

51. The Charter shall not be so interpreted as to extend, limit or amend the scope of a provision of law except to the extent provided in section 52.

52. Sections 9 to 38 prevail over any provision of any subsequent act which may be inconsistent therewith unless such act expressly states that it applies despite the Charter.

53. If any doubt arises in the interpretation of a provision of the act, it shall be resolved in keeping with the intent of the Charter.

54. The Charter binds the Crown.

55. The Charter affects those matters that come under the legislative
authority of Quebec.

56.(1) In sections 9, 23, 30, 31, 34 and 38, the word "Tribunal"
includes a coroner, a fire investigation commissioner, an inquiry commission,
and any person or agency exercising quasi-I . judicial functions.

(2)In section 19, the words "salary" and "wages" include the
compensations or benefits of pecuniary value connected with the employment.

(3)In the Charter, the word "law" or "act" includes a regulation, a decree, an ordinance or an order in council made under the authority of any act.

[St Leo]

People in pain or dying is against the Quebec Charter, but not the Canadian? This had gotta take the cake.

Well, the right to not be in pain isn't included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's a minimalist document that concerns itself more with negative freedoms than with positive ones.

From an American perspective, the law has been struck down for left-wing reasons rather than right-wing ones. It's an interesting situation.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by St Leo

People in pain or dying is against the Quebec Charter, but not the Canadian? This had gotta take the cake.

Well, the right to not be in pain isn't included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's a minimalist document that concerns itself more with negative freedoms than with positive ones.

From an American perspective, the law has been struck down for left-wing reasons rather than right-wing ones. It's an interesting situation.

What do you mean by an American perspective?

[St Leo]

Well, a Libertarian perspective anyways. Maybe a Republican one.

Libertarians don't believe in positive rights like the right to assistance in case of pain. Rather, they would argue that the single-tier healthcare law is unconscionable because it prohibits the right of selling whatever you want to sell (which is not in the Quebec charter, but is the foundation of Libertarian philosophy).

I apologize for misstating things.:P

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by St Leo
Well, a Libertarian perspective anyways. Maybe a Republican one.

Libertarians don't believe in positive rights like the right to assistance in case of pain. Rather, they would argue that the single-tier healthcare law is unconscionable because it prohibits the right of selling whatever you want to sell (which is not in the Quebec charter, but is the foundation of Libertarian philosophy).

I apologize for misstating things.:P

Oh, I thought you were refering to some specific American legislation.

But I understand what you mean now, although I wouldn't peg the issue with any particular party or group. There's no clear cut division on the issue of public vs private healthcare. And I think public opinion could change at any time.

This may sound weird but this whole issue, somehow, reminds me of the issue of ID and recent court cases surrounding it in parts of the US. I recently read a rather well written blog entry on it. For those who might be interested:

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/004054.html

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by St Leo
Well, a Libertarian perspective anyways. Maybe a Republican one.

Libertarians don't believe in positive rights like the right to assistance in case of pain. Rather, they would argue that the single-tier healthcare law is unconscionable because it prohibits the right of selling whatever you want to sell (which is not in the Quebec charter, but is the foundation of Libertarian philosophy).

Or buying what you want to buy.

[Kuciwalker]

7. A person's home is inviolable.

WTF? How does Quebec arrest people?

[Kontiki]

Are all arrests in the US based on the police kicking down someone's door?

[Kuciwalker]

In Quebec, do the police wait for you to come outside before arresting you?

[Kontiki]

Frankly, I have no idea. But how is that a response to my question?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by St Leo

People in pain or dying is against the Quebec Charter, but not the Canadian? This had gotta take the cake.

Well, the right to not be in pain isn't included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's a minimalist document that concerns itself more with negative freedoms than with positive ones.

From an American perspective, the law has been struck down for left-wing reasons rather than right-wing ones. It's an interesting situation.

Except the case was based on arguments that the government's mishandling of healthcare, and the consequent waiting lists, are an infringement on our rights to 'life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.'

I would say that being left in agony for months until they get around to you qualifies as an infringement, as does being left to die on a waiting list.

[notyoueither]

It's a minimalist document that concerns itself more with negative freedoms than with positive ones.

Where did you tear that from?

[Tingkai]

Thanks for the info, St. Leo. That info makes it easier to understand how the justices reached their decision.

[Ben Kenobi]

Libertarians don't believe in positive rights like the right to assistance in case of pain.

Interesting. Earlier you state the right in the negative, the right to be free from pain, and now you say it is a right to assistance in case of pain.

So which is it St. Leo? A positive or a negative right?

Secondly, the Charter has many positive rights, including the right for religious people to believe whatever they want to believe, even as it does not talk about their right to practice. I don't need the charter to protect my right to believe, I need a charter that explicitly protects the rights of religious people to practice.