3 ms·

I think that "fundamental" doesn't mean "naturally occurring" or "universal", but rather "foundational", in the sense that more nuanced rights are based upon th

I think that "fundamental" doesn't mean "naturally occurring" or "universal", but rather "foundational", in the sense that more nuanced rights are based upon their basic principles. So for example we have the principle of "freedom of speech", which might be accepted by courts and society as including a right to publish literary works that some deem offensive, but that could be considered a subsidiary or supplementary right which doesn't have the same level of protection. More relevantly, a society might accept the principle of a "right to privacy", but might not think that grants a "right to privacy from warranted surveillance" or from "warrant-less automated mass surveillance". Of course there will always be a tension, as rights activists will instinctively claim that denying some specific right is undermining a fundamental right, since they are sure that everyone agrees that the new right is an inherent consequence of that fundamental right, but the government will always claim that its policy doesn't impinge upon any fundamental right and that the specific new right that the activists believe in doesn't need to exist at all.

nucleardog 5y ago
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms actually enumerates the "fundamental" freedoms separately: freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association. Contrast these with the rights enumerated e.g., democratic rights (the right to vote), legal rights (freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, right to counsel), mobility rights (right to live in any province and enter and leave Canada). The rights granted are those that build _a_ society that supports those fundamental freedoms. The fundamental freedoms themselves are not something that exist in support of anything, but are simply accepted as something that stand alone as something we demand of our government.
- sam345 5y ago
  Do you mean that fundamental rights are anything we want them to be ? So if we want, we could decide that the right to be free of criminal activity (particularly ones that encourage or lead to degradation, depression, death, etc. of children) is more fundamental than the right of privacy ? I think there's something more to being fundamental. Otherwise it seems all very arbitrary. Calling something fundamental could change at the whim of the majority.

nucleardog 5y ago

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms actually enumerates the "fundamental" freedoms separately: freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association. Contrast these with the rights enumerated e.g., democratic rights (the right to vote), legal rights (freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, right to counsel), mobility rights (right to live in any province and enter and leave Canada). The rights granted are those that build _a_ society that supports those fundamental freedoms. The fundamental freedoms themselves are not something that exist in support of anything, but are simply accepted as something that stand alone as something we demand of our government.

sam345 5y ago
Do you mean that fundamental rights are anything we want them to be ? So if we want, we could decide that the right to be free of criminal activity (particularly ones that encourage or lead to degradation, depression, death, etc. of children) is more fundamental than the right of privacy ? I think there's something more to being fundamental. Otherwise it seems all very arbitrary. Calling something fundamental could change at the whim of the majority.