4 ms·

Women's right to choose what goes in their bodies is an important right in Canada. Not to worry the wartime act will be used on something you personally care a

by ipaddr 4y ago

Women's right to choose what goes in their bodies is an important right in Canada. Not to worry the wartime act will be used on something you personally care about but by that time your rights will be gone.

epgui 4y ago
^ Exhibit A: commenter fails to recognize that there are sometimes good reason to temporarily limit rights, such as to limit the spread of infectious diseases, because commenter knows very little about public health or epidemiology. Commenter believes that anytime rights are limited, it's for a nefarious purpose, and it can't possibly be for a good reason. How's the syphillis and HIV treating you? Oh what's that? You live in a society that actively limits the spread of these diseases by carefully limiting rights, so you're free to live your life without these diseases? Nice concept.
- helloooooooo 4y ago
  They also don’t understand that the “wartime act” is not the act that was invoked. In fact, the War Measures Act has not existed in Canada for nearly 40 years. It was replaced by the Emergencies Act, which explicitly does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, unlike its predecessors. It just goes to show how knowledgeable the previous poster is on the subject.
  - epgui 4y ago
    Indeed. But just to be even more clear: > which explicitly does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Indeed indeed. However, it does limit the rights and freedoms in the Charter, and it does so in a way that the Charter allows. The Charter provides an escape hatch in exceptional circumstances, and that is not by accident: it is by design. And anyone who would design the Charter without this escape hatch probably has no business being in governance, because it would just be a ticking time bomb to a constitutional crisis.
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    Same act that imprisoned Japanese citizens that was slightly changed. Legally the government could make you a slave and it wouldn't violate your charter. You don't have as many rights or protections as you believe. You don't even have property rights in Canada.
    - epgui 4y ago
      > Legally the government could make you a slave and it wouldn't violate your charter. This is hilariously false.
- mike741 4y ago
  Not the best example. We live in a society that intentionally infected 600 African American men with syphilis, without their consent, simply to see what happens despite knowing effective treatment already existed. Nice concept indeed.
  - epgui 4y ago
    I am aware, and that is indeed very bad, but do you realize how irrelevant that is?
    - mike741 4y ago
      Irrelevant to a response regarding both the importance of human rights and the spread of syphilis? I can't imagine an instance where it would be more relevant, I'd be interested to hear why it's not though.
      - epgui 4y ago
        The topic of discussion is the limits on human rights that can reasonably arise to protect the public from real harm. What you're throwing into the mix is a suspension of human rights for... unethical research? Failing to see the distinction is really not something I can help you with.
        mike741 4y ago
        What I've thrown into the mix is a suspension of human rights that was claimed to be for the purpose of protection but in reality caused harm. It wasn't simply "unethical research." If HIV and Syphilis are the best examples of reasons to suspend human rights then we are lacking in good examples. Far more often than not, human rights are a form of protection and their suspension is a guise for causing harm.
        epgui 4y ago
        This is the problem with people who think like you. You see someone say "there can be good reasons to suspend rights in exceptional circumstances" and you just go and find an example of a terrible justification to suspend rights (sometimes with an outright evil or cruel motivation), as if it was the same thing. When I used the example of STIs, I was alluding to things like how the "duty to report" [1] and the criminalization of very limited and targeted behaviours [2] have the effect of narrowing very specific rights in very specific circumstances. These are policies that are reasonable and that generally are designed to limit rights and freedoms as little as possible in order to achieve a particular goal. We're not talking about suspending rights just because it's "convenient", and I wasn't alluding to using humans as guinea pigs for unethical research programmes... I don't know what you were thinking. You apparently don't see the difference, but that doesn't mean you have special insight-- if anything, it just means you're confused about the principles at play (or, perhaps more charitably, you're assuming that I'm a fool and are misinterpreting what I'm saying). --- [1] https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001929.htm https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001929.htm [2] https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/exposure.html https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/exposure.html ^ The provided links are US-centred (because I'm assuming most readers are American) but one can easily find very similar policies in Canada or almost any other developed country.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  I don't live in a society where they force vaccinate hiv or syphilis patients. Are you living in Africa? People who have hiv or syphilis do not get fired from a working from home position with the Canadian government because they refuse to take a vaccine. Your worldview is limited.
  - epgui 4y ago
    Why are you making this about vaccines? There’s no good vaccine for either HIV or syphillis.

by ipaddr 4y ago

epgui 4y ago

^ Exhibit A: commenter fails to recognize that there are sometimes good reason to temporarily limit rights, such as to limit the spread of infectious diseases, because commenter knows very little about public health or epidemiology. Commenter believes that anytime rights are limited, it's for a nefarious purpose, and it can't possibly be for a good reason. How's the syphillis and HIV treating you? Oh what's that? You live in a society that actively limits the spread of these diseases by carefully limiting rights, so you're free to live your life without these diseases? Nice concept.

helloooooooo 4y ago
They also don’t understand that the “wartime act” is not the act that was invoked. In fact, the War Measures Act has not existed in Canada for nearly 40 years. It was replaced by the Emergencies Act, which explicitly does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, unlike its predecessors. It just goes to show how knowledgeable the previous poster is on the subject.
- epgui 4y ago
  Indeed. But just to be even more clear: > which explicitly does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Indeed indeed. However, it does limit the rights and freedoms in the Charter, and it does so in a way that the Charter allows. The Charter provides an escape hatch in exceptional circumstances, and that is not by accident: it is by design. And anyone who would design the Charter without this escape hatch probably has no business being in governance, because it would just be a ticking time bomb to a constitutional crisis.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  Same act that imprisoned Japanese citizens that was slightly changed. Legally the government could make you a slave and it wouldn't violate your charter. You don't have as many rights or protections as you believe. You don't even have property rights in Canada.
  - epgui 4y ago
    > Legally the government could make you a slave and it wouldn't violate your charter. This is hilariously false.
mike741 4y ago
Not the best example. We live in a society that intentionally infected 600 African American men with syphilis, without their consent, simply to see what happens despite knowing effective treatment already existed. Nice concept indeed.
- epgui 4y ago
  I am aware, and that is indeed very bad, but do you realize how irrelevant that is?
  - mike741 4y ago
    Irrelevant to a response regarding both the importance of human rights and the spread of syphilis? I can't imagine an instance where it would be more relevant, I'd be interested to hear why it's not though.
    - epgui 4y ago
      The topic of discussion is the limits on human rights that can reasonably arise to protect the public from real harm. What you're throwing into the mix is a suspension of human rights for... unethical research? Failing to see the distinction is really not something I can help you with.
      - mike741 4y ago
        What I've thrown into the mix is a suspension of human rights that was claimed to be for the purpose of protection but in reality caused harm. It wasn't simply "unethical research." If HIV and Syphilis are the best examples of reasons to suspend human rights then we are lacking in good examples. Far more often than not, human rights are a form of protection and their suspension is a guise for causing harm.
        epgui 4y ago
        This is the problem with people who think like you. You see someone say "there can be good reasons to suspend rights in exceptional circumstances" and you just go and find an example of a terrible justification to suspend rights (sometimes with an outright evil or cruel motivation), as if it was the same thing. When I used the example of STIs, I was alluding to things like how the "duty to report" [1] and the criminalization of very limited and targeted behaviours [2] have the effect of narrowing very specific rights in very specific circumstances. These are policies that are reasonable and that generally are designed to limit rights and freedoms as little as possible in order to achieve a particular goal. We're not talking about suspending rights just because it's "convenient", and I wasn't alluding to using humans as guinea pigs for unethical research programmes... I don't know what you were thinking. You apparently don't see the difference, but that doesn't mean you have special insight-- if anything, it just means you're confused about the principles at play (or, perhaps more charitably, you're assuming that I'm a fool and are misinterpreting what I'm saying). --- [1] https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001929.htm https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001929.htm [2] https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/exposure.html https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/exposure.html ^ The provided links are US-centred (because I'm assuming most readers are American) but one can easily find very similar policies in Canada or almost any other developed country.
ipaddr 4y ago
I don't live in a society where they force vaccinate hiv or syphilis patients. Are you living in Africa? People who have hiv or syphilis do not get fired from a working from home position with the Canadian government because they refuse to take a vaccine. Your worldview is limited.
- epgui 4y ago
  Why are you making this about vaccines? There’s no good vaccine for either HIV or syphillis.