DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Canada strikes down anti-terror law!

**Unjucky** · 02-23-2007, 10:52 PM

That is certainly how it would sound the way i worded it. But the only rights are those rights granted by the state, and i think this particular right is worth granting.

Andrew

Ahh, you are much too smart for me to bait you.

But I'm still curious as to why you think this particular right is worth granting? What basis did you use to form that opinion?

In addition, which state would grant those rights? For example:

1) A citizen comes from a country which does not recognize the right to a trial. Ergo, he does not have that right. The country he enters may confer the right to trial upon its citizens, but until our happy immigrant becomes a citizen he does not have that right. Correct?

2) A citizen comes from a country which has conferred upon its citizens the right to a trial. Ergo, he has that right. He emigrates to a country which does not grant its citizens the right to a trial. Should our happy immigrant be worried? After all, his government has given him the right to a trial. Shouldn't he just be able to flash that and force his new country to recognize his right?

Of course, the escape clause to the first is rights conferred upon the citizens of one nation are universal rights - rights that apply to every person regardless of nationality. If that is the case, then shouldn't every person on the planet enjoy all the rights you enjoy? For example: they should be allowed to vote in your elections, utilize your health care system, go to your public schools, use your court system for their trials, demand protection from your military, etc.

And the escape clause for the latter would be to argue rights are not a function of who or what you are, but rather a function of where you are. If that is the case, then it begs the question why you feel Canada is a geographic place worthy of granting the right to a trial? Otherwise, you would have to make the argument there is something about humans which entitles them to a right to a trial. Of course, that would negate your argument for hypothetical number one and that states confer rights, because states are obviously different and capable of conferring different rights.

02-23-2007, 10:52 PM	#23
Unjucky Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 555 Senior Member	That is certainly how it would sound the way i worded it. But the only rights are those rights granted by the state, and i think this particular right is worth granting. Andrew Ahh, you are much too smart for me to bait you. But I'm still curious as to why you think this particular right is worth granting? What basis did you use to form that opinion? In addition, which state would grant those rights? For example: 1) A citizen comes from a country which does not recognize the right to a trial. Ergo, he does not have that right. The country he enters may confer the right to trial upon its citizens, but until our happy immigrant becomes a citizen he does not have that right. Correct? 2) A citizen comes from a country which has conferred upon its citizens the right to a trial. Ergo, he has that right. He emigrates to a country which does not grant its citizens the right to a trial. Should our happy immigrant be worried? After all, his government has given him the right to a trial. Shouldn't he just be able to flash that and force his new country to recognize his right? Of course, the escape clause to the first is rights conferred upon the citizens of one nation are universal rights - rights that apply to every person regardless of nationality. If that is the case, then shouldn't every person on the planet enjoy all the rights you enjoy? For example: they should be allowed to vote in your elections, utilize your health care system, go to your public schools, use your court system for their trials, demand protection from your military, etc. And the escape clause for the latter would be to argue rights are not a function of who or what you are, but rather a function of where you are. If that is the case, then it begs the question why you feel Canada is a geographic place worthy of granting the right to a trial? Otherwise, you would have to make the argument there is something about humans which entitles them to a right to a trial. Of course, that would negate your argument for hypothetical number one and that states confer rights, because states are obviously different and capable of conferring different rights.
	Quote