Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We'll obviously the truth was NOT self-evident to the signers of that document as they deemed slaves not to be equal.
I do agree that if I lived in 18th century America or Canada that owning a gun might be deemed a necessity and important right.
If we want be transparent, it's also clear given Canada's treatment of its aboriginal population over the decades that equality wasn't on the minds of the Fathers of Confederation either. Read up on how the potlach and sun dances were banned in the 1880's. First Nations people were treated as wards of the state until 1951.
Grave mistakes have been made on both sides of the border.
As to gun ownership or the concept of preventing rebellion from within or without, it was never a "right" in Canada, because Canada essentially slowly gained its independence from Britain over the course of more than 100 years. There was no "declaration" or war to fight over it.
The BNA act led to Canada becoming self-governing except for foreign policy, and laws still had to receive royal assent by Britain. Canada was a Dominion of the crown. One could argue that Canada didn't even really become a "country" until WWI. It wasn't until 1949 that it had powers over changes to its own constitution and the constitution wasn't fully "patriated" until 1982.
The US had a violent start, through rebellion and revolution. The Declaration of Independence, and the US Constitution are very different documents than the BNA Act. The Bill of Rights dates to 1791, and its second amendment is a very important one, just as important as the first. Note that the Canadian Bill of Rights (in its first federal form) only dates to 1960.
The US was founded on the concept of individualism and self-government, and succeeding presidential doctrines reinforced that.
Unlike in the US, there was no one, single clear reason why Canada sought independence. Perhaps the need for a national railroad funded by a single government was one. Perhaps having protection against the US Civil War (and any territorial aspirations following its conclusion) was another. The "good government" clause was also probably important as there were many different governments in the years leading to Confederation.
Try and find the same in the British North America Act. The closest you'll find is "peace, order and good government". Not individual rights, not liberty, not a pursuit of happiness.
Why do I have to look at the BNAA? How about the Charter of rights and freedoms?
- Everyone has the right 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.
Why do I have to look at the BNAA? How about the Charter of rights and freedoms?
- Everyone has the right 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.
Great document, but it dates to 1982. Even its predecessor dates to 1960. The foundation of THAT came from Saskatchewan in the late 1940's.
Big difference when you're founding a country on certain principles, or you adopt them 100 years into your existence.
This is not a criticism that says that Canada wasn't already living most of these as part of its culture. It just wasn't codified.
You do bring up another fundamental difference between the US and Canadian perspectives.
The Canadian document says "security". The American one says "Pursuit of Happiness".
The former implies a collective effort. The latter implies individualism. Note that it doesn't say "happiness". Just its pursuit. No guarantees.
Again, not a criticism of either approach. Just highlighting how they are both different at the core, and a reason why a merger won't work.
Great document, but it dates to 1982. Even its predecessor dates to 1960. The foundation of THAT came from Saskatchewan in the late 1940's.
Big difference when you're founding a country on certain principles, or you adopt them 100 years into your existence.
Thank you for underscoring my point. Our Canadian rights are based on a document written by those who were viewing society with a 20th century lens.
The document giving the right to bear arms was was written by those who were viewing society with an 18th century lens.
I would expect that adjustments to our Charter might be deemed advisable in another couple of centuries as our society then might be quite different. Clones? Man/machine hybrids?
A nations creation being described as a genetic influence would, in my humble opinion, be a bit dangerous as today's events and conditions in both countries are fairly easy to compare along the lines of individual freedoms, real or imagined, and in every statistical analysis recently published, based upon actual individual, freedom of the press, economic or otherwise, Canada has scored higher.
Perhaps there should be a constant reminder that DNA is only as good as the contributing gene pool and with the wider gene pool per population density of Canada's 50% immigrant make-up perhaps giving us a modern day leg-up in that regard.
The final assessment on foundational principals and any progress made might be as easy as viewing which country's citizens are busily killing each other at a greater rate than most others.
A nations creation being described as a genetic influence would, in my humble opinion, be a bit dangerous as today's events and conditions in both countries are fairly easy to compare along the lines of individual freedoms, real or imagined, and in every statistical analysis recently published, based upon actual individual, freedom of the press, economic or otherwise, Canada has scored higher.
Perhaps there should be a constant reminder that DNA is only as good as the contributing gene pool and with the wider gene pool per population density of Canada's 50% immigrant make-up perhaps giving us a modern day leg-up in that regard.
The final assessment on foundational principals and any progress made might be as easy as viewing which country's citizens are busily killing each other at a greater rate than most others.
I am not sure what you are alluding to with the 'gene pool' comment as there is plenty of genetic diversity in both countries. If you have some sort of belief that, beyond a rate high enough to prevent inbreeding, a certain rate of immigration provides some sort of eugenic advantage please quote your source.
Points being made that the US Constitution should be more like Canada's are moot. Short of the US ending as a country it is what it is, and there is a well established path to amend it as necessary.
I won't make points about which is superior, because it is an opinion. Frankly, new countries are welcome to copy whichever standard they like. Statstical analyses based upon population mean is irrelevant to me. I find the comment about freedom of the press somewhat amusing as I recall well the publication ban during the Homolka trial. Have things changed since then? I also know that economically I, along with at least a dozen executives I know, have done much better in the US than in Canada. I will not argue against the premise that the 'average' person may have a better quality of life in Canada than the US, if you average out the entire population.
What I just don't get is even after posting actually links to our law enforcement sites, even after Chevy, a lawyer tries and explains the differences, he still refuses to believe simple facts.
Thank you for underscoring my point. Our Canadian rights are based on a document written by those who were viewing society with a 20th century lens.
The document giving the right to bear arms was was written by those who were viewing society with an 18th century lens.
I would expect that adjustments to our Charter might be deemed advisable in another couple of centuries as our society then might be quite different. Clones? Man/machine hybrids?
Both countries have a mechanism to amend their respective constitutions as necessary. The US has also passed a significant number of federal and state laws regarding social welfare over the past 80 years to accommodate changes to society. In fact, many of these at a federal level, from Medicare to social security, came about in the US before Canada.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
