You're viewing an archive page. To see the current content on wickens.ca, please go to the main page.

10 August 2003  

David responds to the entry

David responds to the entry below and I comment.

02:13 PM |

9 August 2003  

Of Rites and Rights

In the context of the gay marriage debate, David Janes has a post disagreeing with Sari Stein on the nature of rights. Sari says "Equality under the law is a basic right guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights" and that majority votes by the current crop of politicians don't change that. David says the Charter simply reflects "the values of Canadians at this particular time" and should not be allowed to constrain legislation when those values change.

I agree with Sari. Inherent, natural rights are at the bedrock of truly free countries. That there are certain things politicians have no say in, that are so fundamental that a 99% majority holds no weight in the opposite direction — this is essential to civilized society. A "right" means something that can't be given or taken away. There's another word for something that is held at someone else's whim: "privilege."

I'm not saying the issue of gay marriage is clear-cut, or that the Charter is perfect (far from it in the latter case). But when the idea that rights are inherent and inviolable is abandoned, a person has far more to worry about than the gay couple next door being allowed to get married. No, at that point he ought to be terrified at the realization that he has no basis on which to fight against injustices perpetrated against him, be it by a dictator or a majority.

11:33 AM |

8 August 2003  

You know you're in for

You know you're in for a long wait when...

02:18 PM |

5 August 2003  

Good advice from Lileks: "If

Good advice from Lileks: "If you're opposed to gay marriage, don't have one. If you want to defend traditional marriage, stay married."

10:27 PM |

Taking "Ignorance Is Bliss" Seriously

I've been making notes for a post on gay marriage that it's quite possible I won't have time to finish any time soon, but this article by John Derbyshire is too outrageous to let pass without comment. The religionists have been claiming to "just know" or think it's "obvious" that marriage is a union of a man and a woman. Opening up the institution to same-sex couples, they say, is just a brazen rewriting of reality. I thought this argument was bad, but Derbyshire's outdoes it:

Perhaps... we shall come to our senses and stop trying to analyze and deconstruct our society down to the bitter end. Perhaps we shall realize that in order to get on properly with life... a great many things just need to be taken for granted.

There's nothing even worthy of argument in what he says. Viewed in the best possible light, it's an appeal to tradition. But I think it's worse than that; his position has the form: "I want X to be true, therefore X is true." Pure subjectivism. Ask yourself what this could not justify.

And a note to those who think philosophy has no bearing on real life: the fig leaf of respectability trotted out for Derbyshire's proud evasion? David Hume.

09:09 AM |

1 August 2003  

Thanks to Mike Campbell for

Thanks to Mike Campbell for alerting me to this editorial from the Halifax Herald. It warns the emotionalist, statist, envy-ridden, BMW-defacing, Porsche-smashing, WTO-protesting thugs in Quebec that they risk bringing about the dystopia of "Ayn Rand's masterpiece, Atlas Shrugged."

01:04 PM |