The rights business in full bloom: Abortion, sexuality, shooting up? This is precisely, I’m sure, what the creators of our Charter intended.
But I like the main point of Wente’s article. We should indeed deliberately attach stigma to certain behaviours. If something is considered dishonourable, or unethical–why not just say that? And make it harder for people to participate in those activities–without using the Charter or the law? (Which may actually dilute morality in any case, “forcing” people to do something or not do something based on legality takes away the strength of character which calls us to do or not do for simple reasons of right and wrong.) I’m rambling now, though, and not sure where this all will conclude, so I’ll stop. Read Wente’s piece, it’s entirely coherent.
_____________________________
Tanya can ramble, too: The article notes
If safe shooting is a right, then shouldn’t every addict be entitled to it? Toronto’s more progressive politicians are hopeful. “We already have a lot of safe consumption sites in the city of Toronto,” Councillor Gord Perks pointed out. “They’re called bars.”
Great, is this gonna mean cigarette smokers will have a charter right to get their fix indoors, too? (They might argue that it isn’t safe to smoke outdoors during 40 below weather in just a cardigan or sport coat.) Did we just accomplish the opposite? I’m so confused.
by 
Leave a Reply