Recently I’ve been thinking about how people get stuck holding onto crazy ideas because of they base their thinking on a bad conceptual foundation. The one in particular that I want to deal with in this article is the term ‘rights’—as in ‘human rights’. A lot of people don’t really understand what that phrase means and as a result go down a lot of stupid rabbit holes. Since this is exactly the sort of ‘background’ that this blog is meant to deconstruct for people, I thought I’d do a bit of exploration to illustrate what I mean.
To introduce the topic, I’m going to mention one of the few times in my life that I’ve seen philosophy actually ‘solve’ an issue. The problem in question is something that Karl Popper called “the paradox of tolerance”. Luckily there’s a meme from an anarchist art collective that neatly explains the issue.
A ‘paradox’ is a situation where two different things that appear to contradict each other seem to be both valid. In the paradox of tolerance, it appears that there are situations where it appears that the only way you can be tolerant is to be intolerant.
But recently I came across an answer to this apparent paradox. That is, the way to understand the ‘right’ of tolerance is to see it not as actually a human right, but rather a social contract. That is to say, the only people that we should feel obligated to tolerate are people who extend the same sort of general tolerance towards others. If someone else refuses to act tolerantly towards people who are different, then they are by definition opting out of the unspoken contract that everyone in a liberal society agrees to operate under. This means that people who are racist, homophobic, etc, have decided to ‘opt out’ of modern democratic society and have declared allegiance to something else—which makes them enemy aliens in the midst of our society. I’d argue the privileges of living in a democracy simply should not apply to someone who is outside of our society and who has decided to destroy it.
This raises a few other issues.
What exactly are human rights?
How should a society go about supporting them?
Can one person’s human right negate another’s?
I got thinking about this issue after reading about several politicians recently making a fuss about 'rights’. One example comes from a CBC story from the current New Brunswick election.
Sherry Wilson said the federal system of forcing tens of thousands of First Nations, Inuit and Métis children into the schools was "only allowed to happen because children enrolled in school were isolated from their parents' oversight, input and influence."
She implied there was a parallel between that and the province's original Policy 713 — which allowed 2SLGBTQ+ students to adopt names and pronouns at school without their parents knowing.
"We cannot afford to repeat the tragic mistakes that destroyed the lives of thousands of Indigenous families," Wilson, the PC candidate in Albert-Riverview, wrote in the statement posted on social media.
and
PC Leader Blaine Higgs has described the issue as parents having the right to know what is happening in their children's lives, and said at one point last year that "children are being taught to lie to their parents."
The mainstream media has been framing the story as being insensitive to First Nations and Inuit communities, but I’m also concerned about the idea of calling parent’s control over their children’s gender identity being a ‘right’.
My response, however, is to ask who’s rights are most important? Are they the right of the parent to control the life of their child? Or is it the right of the child to avoid being abused by their parent?
All this stuff exists on a continuum. Almost no one would accept that a parent has the right to sexually abuse their child. And, only a small number of people who are members of radical religious sects would argue that they have the right to marry off their children to an adult while they are still minors—but they do exist.
How about ‘physical discipline’? Does someone have the right as a parent to follow the dictim of ‘spare the rod and spoil the child’? If we hit our children because it is a Biblical teaching, how about other even more extreme teachings?
Exodus 21:17 (English Standard Version)
Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.
Exodus 21:15
Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.
Leviticus 20:9
For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.
How about someone from another culture who follows a different religion and tradition yet believes much the same thing?
This issue of parent’s ‘rights’ comes about because of concerns about teachers accepting the pronouns that individual teens use because they suffer from gender dysphoria and not immediately telling those teen’s parents.
The thing people who talk about parent’s ‘rights’ don’t understand is that if a parent has a good relationship with their child, they are going to hear about their dysphoria from them. If they don’t, well that probably means that the parent doesn’t feel comfortable talking about such things and the child can tell. In many cases if the teacher told those parents nothing much bad would happen. But there is a fraction of the population that labour under crazy ideas that mean that if they found out about their children’s gender dysphoria, they would inflict significant physical or psychological harm on those kids.
If you doubt this, consider the case of “Conversion Therapy” which proports to be a process where therapists are able to ‘remove the gay’ from people so they can live ‘normal’ lives. There is a subset of various Christian sects who believe that this is possible. But because of the harm that this pseudo therapy can inflict on people—especially minors—it is banned in many countries, including Canada.
As the above deadly serious clip from South Park succintly illustrates, the reason why it is banned is because it not only doesn’t work, but it can create such guilt in people they commit suicide.
The point I’m trying to make is that there is a subset of the population of parents that are simply incapable of understanding what their children are going through and lack the ability to understand what is really in their best interests. The obligation of the state (ie: the school) in these situations is not to protect any so-called ‘rights’ that a parent may have but rather to protect the student from the harm their parents may do to them.
The problem with ‘rights’ isn’t confined to New Brunswick. The Albertan premier, Danielle Smith, has announced that she wants to add to the provincial ‘bill of rights’.
Oddly enough, Alberta has had a ‘bill of rights’ for a couple decades. Here’s the existing document:
ALBERTA BILL OF RIGHTS
Chapter A‑14
Preamble
WHEREAS the free and democratic society existing in Alberta is founded on principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God and on principles, fostered by tradition, that honour and respect human rights and fundamental freedoms and the dignity and worth of the human person;
WHEREAS the Parliament of Canada, being desirous of enshrining certain principles and the human rights and fundamental freedoms derived from them, enacted the Canadian Bill of Rights in order to ensure the protection of those rights and freedoms in Canada in matters coming within its legislative authority; and
WHEREAS the Legislature of Alberta, affirming those principles and recognizing the need to ensure the protection of those rights and freedoms in Alberta in matters coming within its legislative authority, desires to enact an Alberta Bill of Rights;
THEREFORE HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, enacts as follows:
Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms
1 It is hereby recognized and declared that in Alberta there exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity or gender expression, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely:
(a) the right of the individual to liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
(c) freedom of religion;
(d) freedom of speech;
(e) freedom of assembly and association;
(f) freedom of the press;
(g) the right of parents to make informed decisions respecting the education of their children.
RSA 2000 cA‑14 s1;2015 c1 s1
Construction of law
2 Every law of Alberta shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Legislature that it operates notwithstanding the Alberta Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared.
RSA 1980 cA‑16 s2
Saving
3(1) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to abrogate or abridge any human right or fundamental freedom not enumerated herein that may have existed in Alberta at the commencement of this Act.
(2) In this Act, “law of Alberta” means an Act of the Legislature of Alberta enacted before or after the commencement of this Act, any order, rule or regulation made thereunder, and any law in force in Alberta at the commencement of this Act that is subject to be repealed, abolished or altered by the Legislature of Alberta.
(3) The provisions of this Act shall be construed as extending only to matters coming within the legislative authority of the Legislature of Alberta.
RSA 1980 cA‑16 s3
Notice to Minister of Justice
4(1) If in any action or other proceeding a question arises as to whether any law of Alberta abrogates, abridges or infringes, or authorizes the abrogation, abridgment or infringement, of any of the rights and freedoms herein recognized and declared, no adjudication on that question is valid unless notice has been given to the Minister of Justice.
(2) When the Minister of Justice has notice under subsection (1), the Minister may, in person or by counsel, appear and participate in that action or proceeding on such terms and conditions as the court, person or body conducting the proceeding may consider just.
A quick glance at it should set off a couple warning signals.
First, consider that line in the preamble: “—the free and democratic society existing in Alberta is founded on principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God and on principles, fostered by tradition”—.
These are two appeals to authority, namely God and tradition. Let’s just set aside the irritation that non-Christians like me feel when I see references to a God I do not believe exists in government documents.
It could be argued that there is only one real authority being cited, since I am safe in saying that there isn’t a single person in Alberta that a majority of citizens would say accurately speaks on God’s behalf. This means that we are only left with ‘tradition’—traditions about what the people of Alberta believe about God, and, traditions about what the people of Alberta believe about other things.
It isn’t just that we can’t find agreement about what God believes, we probably couldn’t find any agreement about what Albertans ‘traditionally’ believe either—at least on anything controversial. If so, then what’s the point of saying that we codify our ‘rights’ because they are ‘traditional’?
If that wasn’t enough. The Albertan Bill of Rights limits itself to protecting the rights of citizens—as long as the government specifically doesn’t set aside those ‘rights’ through legislation. That’s what this clause is all about:
2 Every law of Alberta shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Legislature that it operates notwithstanding the Alberta Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared.
If that wasn’t enough. If someone appeals to a court when they feel that their rights have been infringed upon, no judge can hear the appeal before the relevant minister of the provincial government has been notified first so he or she can weigh into the matter.
Notice to Minister of Justice
4(1) If in any action or other proceeding a question arises as to whether any law of Alberta abrogates, abridges or infringes, or authorizes the abrogation, abridgment or infringement, of any of the rights and freedoms herein recognized and declared, no adjudication on that question is valid unless notice has been given to the Minister of Justice.
(2) When the Minister of Justice has notice under subsection (1), the Minister may, in person or by counsel, appear and participate in that action or proceeding on such terms and conditions as the court, person or body conducting the proceeding may consider just.
So it would seem to me that the so-called ‘rights’ in the Albertan Bill of Rights seem to be not much more than the right of the government to tell ordinary Albertans what they think should be done in any given situation. The difference seems to be simply one of trying to add some sort of lustre to a policy by suggesting that it comes from God or ancient tradition—even though it’s just another flawed human creation.
As you can see in the following statement by the Danielle Smith, the government of Alberta is planning on adding at least three more ‘rights’.
Bodily autonomy with regard to medical treatment (vaccines)
Property rights
The right to own guns
As I mentioned above, it’s important to understand how limited these ‘rights’ really are. They only apply insofar as they don’t overstep federal regulations, the provincial government doesn’t expressly say that they don’t apply to a specific piece of legislation, and, a person is willing to go through a long judicial process where the relevant provincial government minister is specifically asked to participate in the process. (Talk to any of our First Nation’s lawyers about the ability of government officials to stretch-out court trials for decades.)
And if you look at these three points, you can see exactly the same issues at play that I mentioned with regard to the paradox of tolerance, and, parental control of their children.
It might appear that people should have the right to avoid being vaccinated. But that’s not really the issue at play here. It’s about the right of people to not be vaccinated and still work at jobs where they expose others to a dangerous disease. There’s an old saying to the effect that ‘my right to swing a fist ends at someone else’s nose’. In the middle of an epidemic that fist can swing a long, long way. For example, if a hospital has wards of people who have weakened immune systems the last thing we want are nurses working there who haven’t been vaccinated and therefore have a much larger chance of bringing a disease like COVID to work. After all, don’t the patients have a right to not be infected?
The problem here is that some people are trying to use ‘rights’ as some sort of ‘magic wand’ that they can wave in front of the public to bedazzle them into believing profoundly stupid things.
Of course some people need to be vaccinated to be able to do their jobs properly. In addition, sometimes the government needs to expropriate people’s property in order to do things like build roads. And contrary to what the sleazebags like Pierre Poilievre say, the federal government has no intention of taking people’s hunting rifles and shotguns away from them. Moreover, the way the Albertan Bill of Rights is designed, there’s no chance that these rights would ever get in the way of people like Danielle Smith inflicting her will on the province. (What good would the right to own property have done when she decided to put a moratorium on sustainable energy projects?)
There’s a basic principle to stage magic: misdirection. It’s the idea that if you want to do something without someone else realizing it, you distract them. The concept of ‘rights’ in politics is a type of misdirection. It draws the attention of the citizenry away from the fact that someone wants to do something that hurts someone else. The NAZI wants people to miss the fact that they want to be violent towards a minority, so they talk about their right to ‘free speech’. The politician wants people to miss the fact that some folks will bully their trans or gay children—or worse—so they talk about ‘parental rights’. The anti-vaxxer wants people to miss the fact that unvaccinated healthcare workers are putting other people at risk, so they blather on about the ‘right to bodily autonomy’. The landowner who wants to pollute the countryside doesn’t want to be force to clean up his act, so he pontificates about his ‘right to private property’. And the gun nut who wants to own military-style hardware goes on about the government taking away his ‘right to own a hunting rifle’.
This is the thing about ‘rights’. They are a rhetorical device that makes a complex issue with specific implications for individuals (children with dumb parents, people with weak immune systems, folks living downstream from a farmer who leaches liquid manure into a river, etc) seem simple and abstract. It makes the issue into one of ‘values’ instead of ‘consequences’ for specific people. In a sense, it’s like when a corporation reduces a human employee into a set of numbers and manipulates them with policies to increase profitability—without considering the harm those new policies do to employees.
The real fact of the matter is there really aren’t any such things a ‘rights’ that have been handed down from God. Instead, there are just rules and practices that human beings have hammered out over generations that are based on trying to get along with each other in a complex world. This is what philosophers mean when they talk about the ‘social contract’. As the world changes and our culture learns new things, these ‘social contracts’ have to evolve. There are bound to be differences of opinions, but they should be settled by open and honest discussion that take into account the effect that changes will have on individual people’s lives. It’s just another form of manipulation and oppression to justify changes that ignore real problems by appealing to vague and misleading ‘rights’.