Ango-Canadian jurisprudence has traditionally recognized, as a fundamental freedom, the right of the individual to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof, of any interest therein, save by due process of law.(4)

That means that I can't take shit away from you without a due process. It does not mean that you can do whatever you want with your stuff, you can't kill people with your knife - even if it is yours, and you can't do whatever you want with people on your property - even if it is yours.

The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights and freedoms that exist in Canada

This means that the Charter does not remove any other rights people have IN ADDITION to the charter, i.e. it is cumulative with other existing rights! It does NOT mean that other rights can replace the Charter!

your claims that charter rights supercede a persons right to property and the security of their property are not how courts have ruled, at all, ever.

Given your reading comprehension problems above, this discussion is going nowhere.

Also, I never claimed that the Charter removes someone's right to property, I said that the right to property cannot be used to override someone's Charter rights. The fact that you are an owner of a crowbar does not give you the right to use it to brain random passer-bys, even if they are on a plot of land you own.

You're forgetting something: if a child views porn, their innocent little mind will be obliterated in less than a second.

Not to mention that the resulting explosion will be at least 60 kilotons of TNT, 3 times the power of the Hiroshima bomb ....

Dude, get a real keyboard. I can't figure out what you are trying to say here....

except your infringing on his charter rights on his property.

No I don't. Point me out to the Charter where it says something to the effect of "and you get to make any rule you want on your property, even to nullify this Charter". I dare you.

Its the reason why abortion protesters have to stand outside the property, even though they certainly have a right to protest. Just because you have a right to photograph doesn't mean you have a right to photograph in someone else's place of business.

I already pointed out that the reason is not that they are protesters (btw, define a "protester" - does he need a banner? does he need to shout? or a mere t-shirt would do? or maybe even a coloured ribbon on his arm? do you get to throw out anyone whose looks you don't like?) it is because they are not allowed to obstruct business, which is a separate, specific law!

A sign saying "no photography", or a guard saying you can't take pictures, is neither unenforceable nor vague.

My sunglasses take photos. Enforce your "no photography" rule on me. Oh, you can't tell which sunglasses take photos? How about cell phones? Is that phone I am talking on taking photos? How can you tell?

As I said, unenforceable without either outright violations of the Charter (such as searches and confiscation of possessions) or wholly arbitrary "enforcement" ("Hey, I don't like the looks of you! You bloody Chinese are always taking photos! Get out!")

This should be glaringly obvious to anyone with even an iota of common sense.

... because your charter rights don't necessarily invalidate other people's rights.

So what you are saying is that other people's rights ("property owner's" rights in particular) invalidate my rights!

This has, of course, been always the position of all land owners since times immemorial, with many actually claiming that whomever was on their property had no rights whatsoever and was in fact not a person but their property also!

Its the "property ownership overrides all human rights" motto that is the very darling of moneyed interests world over.

Unfortunately for them, silly documents like the Charter are, so far, still more potent then their greed and desire to control others.

The owner can make rules there, and your attempts to enforce your right will certainly infringe on his.

As it was pointed out multiple times to you, his rights to make rules on his property cannot override the rules of the society at large. Otherwise he would be able to "mandate" your bloody murder via an axe as soon as you stepped onto his property too. The Charter is supreme to what he can "mandate" on his property, even if you and him both are willing to pretend otherwise.

It's never gone to the supreme court because it would be ridiculous in the case being described.

"Ridiculous" is the exact same word which the shop owners in the Southern states used when it was suggested to them that their "No Dogs and Blacks" rule was unconstitutional. I already pointed out that the very definitions of a "camera" and "taking pictures" make such rules systematically unenforceable and thus their enforcement would have to be, by definition, completely arbitrary - something that is clearly not allowed under the Charter.

Kids will figure it all out they have been for thousands of years without porns help.

... or ...

Kids have a right not to be forced to view anything they done want too.

pick one!

It amuses me to no end how all of you "moralists" can't make a single post without at least one massive, glaring self-contradiction.

You see, with the exception of the blind, kids are "forced" to view their own genitalia. Unless, of course, embedded in a full-body burka from birth by their insane parents to "protect" the kids from the shock of observing his own penis while pissing or her own vagina in a mirror. I assume that is what you've done to your kids, no? Otherwise your rant against the reality would be somewhat hypocritical.

And then there are all those dogs, rabbits and other common animals that can be so inconsiderate and fuck in front of your children, which is the very reason why you keep your children locked up in the basement without windows so that you can ensure that they have a "choice" as to when to view such things, surely?

In fact this has nothing whatsoever to do with kids having a "choice" but with you wanting to control what they see and when they see it. It is all about you wanting to remove from the world all the imagery that offends you, or at least to make sure that all images that can somehow be viewed by your kids conform to your standards. That is simply because you want to control their "choices" completely so that you can force your world-view onto them and to be the ultimate authority in their lives.

So you can stop all that bullshit about "choice", what you really want is Taliban-style Sharia Law, because that is the only way you can prevent your children from ever being exposed to random imagery with sexual connotations.

I'm sorry you disagree, but its been long established that businesses can enforce no photography rules.

Where?

Has the Supreme Court ruled on it? I don't think so. The fact that a demand is commonly made and enforced and even if the sheepish public goes along with it does not mean that it is lawful.

Any court challenge would quickly show that such a ban not only violates the Charter but it would also be unenforceable since the definition of a "camera" now includes cell phones, key-chain ornaments and other hidden pin-hole cameras. Validation of such arbitrary rule making would simply allow an end-run against prohibition against racial discrimination - all that a racist mall owner had to do would be to selectively enforce the rule on Black cell-phone owners, which today would mean nearly 100% of Black customers, and to use an excuse of "we didn't see anyone else taking pictures".

They cannot search your bag without consent, though they can ask you to leave and call the police.

That is indeed their right but if they do so for something that is protected in the Charter, you have the recourse of suing them for it. The fact that very, very few people know about it and even fewer will sue is what makes the mall owners feel that they can get away with nearly anything. Wide-spread success of mall and stadium owners in mass violations of their customer rights without any visible repercussions is what makes you believe their propaganda and what makes you so adamant in your efforts to give up even more of your rights and to ultimately enshrine these very violations as a de-facto law.

they can certainly ban photography - its entirely legal to do so. They can also ban protests, etc.

Err ... No.

Protests can be banned only if they "directly interfere with the conduct of business", which is why abortion clinics cannot get rid of people staging protests right in front but they can ensure that the protesters do not block access. This is also why protesters cannot protest inside because doing so would prevent the clinic from conducting business. There are also exceptions dealing with disturbing other patrons, which is why malls can ban drunks, pan-handlers and barefoot people from entering, but there specific limits as to what can be put in this category.

Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean you have a right to do it in my house, place of business, etc.

Shopping malls, train stations etc are not just "places of business". Nor are they "your home". Their legal status is that of "public facility" and different rules apply than, say, in your home. You are for example quite allowed to be a complete racist and have no Asians on your "approved visitors" list in your home, which is not true for a store-front, never you mind a shopping mall or a stadium.

Businesses of course do all sorts of things that are going far beyond their rights, like for example football stadiums rifling through your possessions and refusing entry if you carry a professional camera or a pop drink that their overpriced vendors sell, but they do these things only because no one has sued their asses off for violations of the Charter yet (which is just a matter of time - lawsuits are very slooow).

I'm inclined to believe that's typically an "or" rather than an "and".

Well, that is a matter of grammatical debate. Imagine you have a mixed set S of items A and B. In the set A has a property PA and B has a property PB. So when you refer to the set, you can say "Items in S have properties PA and PB" (without distinction of which member has which, just simple enumeration of properties) or "Items in S have property PA or property PB" (which specifically offers additional information on mutual exclusivity of PA and PB). Both are correct.

... and it's supposed to be a free country.

I think you are confusing the sales brochure with the actual product.

American "freedom" is just a sales pitch, although a very successful one. Reality however never quite matched it, even in the long-past heyday of US personal liberties. It is just that only now, when the US is so far down the police-state rabbit hole, that the disparity has finally become too great even for the average members of the "general population" to ignore. Before that, the populace was very easy to brainwash and control via mass media and a few empty slogans. It still works, but the cognitive dissonance required for the propaganda to work is becoming so great as to make the traditional social engineering techniques ineffective.

Yes, but the metaphor only works if gravity is supplied by a private enterprise gravity service provider.

Actually, in this case I was referring to the sexual drive of adolescents, not to the ISP's silly filtering scheme.

The GP insinuated that his "opt-in" can result in him being able to somehow control his kids' sexuality, which is what prompted me to make this comparison.

Actually, there are limits to what "rules" they can set. They can't kick you out for doing something that is in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a good lawyer would quickly demonstrate that taking pictures is one of those rights. Quibbles can be had on commercial use of those pictures but that is another matter altogether.

Otherwise the mall owners could set all sorts of wacko, arbitrary rules like: "No Blacks Allowed" or some such.

Personally as long as it is opt in and up to the INDIVIDUAL parents I don't see a problem with this. I wouldn't want to tell some parent they HAVE to let their little Suzy see a cock anymore than I'd want them telling ME what kinds of games my boys are allowed to have.

This is sheer folly. It is like insisting that the force of gravity should be an INDIVIDUAL opt in!

You are neglecting the fact that humans are mammals and there is a few billions of years of evolution to contend with here.

There is absolutely no way that you are going to control this, no matter how much control freakery you are willing to engage in, no matter how draconian laws and totalitarian enforcement of them you manage to muster, nature will take its course anyway and kids will find a way to see naked pictures and then a way to experiment with sex. All you are doing is turning natural things into guilty secrets (and thus making them more attractive to kids) and losing control of any educational (and thus preventive) measures that were at your disposal. The end result is potential destruction of your kid's lives when they do things they have no clue about in secret and get in serious trouble with unwanted pregnancies, suffer all sorts of psychological problems resulting from conflicts between natural emotions and religious indoctrination, not to mention all the inane laws that can make them into social pariahs marked for life with the self-"pedophile" scarlet letter.

Oh, wait, you probably do not believe in evolution, never mind then.

Every parent should have the right to decide what they think is appropriate for THEIR child and if the ISPs want to give them an easy to use option to exercise that right? As long as it isn't forced on anybody I think that's a good thing.

Hypocritical Self-contradiction Alert!

"Every parent should have the right to decide what they think is appropriate for THEIR child" and "As long as it isn't forced on anybody" are in direct opposition to each other.

Oh, you mean did not consider children as "somebodies" and idiot parents forcing imbecilic things onto them (like religion from birth) to be "forcing things onto anybody"! You think children to be mere property of their parents to do with as they wish, ala the Old Testament! Got ya!

After all being able to twist your offspring's brains into spaghetti is an absolute requirement for propagation of religion, so that when they become parents they can then damage their own children by passing your mental diseases onwards.

Oh, of course! I mean a kid seeing an erection or an ejaculation would immediately suffer such a massive brain damage as to go blind on the spot! No?

Well, at least it would be such a traumatic shock that he or she would be a PSTD victim for the rest of his/her life! Surely?

Or maybe, just maybe, the "parents" and the whole Western society are under an influence of some Judeo-Christian-Moslem frothing-at-the-snout mental disease that rots the parents' brains and turns them downright psychotic when it comes to sex and naked bodies and into completely insane, dangerous, violent mental cases when their offspring is thrown into the mix with one of the religious taboos ....

I mean its not like the "innocent little angels" are equipped with their own penises (erection capable - oh the horror!) and vaginas or something...

Next on the agenda: ban on mirrors for all minors. And then full body burkas with padlocks and bult-in catheters to piss through for all children!

Sex education at an age before it is actually needed? Never!!!

You are completely right, except for one wee little problem: in the "new" Russia, people still do all of these things except now it is not the Stalinist mismanagement but utter poverty that forces them to do so with no prospect for any improvement in foreseeable future with the added bonus of having lost free medical care and free education.

Most new apartments and houses are waaaaay out of reach of most families so only the top 5% or so lives it up like royalty, which if kept up for a long enough time will likely result in something stronger then mere "nostalgia" and the "lining up against walls" bit might be in vogue again.

Hence why Putin is so popular, most Russians came to believe that capitalism and democracy are essentially an american scam to get them to give up everything which they once had (medical care, education, super-power status, USSR, Soviet Bloc etc) in exchange for a bunch of worthless slogans from slick snake oil salesmen and then watch everything not nailed down getting stolen by a few sociopathic "oligarchs" to the cheers and back-patting by the Western "free press", press which then promptly turned - froth at the snout - on anyone trying to oppose the new feudal order as an "enemy of freedom and democracy". And so Putin exploits that sentiment by offering to star in this sad, old re-run in the role of the "patriotic strong-man to the rescue" who will oppose the West-sponsored thieves and restore national pride.

And the rest, as the saying goes, is history.