site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  3yr ago (text post)   33778 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 31, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

24
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's debatable whether the Charter of Rights and Freedoms really protects the right to strike. It's true that the Supreme Court has interpreted it as doing so through the right of freedom of association.

I don't understand this. As a general principle, employers can have you agree to give up constitutionally protected rights as a condition of employment. You can get fired for violating a non-disclosure agreement for example. You can also be fired for your political views. That is their freedom of association.

After all, if you're fired, you're in the same position respect to your former employer as everyone else. You don't have a right to your job (that you aren't even doing). You certainly never had a right to be hired by that employer against his will.

So the provincial government is using its constitutional power to unilaterally revoke a right that the courts unilaterally invented, and it's probably for the public good, because I don't see how public sector unions can be justified.

Public sector unions work by restricting the supply of labour available to the government to inflate wages above market rates. This can perhaps be justified when it comes at the expense of corporations, but how can it be when the taxpayer is the one paying? This gives an unearned special status to government employees to extract rents from the rest of the population. If the argument is that they aren't paid very much, why not give them money that everyone with their income level can access?

You can read the two decisions that led to this here and here. The 2015 decision ruled that the Charter protected the right to strike because it was a essential to collective bargaining which was guaranteed by the 2007 decision, and because it promoted equality between employers and employees. I don't see how allowing public sector employees to extract rents from the general by giving them power equal to their government promotes equality. Equality means treating people the same, not elevating one special interest group above everyone else. After all, I don't have a right to get paid by the government while providing nothing in return. Instead, by virtue of who my employer is, I would be forced to pay government employees while they do nothing for me. I never agreed to this, while they did agree to do the work they are now refusing to do.

The 2007 decision ruled that the right to collective bargaining existed because it existed before the Charter (according to what it doesn't say and in any case I don't see how that means the constitution enshrines that right), because of human rights obligations (why does that have any bearing on the constitution?), and because it "reaffirms the values of dignity, personal autonomy, equality and democracy that are inherent in the Charter." As I explained above, it goes against the value of equality. It obviously goes against the value of democracy when it is the democratically elected representatives of the people whose rights are restricted and whose money is being taken in favour of this special interest group.

The relationship between collective bargaining and dignity and personal automony are nebulous. Why isn't my dignity harmed by having rents extracted from me? I suppose there is some dignity and autonomy gained by being able to renege on one's contracts and extort the general public, but it seems like the public's dignity and autonomy pay the price.

The notwithstanding clause serves a specific purpose, which is to uphold the principle of parliamentary supremacy. The courts were not meant to use the Charter to legislate from the bench and undermine the people's representatives. Pierre Trudeau even said at the time it was passed in 1982 that it changed nothing, it only enshrined already existing laws. Clearly not.

The 2007 decision ruled that the right to collective bargaining existed because it existed before the Charter (according to what it doesn't say and in any case I don't see how that means the constitution enshrines that right), because of human rights obligations (why does that have any bearing on the constitution?), and because it "reaffirms the values of dignity, personal autonomy, equality and democracy that are inherent in the Charter.

@johnfabian 's post raised the same question for me. Where did this right to strike come from? I wasn't able to get any farther than that line in Health Services. It's baffling. It seems less "found" than invented out of whole cloth.

Edit: actually, later in the document, they elaborate, going on for several pages detailing the history of labour relations up to the Charter, but IMO including nothing of relevance until:

Collective bargaining, despite early discouragement from the common law, has long been recognized in Canada. Indeed, historically, it emerges as the most significant collective activity through which freedom of association is expressed in the labour context. In our opinion, the concept of freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter includes this notion of a procedural right to collective bargaining.

This established Canadian right to collective bargaining was recognized in the Parliamentary hearings that took place before the adoption of the Charter. The acting Minister of Justice, Mr. Robert Kaplan, explained why he did not find necessary a proposed amendment to have the freedom to organize and bargain collectively expressly included under s. 2(d). These rights, he stated, were already implicitly recognized in the words “freedom of association”:

"Our position on the suggestion that there be specific reference to freedom to organize and bargain collectively is that that is already covered in the freedom of association that is provided already in the Declaration or in the Charter; and that by singling out association for bargaining one might tend to d[i]minish all the other forms of association which are contemplated — church associations; associations of fraternal organizations or community organizations."

(Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, Issue No. 43, January 22, 1981, at pp. 69-70)

Which I think settles it. I mean, I don't think that's what most people would interpret "freedom of association" to mean, but if that's what was originally intended, then the court's decision is reasonable.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats