I was wondering how successful you think a Party for the Adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (PAUDHR) would be in Canada?
Of course the specific name of the party could always be changed, so that would be a separate issue.
Let's say it had as a mission statement something along the lines of:
"To adopt the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, as the primary constitutional document in Canada."
Among some advantages I would see include:
1. Since Canada has already signed on to the UDHR but just doesn't apply it, this party could argue that it's not extreme in the least, but is merely trying to implement a document we've already signed on to as a country. After all, if we're not going to implement it, then let's be honest about it and formally withdraw our signature from it. We should not be signing onto such documents just for photo ops.
2. Making the UDHR the chief constitutional document in Canada would have the unfortunate effect of risking the shared monarchy with the Commonwealth, as that would mean that suddenly, those parts of the Constitution requiring the monarch to be Anglican and to not marry a Catholic would henceforth be abrogated. So unless other Commonwealth Realms should join in, Parliament could end up having to elect its own monarch. However, it would also extend religious freedom and basic human rights to the monarchy (ironic that the average citizen should have more freedom of religion than his monarch!). This would also immediately abrogate the separate school system.
3. As a moderate document outlining only more fundamental human rights, it therefore has elements that both the left and the right could agree to. Overall, I'd say the UDHR leans more towards the left of centre, let's say moderate social democrat or even more moderate than that, such as social-corporatist. However, since it does include various elements the right and the left could agree to, it could potentially attract some liberal conservatives too.
On the negative side, I could see many labour-socialists opposing such a party owing to the considerable religious freedoms it guarantees (some defenders of school vouchers for example have argued their case on the basis of UDHR 26(3)), just as many libertarians would oppose the considerable positive rights granted in the document, especially with regards to education rights and the point about education being compulsory. Many conservatives might feel uncomfortable about the fact that the document could almost be interpreted to defend consientious objection. However, this mixture of guaranteed rights that can appeal to people of various persuasions might be a strenght too.
Any thoughts on how successful such a party would likely be?
For those who've not read the UDHR, here it is:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Of course the specific name of the party could always be changed, so that would be a separate issue.
Let's say it had as a mission statement something along the lines of:
"To adopt the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, as the primary constitutional document in Canada."
Among some advantages I would see include:
1. Since Canada has already signed on to the UDHR but just doesn't apply it, this party could argue that it's not extreme in the least, but is merely trying to implement a document we've already signed on to as a country. After all, if we're not going to implement it, then let's be honest about it and formally withdraw our signature from it. We should not be signing onto such documents just for photo ops.
2. Making the UDHR the chief constitutional document in Canada would have the unfortunate effect of risking the shared monarchy with the Commonwealth, as that would mean that suddenly, those parts of the Constitution requiring the monarch to be Anglican and to not marry a Catholic would henceforth be abrogated. So unless other Commonwealth Realms should join in, Parliament could end up having to elect its own monarch. However, it would also extend religious freedom and basic human rights to the monarchy (ironic that the average citizen should have more freedom of religion than his monarch!). This would also immediately abrogate the separate school system.
3. As a moderate document outlining only more fundamental human rights, it therefore has elements that both the left and the right could agree to. Overall, I'd say the UDHR leans more towards the left of centre, let's say moderate social democrat or even more moderate than that, such as social-corporatist. However, since it does include various elements the right and the left could agree to, it could potentially attract some liberal conservatives too.
On the negative side, I could see many labour-socialists opposing such a party owing to the considerable religious freedoms it guarantees (some defenders of school vouchers for example have argued their case on the basis of UDHR 26(3)), just as many libertarians would oppose the considerable positive rights granted in the document, especially with regards to education rights and the point about education being compulsory. Many conservatives might feel uncomfortable about the fact that the document could almost be interpreted to defend consientious objection. However, this mixture of guaranteed rights that can appeal to people of various persuasions might be a strenght too.
Any thoughts on how successful such a party would likely be?
For those who've not read the UDHR, here it is:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
