Angry in the Great White North

Apparently Canada, under the Liberals, signed up for something called the 1966 International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights.

One of these rights is the right to food, covered in Article 11:

1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.

2. The States Parties to the present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, shall take, individually and through international co-operation, the measures, including specific programmes, which are needed:

(a) To improve methods of production, conservation and distribution of food by making full use of technical and scientific knowledge, by disseminating knowledge of the principles of nutrition and by developing or reforming agrarian systems in such a way as to achieve the most efficient development and utilization of natural resources;

(b) Taking into account the problems of both food-importing and food-exporting countries, to ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need.

Well, the problem with rights is that they have to be guaranteed:

"The Conservatives are being honest to their own convictions, but they are in violation of their international obligations," said Graham Riches, a University of British Columbia social-rights specialist who has worked with the UN on the right to food.

Advocates for the right to food say it is enshrined in a number of international treaties, among them the 1966 International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights, which Canada ratified under the Liberals a decade later.

But many also argue fulfilling the right requires governments to replace market-based food delivery -- which has traditionally existed in Canada -- with national programs and plans.

Mr. Riches said earlier Liberal administrations did not advance food rights on the international stage in ways he and many like-minded experts believe is necessary.

Some people seem to have a very broad idea of what a right is.  A right to food?  How do you guarantee that?

You can't, and that's one of the reasons it is not a right.

A right is something that you can exercise by yourself, without the consent or cooperation of anyone else.

I have a right to free speech.  I can speak freely.  The person beside me can speak freely too.  We can speak freely at the same time.

What does the government have to do to guarantee my right to free speech?  Literally, nothing at all.  The government must simply promise (via the constitution) not to send the police to silence me, and the government's job is done.

This is why marriage is not a right, by the way.  You need two people.  If a man asks a woman to marry him, and she refuses, is she trampling on his right?  What if he can't find a woman to marry him?  Does he go to the government and demand that his right to marriage be guaranteed somehow?  Assuming she does agree, are they now married?  No, because the government must record and proclaim the marriage to the community as a whole (so that the community recognizes that these two people are no longer on the market, so to speak).  The government also manages the laws that define the obligations of the married couple. Requiring positive government action means it is not a right.

Food is the same.  I'm hungry.  The person beside me is hungry.  There is only one apple on the table.  Who gets it?  Whose right to food takes precedence?  The one who reaches first?  The one who is first to use violence to secure the apple?

The government could try to solve the problem by getting another apple.  How can it be a right if I have to wait for another party, like the government, to respond?  In any case, what if the farmer is not growing anything right now?  Does the government compel him to grow an apple in order to guarantee my right?  How many of the farmer's rights are being trampled in that scenario?  I can't enjoy my right unless the farmer loses some of his rights.

There can be no right to food in a legal sense.  There is a moral obligation to alleviate the plight of the poor and the hungry as best we can, but that ultimately is a personal expression of sympathy for others, and not a legal construct.

A right is supposed to be something that I can enjoy freely.  I should not pay to exercise that right.  And no one else can be forced to pay so that I can exercise that right. 

Instead, the word "right" is used by social activists to turn a government service into a government obligation, with the rest of us forced to foot the bill for this new (and expensive) right.

Maybe these social activists secretly decided that their progressive wisdom had granted them the right to rule the world.

It makes me wonder how long it will be before Stephane Dion decides Canadians have a right to windmills and solar panels.  He'd have no choice but to impose a carbon tax on Canadians, or worse, should he ever become prime minister.  How else can he make sure I am enjoying my new-found rights, underwritten by taxpayers, of course?