After running taxpayers billions into the red, settling with Omar Khadr over $10.5 million was chump-change.

But only if Justin Trudeau was consistent.

He said, “The measure of a society, a just society, is not whether we stand up for people’s rights when it’s easy or popular to do so, it’s whether we recognize rights when it’s difficult, when it’s unpopular.”

If only our drama-teacher prime minister extended this logic to cannabis.

Human rights are a fickle monster, a doctrine crafted and enforced by international bureaucrats and national governments.

After all, what are rights?

According to the Canadian zeitgeist, rights are outlined in a piece of paper called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Bestowed by the embodiment of the state itself, a Crown hijacked by a runaway democracy, and interpreted by the courts, the Charter is how Canadians are seemingly free from arbitrary oppression.

But what about the natural rights that evolve in the state of nature? Canada is built upon British concepts surrounding the rule of law.

John Locke’s philosophy was part of the worldview of Canada’s founders.The right to life, liberty, and property meant something more than state-enforced provisions and promises.

So what are rights and why can’t Justin Trudeau respect cannabis consumers by immediately decriminalizing?

Why can’t he expand on what he means by “organized crime?” Why does legalization have to look like a continuation of the Harper LP-scheme but now with home-growing?

And how’s that going to work? Are bylaw officers going to inspect inside of my home? Might as well check the kitchen then since prevention is key to health and, hey, we’re all paying into the health care system together.

But I digress, Justin’s not even a good drama teacher. He can’t improvise on anything other than “the children” or “organized crime.”  That he would respect the “rights” of Canadians to grow and sell cannabis is absurd.

Professor John Hasnas argues that rights are pre-political and empirical. Rights are “normatively well-grounded” because respecting them promotes social peace and productivity.

The English common law system is “analogical evidence” of rights evolving over time, in the state of nature.

If Justin obeys the rights of one, why not others? How is he prioritizing his values? How is he defining human rights?

Screw human rights, it’s secular sounding nonsense.

“Empirical natural rights” evolve as a by-product of human action. We address the inconveniences of nature, we shape and transform our living conditions, until we’re sitting comfortably in a heated home with an iPhone.

We don’t expect the state to raid smart-phone companies and distribute phones for everyone. It’s understood that this would undermine the smart-phone market.

We don’t expect our neighbours to steal gardening supplies from our yard. With or without a fence or a lock on the shed, it’s well understood what’s yours and what’s theirs.

Justin’s Liberals ignore these social norms.

But since Canada still retains some of its British conventions, why not invoke a common law system where the “analogical evidence” of cannabis rights can be found?

Indeed, the courts have been always more favourable to the cause than the electoral process.

Footnote(s)