On 24-12-2010 8:09, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> I'm clearly not going to be able to explain it to you.
>
>    What I think is going on here is a fallacy of equivocation. The expression
> "minorities need more protection" is ambiguous and can be understood in two
> distinct ways:
>
>    1) It is more often the case that a minority requires protection. (In
> other words, if we count the cases where authorities need to step in to
> protect someone, this number is higher per capita with minorities than with
> the majority.) In other words, "minorities need more *often* protection"
> (rather than special treatment).
>
>    2) Minorities, besides being protected by the same laws as everybody
> else, need *additional* laws that apply only to them (ie. "more
> protection").
>
>    I think that, as with many other such cases, these two possible
> interpretations are confused and interchanged when it's most convenient
> (intentionally or not). Applying the second meaning in practice is
> justified by the first meaning, and these two different meanings are
> being muddled and confused.
>
>    However, the second meaning is unconstitutional and against the basic
> principles of equality and freedom.

Not necessary.
If the protection of the majority is obvious or not necessary it may be 
sensible to have special laws to get the protection of the minority 
members at the same level.
To use an example that Darren also used: you don't need a law to allow 
heterosexual men to marry other men. (Though in this case it is clear 
that the law that restricts marriage to one man and one woman is 
'unconstitutional and against the basic principles of equality and 
freedom').
In the same vain a law that prohibits an employer to look at the 
ethnicity of an employee is superfluous, but may take the form of a 
requirement that a group employees should include a certain number of 
minority members. (Often deemed discrimination by many members of the 
majority, but in certain circumstances possibly vital to prevent the 
society from breaking in pieces)
In the Netherlands any group of parents is allowed to start their own 
school, that then will get funded by the government. A law that dates 
back to the beginning of the 20th century, mainly meant for the 
different Christian churches. Muslims are now also using these rights. 
In practice some (or many, as some claim) of these schools are below 
standard and hamper integration of muslim groups with the rest of 
society. Legislation was proposed (and possibly even passed, I did not 
follow it that well) to try to remedy these problems. A law that was 
worded objectively, but everyone knows that it is not meant for 
Christian schools and it will only be used to shut down non-Christian 
minority schools. Discrimination or just a conflict of human rights?

As I said before: In a society with different social groups you can 
either have equal treatment or equal chances.
Your rigorous adherence to equal treatment will lead to unequal chances 
for many. These unequal chances are just as contrary to universal laws 
as the unequal treatment. It is up to the different governments and 
parliaments to find the right balance, not to some group on the internet 
that discusses the state of the world from behind their keyboards.

>    (And, again, I'm here talking about the "minorities" that are so only
> in terms of inconsequential things, such as ethnic background. Of course
> other minorities, such as people with disabilities, may need special
> treatment as a practical necessity. I'm not talking about them.)

I have seen it argued that a law that forces an employer to have at 
least a number of employers with disabilities is also discriminatory.

Post a reply to this message