Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   A law must follow basic human rights, constitutional principles *and*
> > be applied to everybody equally.

> So if the majority votes for something that would take these rights and 
> principles away from the minority, shouldn't the minority be more protected 
> than the majority?

  But then the law would be discriminatory, would not be equal for
everybody, and thus it would be contradictory with the whole concept
of equality I'm talking about.

  I think that there's a confusion here. When I say "a law should be
applied equally for everybody" that doesn't mean "a discriminating law
is ok as long as it's applied equally to everybody". That's actually
a contradiction, and the exact opposite of what I'm saying.

  Laws should give equal rights to everybody, and be applied equally to
everybody. That's the exact opposite of a law that discriminates against
some group of people.

  The minority should not be "more protected than the majority". The
minority should be exactly as much protected as the majority. No more,
no less. Same rights, same laws. No preferential treatment nor
discrimination.

  How hard can that be to understand?

> In other words, if 90% of the country is muslim, you don't need protection 
> against passing a law that says you're not allowed to be muslim. You need 
> protection against passing a law that says you're not allowed to be christian.

  Actually I disagree. You *also* need protection against passing a law that
says you are not allowed to be muslim, even if at an implied level. The same
principle should apply to everybody.

  This isn't actually any actual problem in any constitution I know of.
It's only a problem in the *application* of the law in some cases in
some countries. It's being applied in a discriminatory way in similar
situations when it really shouldn't.

> In a country where 90% of the people are christian, you need to give more 
> credence of the jewish man claiming discrimination than of the christians 
> complaining about an "attack on christmas".

  Discrimination is a crime. Criticism of a holiday isn't. Of course a crime
should be taken more seriously. I don't understand your argument.

  What *does* happen in the current world is, however, that when a member
of the unprotected majority complains about discrimination, he gets laughed
at. *That* is a double standard that shouldn't exist.

> In the USA, the argument is often made that the anti-gay laws are applied 
> equally to all: Neither gay nor straight men are allowed to marry other men. 

  One could make that argument, but it's obviously ridiculous.
*Claiming* that a law is equal and fair to everybody doesn't
automatically make it so.

> The whole point of the constitution is to protect the minority from the 
> majority.

  I thought that the point was to give equal rights to everybody.

> If you assume your democracy already has a constitution that 
> prevents that stuff, then you've already conceded my point, because a 
> constitution is useless if it's a democratic document.

  But the problem I'm complaining about is that constitutional principles
*are* being violated with discriminatory laws which give preferential
treatment to some groups of people.

  No constitution I know of says that some groups of people must be
protected more than others. All constitutions I know of talk only about
equal rights and no preferential treatment.

  I do know, however, of some laws that are being applied in contradiction
with this principle.

> If your constitution has in it that the state religion is islam and everyone 
> else gets discriminated against in the courts (i.e., Sharia law), then the 
> whole "that's not how democracy works" argument falls apart.

  I never said that democracy should override basic human rights and
the principles of equality and freedom.

> >   I disagree. A minority needs the *same* ability to defend itself as the
> > majority. Different rules and double standards are discrimination.

> But each individual member of the minority needs more ability that each 
> individual member of the majority in order to enjoy equal protection.

  I don't understand. A person is a person. Each person should be entitled
to the same rights and protection as any other person. Why should one
person get more protection than another? That would be discrimination.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message