Warp wrote:
>   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 problem is in interpreting those rights. There's always a trade-off.

>   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.

Except if you give them exactly the same laws and rights, then you *do* 
protect the minority more than the majority, in practice, precisely because 
the majority isn't going to pass a law against the majority's interests.

>   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.

That of course was an exaggeration. But there are certainly similar laws in 
countries with a Sharia basis in law, where it is (for example) obvious that 
muslims are much more trustworthy in their testimony than non-muslims.

>   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.

Not usually, in my experience.

>> 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.

Not ridiculous enough to keep the law from being passed in spite of 
discrimination.

> *Claiming* that a law is equal and fair to everybody doesn't
> automatically make it so.

Somehow, you seem to think that your reasoning is common. It's not, really.

>> 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.

Yes. Both. You give equal rights to everyone by protecting the minority from 
the wishes of the majority.

>> 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.

Then you're not talking about democracy any more, or why a minority should 
have more protection than a majority. What laws do you think are giving 
preferential treatment to minorities, and how did they get on the books?

>   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.

See above.

>   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.

And that's why minorities need more protection - because they're more prone 
to having their basic rights overrun by the majority.

>> 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.

For the same reason we don't have straight pride marches, that rich people 
don't need permission to sleep under bridges, that we never had a white 
landowner suffrage movement, etc.   Maybe you just grew up in a place where 
the *actual* abuses of the system are minute compared to other places.

In other words, being in the minority, the deck is already stacked against 
you. So in the *enforcement* of the laws, one might give greater credence to 
the claims that a minority was targeted by a majority than vice versa.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message