Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.

  And? What does that have to do with anything? I'm advocating equal rights,
and "muslims are much more trustworthy in their testimony" isn't.

> >> 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.

  And? Does the fact that in some countries discriminatory laws are being
passed somehow nullify my proposal of equal rights?

  I'm a proponent of equal rights precisely *because* in many countries
there aren't, even in many constitutional democratic ones.

> > *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.

  I don't understand.

> >> 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.

  No, you give equal rights to everyone by protecting everyone equally.
If you give preferential treatment to some people, that's discrimination
and not equal rights.

> >> 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?

  For example, criticism of certain religions is punished more harshly
than criticism of certain other religions. Yes, it does happen here.

  The law doesn't make the distinction explicitly, but it's being
interpreted by judges as such. That's the injustice and discrimination.

> >   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.

  No. That's why minorities need the *same* protection as everybody else.
They need to be equal to everybody else, not superior.

> >> 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.

  I don't understand.

  If there is, for example, a group of citizens with no right to vote,
a situation of unequal rights and discrimination is in place. After a
political campaign these citizens get their right to vote. Now they are
*equal* to everybody else, their right to vote is *equally* protected as
everybody else's. Now they are the same before the law. Exactly where is
the preferential treatment and the "more protection" part? Now every citizen
has the same right. The injustice of some citizens having more rights than
others has been removed.

  Homosexuals want the same right as everybody else to marry other adults.
Again, this is about equality, about getting the same rights, about getting
to the same level as everybody else rather than being discriminated, not
about preferential treatment and special protection. Where does preferential
treatment and "more protection" step in here? It's all about equal rights,
not about giving more rights to some people than others.

  What *would* be preferential treatment is if it was decided that to
"compensate" for the injustice of some group of citizens not having the
right to vote, it was decided that now they can cast two votes, while
everybody else keeps the right for only one vote. This would be "positive
discrimination" and "affirmative action". This would fight an injustice
with another injustice, trying to correct one wrong with another.

  That isn't being done with suffrage, obviously because it would be way
too blatant and ridiculous. However, it *is* being done with other matters,
and *that* is the injustice.

> 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.

  I don't understand where this "credence" thing is coming from.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message