On 21-12-2010 21:12, andrel wrote:
[snip]
> People from a minority in general know relatively more from the
> majority, so there the problem is not so great. Though there are closely
> knit minorities with all sorts of strange ideas about how the majority
> thinks. It is from these groups that sometimes things are said and
> written that also leads to prosecution for hate mongering. (which is a
> limitation to free speech here).

I might have explained that better perhaps. The idea is that everyone 
knows people from various groups. Starting from the center, there is 
family, relatives, neighbours, sport and schoolmates, coworkers etc.
When the circle is expanding the composition will more and more be like 
the average of the entire population. Hence people from the majority 
will mainly meet people from the majority in every circle whereas 
minorities meet more and more people from the majority. Alienation from 
other groups is therefore in general more a problem of the majority than 
of the minority.

Is that more clear? rereading, I doubt it...

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   The law should be the same for everybody. 

> Sure. Let's make it the law that you can't criticize islam, and the penalty 
> is death. Fair, right? Very democratic. The law is the same for everyone, 
> muslims and christians and atheists alike.

  No, because because of several reasons:

- It obviously is against basic human and constitutional rights.
- It's contradictory with freedom of speech.
- It puts one religion in a special position over all others.

  "The law should be the same for everybody" does not equal "any arbitrary
law is ok, as long as it's applied equally to everybody". That's a rather
cheap argument.

  A law must follow basic human rights, constitutional principles *and*
be applied to everybody equally.

> Again, the point I'm trying to make is that a minority with less power needs 
> more ability to defend itself than a majority with a great amount of power 
> needs to defend itself against a small minority.

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

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 21-12-2010 19:34, Warp wrote:
> > andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
> >> I am just describing what happens in practice. If you don't like it for
> >> philosophical reasons, try to find another planet to live on.
> >
> >    Why? The whole idea with democracy is that the people can affect the
> > politics of their society. If you perceive something as being wrong with
> > society, you don't fix it by conforming and just accepting it as something
> > inevitable. You fix it by voting. (Of course there has to be a few other
> > people who also vote like that, but that's the basic principle in democracy.)

> I think it is a common concept that a democracy has to do what the 
> majority wants while at the same time protecting the rights of minorities.

  While protecting the rights of *everybody* equally.

> >    Your expression sounds like "this is how things are, and there's nothing
> > you can do to change it, so learn to live with it". No, that's not how
> > democracy works. We are lucky enough to live in democratic countries, and
> > we should use the possibilities that brings us to better the society.
> >
> >    The moment when people start believing that they cannot affect their
> > society is the moment when the whole idea of democracy has been destroyed.
> > (Unfortunately this is a way too common belief.)

> It is not that I think I cannot change it, I don't *want* to change it.

  Then we disagree. As long as there is preferential treatment, double
standards and discrimination (there's no such a thing as "positive
discrimination", that's a ridiculous oxymoron), no society can be truly
free and equal.

> >    *Why* does the minority need special protection?

> because it is a minority and can be outvoted in a 'democracy'. Simple as 
> that.

  Minorities require extra protection and preferential treatment because
they can be outvoted in a democracy? And exactly how does that solve
anything? And how does that argument make any sense? By the same reasoning
advocates of a minority political party should get special protection and
preferential treatment because they are outvoted by the advocates of the
larger parties. You don't see that happening, and for good reason.

  I also like how you quote 'democracy', as to imply that there's something
wrong with the whole concept.

> > Why are double standards necessary?

> I would not call them 'double standards', you do.

  Maybe you don't, but that doesn't change the fact.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>   The law should be the same for everybody. 
> 
>> Sure. Let's make it the law that you can't criticize islam, and the penalty 
>> is death. Fair, right? Very democratic. The law is the same for everyone, 
>> muslims and christians and atheists alike.
> 
>   No, because because of several reasons:
> 
> - It obviously is against basic human and constitutional rights.

Constitutional rights are exactly what prevent *democracy* from doing this. 
That's precisely my point.

> - It's contradictory with freedom of speech.

Again, freedom of speech (at least here) is a constitutional right, not 
something decided by the democracy.

> - It puts one religion in a special position over all others.

But only because that's what the majority wants.

>   "The law should be the same for everybody" does not equal "any arbitrary
> law is ok, as long as it's applied equally to everybody". That's a rather
> cheap argument.

Then you have an odd view of democracy.

You asked why the minority needs special protection. Then you go to argue 
that my example is bad *because* the minority already has special 
protection, in the form of ...

>   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? The majority isn't going to take the rights away from the 
majority, so the protection really only applies to the minority.

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.

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".

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. 
Or, as one great historical figure whose name I forget quoted: "The law 
prohibits both the wealthy and the poor from sleeping under bridges."

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

(Not dissimilar to anti-trust complaints, really.)

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.

>> Again, the point I'm trying to make is that a minority with less power needs 
>> more ability to defend itself than a majority with a great amount of power 
>> needs to defend itself against a small minority.
> 
>   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.

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

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Put it this way: if your hate speech targets only people too poor to afford 
> >> lawyers, how likely are you to be forced to stop?
> > 
> >   That's a question of economy, not a question of human rights.

> You're missing the point I'm trying to make. You're talking about abstract 
> rights, in which case yes I agree. I'm talking about the reality of the 
> situation in which there's often a lack of justice due to the way the system 
> works.

> It would be nice if the legal system were set up in such a way that everyone 
> is equally protected. But it's not. Hell, our previous president has 
> confessed in writing to committing war crimes and knowingly violating the 
> constitution, and nobody is even going to look into it, let alone punish him 
> for it.

  So exactly what's wrong in promoting equal rights for everybody, and
abolishing special treatment for some groups of people?

  If the current situation is that some minorities are being discriminated
against, the solution is not to give them *more* protection than to the
rest. Two wrongs don't make a right. You don't fight discrimination with
more discrimination. The correct solution is to give them the *same*
protection as everybody else. That, by definition, removes the discrimination.

> >   I thought even in the US all people are entitled to legal counsel
> > regardless of income. 

> Only for crimes. Which is to say, only when you're accused by the government 
> itself of breaking some law for which the punishment might be jail time.

> If you get sued by some company for copyright infringement (to pull an 
> example out of the air), you have to pay for your own lawyer.

  At least here if you actually win the case, the company that accused you
will have to pay for your lawyer fees. (This makes sense because it avoids
people/companies abusing the legal system to cause economic harm to somebody
by forcing them to pay legal fees.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 21/12/2010 9:18 PM, Darren New wrote:

> But

The good thing about banging your head against a brick wall is that when 
you stop so does the pain ;-)


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

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

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

Warp wrote:
>   So exactly what's wrong in promoting equal rights for everybody, and
> abolishing special treatment for some groups of people?

I didn't say it was wrong.

>   If the current situation is that some minorities are being discriminated
> against, the solution is not to give them *more* protection than to the
> rest.

Are you saying that the current levels of protection are adequate?

> Two wrongs don't make a right. You don't fight discrimination with
> more discrimination. The correct solution is to give them the *same*
> protection as everybody else. That, by definition, removes the discrimination.

Yep. And this is exactly the sort of thing affirmative action is supposed to 
address.

And, again, "the same protection" prevents both rich and poor from sleeping 
under the bridge, and prevents both gay and straight men from marrying other 
men. That's what you get in a democracy, sometimes even in a constitutional 
democracy.

I'm not saying that affirmative action is the right solution to problems 
like this. I'm saying that this sort of balance doesn't naturally arise from 
democracy, and that obtaining this sort of balance is therefore 
non-democratic and implicitly supports those statistically discriminated 
against more than it supports those statistically doing the discrimination.

>   At least here if you actually win the case, the company that accused you
> will have to pay for your lawyer fees. (This makes sense because it avoids
> people/companies abusing the legal system to cause economic harm to somebody
> by forcing them to pay legal fees.)

As I say, it depends on the case. Here if the reason you sue is to make them 
pay legal fees, then it's a frivolous case and you can get lawyer fees. 
Sometimes you have to sue them back (which is called a counter suit) to get 
your costs back. There's a strong sense that "justice should be served", but 
it doesn't always cover lawyer fees; it is often up to the judge or the jury 
as I understand it. When it does, you then have to go collect the lawyer 
fees after the fact, so if you go broke before you win, you're screwed, and 
if the other side goes broke before you collect, you're screwed.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 21-12-2010 22:14, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> On 21-12-2010 19:34, Warp wrote:
>>> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>   wrote:
>>>> I am just describing what happens in practice. If you don't like it for
>>>> philosophical reasons, try to find another planet to live on.
>>>
>>>     Why? The whole idea with democracy is that the people can affect the
>>> politics of their society. If you perceive something as being wrong with
>>> society, you don't fix it by conforming and just accepting it as something
>>> inevitable. You fix it by voting. (Of course there has to be a few other
>>> people who also vote like that, but that's the basic principle in democracy.)
>
>> I think it is a common concept that a democracy has to do what the
>> majority wants while at the same time protecting the rights of minorities.
>
>    While protecting the rights of *everybody* equally.

Yes, that is what that means. Many people find it useful to stress it 
this way to make clear that even in a democracy there are bounds to what 
is acceptable to put into laws even if you have 50%+1 of the votes.

>>>     Your expression sounds like "this is how things are, and there's nothing
>>> you can do to change it, so learn to live with it". No, that's not how
>>> democracy works. We are lucky enough to live in democratic countries, and
>>> we should use the possibilities that brings us to better the society.
>>>
>>>     The moment when people start believing that they cannot affect their
>>> society is the moment when the whole idea of democracy has been destroyed.
>>> (Unfortunately this is a way too common belief.)
>
>> It is not that I think I cannot change it, I don't *want* to change it.
>
>    Then we disagree. As long as there is preferential treatment, double
> standards and discrimination (there's no such a thing as "positive
> discrimination", that's a ridiculous oxymoron), no society can be truly
> free and equal.

It is not preferential treatment, it is not double standards, it simply 
is the way in which we make sure that your *everybody* from above gets 
his rights protected.

>>>     *Why* does the minority need special protection?
>
>> because it is a minority and can be outvoted in a 'democracy'. Simple as
>> that.
>
>    Minorities require extra protection and preferential treatment because
> they can be outvoted in a democracy? And exactly how does that solve
> anything? And how does that argument make any sense? By the same reasoning
> advocates of a minority political party should get special protection and
> preferential treatment because they are outvoted by the advocates of the
> larger parties. You don't see that happening, and for good reason.
>
>    I also like how you quote 'democracy', as to imply that there's something
> wrong with the whole concept.

?? No, I did that here because if that happened it would IMO cease to be 
a democracy. Nothing wrong with it in the usual circumstances AFAIC.

>>> Why are double standards necessary?
>
>> I would not call them 'double standards', you do.
>
>    Maybe you don't, but that doesn't change the fact.

or you have your facts wrong

Post a reply to this message