Before I start I wholly understand that it is important to make sure that minorities feel integrated into society, however I think that it is coming to a point now where the will of the majority is in danger of being sidelined so that people who are, frankly, obsessed with this can pursue their goals.
A good example of this is the recent furore in England at the moment over Clause 28, which bans teaching of Homosexual ideals in schools.
Now very few people knew that this law even existed (I definately didn’t and neither did anyone else I spoke to about it.)
It seemed to me that the majority were against the repealing of Clause 28 but the Government still decided to try twice (they were overruled). Now I don’t intend to pass any judgements over the law or homosexuals right to it or any of that. I don’t think that the law should be repealed, however, because the majority just don’t want it and it is the majority that will be affected.
I think that he government disregarded the vast majority of public opinion when trying to repeal this law and I think that this was wrong. What you do yyou think?
What, pray tell, is a ‘homosexual ideal’?
This is the quagmire to be expected when rights are misdefined, when they are seen as “permissions” that are doled out by some authority (or group) that is itself an element of the set of those who have rights.
“A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” — Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774
The majority may have all the rights they want that do not infringe, take away from, or eliminate the rights of the minority.
Majority, Minority… why can’t we have one set of rights for everyone? Why this big deal over “redressing past injustices” and the like? I don’t see how we are going to get anywhere as a people if we keep obsessing over what my ancestors allegedly did to someone else’s 10 generations ago, or because someone loves someone of the same gender, or happened to be living on this landmass before colonial times.
Sheesh. We’ll never get anywhere at this rate.
The majority is not always right. The majority might say it wants homosexuals subjected to ECT to “cure” them – does that make it right? It’s obviously incredibly dangerous to suggest that the government knows better and should overrule the wishes of the majority, but at the same time acting on the desires of an ill-informed majority (or a majority informed only by a one-sided, well-financed media campaign) isn’t a very palatable option.
My gripe is that Clause 28 is incredibly vague and meaningless; how do you “promote homosexuality”? Schools shouldn’t “promote” heterosexuality either; they should educate and inform, but not try to influence your personal preferences in this area. I doubt that the repeal of this Clause would lead to schools “recruiting” gay pupils; ridiculous.
Some background for non-British Dopers:
The Local Government Act 1988 inserted a clause (Clause 28) into an earlier Act which reads as follows:
Incidentally, there was no definition of what “promoting homosexuality” actually means. Nice and vague, eh?
This was brought in as a populist measure under Margaret Thatcher, whose political beliefs included an appeal to Victorian-era “family values”. At the time, local government was seen as a bastion of unionised left-wing “troublemakers”, so this was a handy label for Thatcher – claiming that they supported “the promotion of homosexuality”.
The current Labour government has attempted twice, as Gomez says, to remove the Clause. It has failed twice, when the legislation has been rejected by the House of Lords (you know, the unelected and unrepresentative aging upper-class white men). At the same time, a number of high-profile campaigns backed the retention of Clause 28, most notably in Scotland, where the (IIRC) Scottish Catholic Church helped bankroll a well-publicised campaign by Brian Souter, head of the massive bus company Stagecoach.
This page is a series of polls by the research organisation MORI into public attitudes on Clause 28 (January 2000). In summary, 54% supported retaining Clause 28 and 39% opposed it.
In practice what it bans are teaching/materials which would help those who are either gay or related to gays come to terms with their situation.
You must know some very ignorant people. Clause 28 was a big deal when the Tories brought it in and it still a big deal now
I fail to see how it really affects the majority. It does affect the gay community. Are they the majority now?
Well said, ticker, and a lot more succinctly than I did.
Majority rules.
As a black-hispanic woman, this idea scares the crap out of me.
It has been asked already, but what are “homosexual ideals”? What is the majority afraid of? What do you, Gomez, think will happen if this law is appealed?
Soon, in the US, a black-hispanic woman will no longer be the “minority”. When that happens we will pass a slate of laws called The New Household Act.
- No remote hogging.
- All meals eaten after 5pm must contain white or yellow rice.
- All porno must have a plot, a reason for the sexual act and all the men must shave their backs.
The above was facetious, but I believe the point is valid. I would not want to live in a world where the majority opinion was the deciding factor in what laws are passed or repealed.
Ticker. you said:
“I fail to see how it (Clause 28) really affects the majority. It does affect the gay community. Are they the majority now?”
I think that the majority is affected in as much the children would be being taught things which the parents may not want them to be taught.
We’re getting a bit off topic here. I only cited Clause 28 as an example of when the will of the majority has been casually overruled by the government. I personally couldn’t care less about Clause 28 as I would probably educate my kids at home anyway, Clause 28 just seemed to be a timely example.
If it weren’t for the unelected House of Lords the will of the majority would have been totally overthrown so perhaps a better question to ask is “Should the majority have a say in whether or not a government passes a law?”
Gomez,
Would you approve of having government by referendum? Personally, I feel the job of a politician is to (say and) vote their consciences. If the people don’t like it, vote the bums out.
Gomez:
(1) Who is this “majority”? Is it the people who write letters to The Sun? “Majority decision-making” seems to me to be “the decision of the vocal minority pretending to be the majority” in many cases.
(2) Do people always take the time to investigate the issues properly? I don’t mean to suggest that the public as a whole is stupid; just that people don’t have the time, inclination or open-mindedness to debate what’s truly best for their country/society. If the majority decides to leave the EU because they don’t trust the Germans and don’t like the French, would you be happy at the decision? Politicians, for all of their many faults, are paid to think of the country’s long-term goods (well, in theory at least). I don’t trust them altogether, but I certainly don’t trust the general public to make better decisions.
Ouch.
Lib, if you could point to someone who wants to tell us what our rights should be but wants his/her own rights to be different, I would ask why I should accept a system that was not good enough for him/her.
BTW- Interesting quote, care to post Jefferson’s ideas on quantum physics?
The majority may have all the rights they damn well please, if they are a powerful enough majority.
Rights are not automaticly “right”.
If you changed “may” to “should”, I would agree with your post.
Well, not completely, but it would be a good starting point.
Yes, except–as slythe pointed out–to the extent that this majority say infinges on the rights of someone else. Doesn’t matter if everyone else in the country wants a particular ethnic/religious group exterminated (I realize that’s not what you’re suggesting, but I use it as an example), the majority voice is still not relevant. At least not in the U.S., where the Constitution enumerates (but does not grant, since they are not the government’s to grant) certain rights that are not subject to a public vote.
So what do you do if those injustices continue to manifest themselves in people’s lives today? What if, for example, a particular ethnic group earns about 65 cents to the white majority’s dollar? Do we attribute this circumstance to the fact that maybe they really are just inferior (that must be our conclusion, I think, if we refuse to admit that there is a social privilege associated with being born white)? Do we tell them to just get over it, all this discussion over this economic chasm is really annoying?
Got one for yas 2sense - the difference in mandatory minimum sentences between crack and powder cocaine. This, of course, is a negative right, the right of the (mostly white) powder cocaine users to be subject to less infringement on their liberty than the (mostly minority) crack users.
Sua
Sua, I can do you even one better than that:
From the Associated Press, March 19, 1996, "In the closing hours of their session, state legislators quietly gave themselves and a few top officials the right to carry concealed guns to places most residents can’t: schools, churches, political rallies and even the Capitol.
There was no debate in either chamber Monday as the measure swept to final passage. It goes now to Gov. Zell Miller, who hasn’t indicated whether he will sign it into law or veto it.
The measure gives legislators, former legislators and top elected officials - such as the state school superintendent and insurance commissioner - the right to carry weapons at public places. Currently, the right is only given to law enforcement officers, judges, prosecutors and other criminal justice professionals. "
Part of what is confusing the debate, is the confusion over Democracy. These days we have sort of equated Democrocy(or more specifically the goverments we have today) with egalitarianism. There is nothing in the definition of democracy that implies equality. In a rigid democracy, if a majority(numerical) voted to do something, it would be done, regardless of what it was, even if they were voting away the rights of someone else(although voting away someone else’s voting right, gets into a bit of a paradox if that could truly be democratic). What most “Democratic” countries do today is to try to temper the democratic properties with a more absolute moral eqalitarianism. Meaning that all people have certain rights regardless of whether or not it has majority support. Generally we believe that both are good things, the democratic institution, and the fundamental rights, and we keep the happy illusion that they are unified in all things. Problems like the OP are when we are forced review this situation, becuase it is where the two factors are in disagreement. It falls into the grey area where majority rule is in conflict with basic rights,and its not obvious which is “better”
O.K., lets try a different example.
Lets say your country goes to war, a war which the vast majority of people disapprove of. Should the country face the prospect of humiliation and pull out or should the government ignore the majority and continue with the war.
BTW the war is being fought purely to strengthen relations with the countries allies and not for any moral purpose, material gain, or to stave off any material losses from an invading country.
It’s late (here) and I’m tired so I’m gonna stay neutral on this one and check back in a couple of days.
:: looks in direction of Georgia and cries, “Why are you so special?” ::
In the U.S., supposedly except for “emergency,” short-term situations (I believe the War Powers Act outlines this), only Congress can make war, and it’s only official when they vote on it.
Congress, being our elected representatives, are the majority’s proxy, presumably representing the wishes of those they represent (to the extent that it doesn’t violate anyone else’s rights). Of course, nothing prevents them from ignoring the wishes of their constituencies, nothing but the thought that they will not be re-elected (and that in situations of egregious abuse, there are processes to remove them from office). Our vote for who will represent us is our say.
In a nation with a few hundred million people, that’s as close to a “majority rules” system as is possible, I think. Gomez, your frustration over the “government” ignoring the wishes of the majority, does it refer to this same situation–i.e., elected officials doing the opposite of what their constituencies wish? If it is, why wouldn’t the majority vote the rascals out? If it’s something else, please clarify.