Protection of Minorities

[MKS]

What protections are guaranteed to minorities by a truly populist government? If the people did really rule by democratic election and referendum than how would the minorities, whether ethnic, religious, etc be protected? How would their basic rights of equality and justice be protected?

I ask these questions because the answers aren’t easy to determine. History gives us many examples of popular support for oppressive actions against minority segments of a population (Jim Crow laws and the Nuremberg laws are two of the strongest examples) In order to protect the entire populous even the minority there must be a court or some administration set above the general citizenry that decides the "legality" or any passed law. But would the creation of such a court lead to a centralization of power, as most concepts of justice are subjective, giving such power to one group of people could create a dangerous hierarchy? So how does an egalitarian society reconcile with protection of minorities?

[razboz]

No minorities cannot be protected and sheltered from the rest of the population. This gives a segment of the commmunity more power than the others, making them more than just regular humans in terms ofrights. Minorities either integrate or disappear. Legilating power other than popular power is akin to legisslating some form of authority. If the People truly wish it, then why oppose it. In truly egalitarian society the minority could travel or become integrated wiht the rest of society. The Jim Crow and Nuremberg Laws rested on the basic principle that a certain class of person was un-human. Once you accept all are human and equal, how could such laws come about again? And allow me to tell you that these laws were approved of the Judiciary in the countries of the time. Having a judiciary branch of government and Senate/Perliment does preclude having a genocidal internal and external policy.

[razboz]

Double post, apologies.

[MKS]

The Jim Crow and Nuremberg Laws rested on the basic principle that a certain class of person was un-human. Once you accept all are human and equal, how could such laws come about again?

Jim Crow and Nuremberg are two examples of the extreme, another more relevant example would be the protection of civil rights for homosexuals. Recent polling has shown that the majorit of state populations oppose allowing gay marriage, but shouldnt homosexuals be accorded such rights? Is it wrong if the judiciary or the legislatior allowed Gay marriage although they go against popular sentiment or attitude.

Now i agree that some laws have been passed and approved which are anti-egalitarian, Jim Crow being another good example. But should we discount the entire idea of an independent body that would determine (if nessecary) the legality of a law or code? Hopefully in a more equal society that body would be more reflective of the established socio-economic reality. But the populous may not be. Certain groups, religous or otherwise, might need protection from other groups. We cannot expect prejudice, fear and discrimination to simply vanish once Capitalism is destroyed.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by razboz@October 28, 2006 10:17 am
No minorities cannot be protected and sheltered from the rest of the population. This gives a segment of the commmunity more power than the others, making them more than just regular humans in terms ofrights. Minorities either integrate or disappear. Legilating power other than popular power is akin to legisslating some form of authority. If the People truly wish it, then why oppose it. In truly egalitarian society the minority could travel or become integrated wiht the rest of society. The Jim Crow and Nuremberg Laws rested on the basic principle that a certain class of person was un-human. Once you accept all are human and equal, how could such laws come about again? And allow me to tell you that these laws were approved of the Judiciary in the countries of the time. Having a judiciary branch of government and Senate/Perliment does preclude having a genocidal internal and external policy.

Jim crow and Nuremburg rested on the fact that not all people were the same as the MAJORITY. And yes, lots of people who were not the same as the majority did a lot of travelling under those regimes and a lot of dissapearing too...

Though late in coming, Bull Connor and Heinrich Himmler would no doubt appreciate the defense...

[MKS]

If the People truly wish it, then why oppose it

The people of the US truly want to protect and advance capitalism, then why do you oppose it? Because you know that while the majority of Americans may embarace Capitalism, there are a great number of others that are hurt by it. Sometimes the popular attitude is not the correct one. The people of the South allowed Jim Crow to segregate(sp) the Black population, to treat them as less than human, as did the Nuremberg laws to the Jews of Germany, or the Aparthied laws of South Africa to the natives, or the anti-Indian legislation in the US, I could go on. Can a truly equal society exist without some method of coericion or oversight of popular attitudes in order to protect the entire citzenry including the minorities.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by razboz@October 28, 2006 05:17 am
No minorities cannot be protected and sheltered from the rest of the population. This gives a segment of the commmunity more power than the others, making them more than just regular humans in terms ofrights. Minorities either integrate or disappear. Legilating power other than popular power is akin to legisslating some form of authority. If the People truly wish it, then why oppose it. In truly egalitarian society the minority could travel or become integrated wiht the rest of society. The Jim Crow and Nuremberg Laws rested on the basic principle that a certain class of person was un-human. Once you accept all are human and equal, how could such laws come about again? And allow me to tell you that these laws were approved of the Judiciary in the countries of the time. Having a judiciary branch of government and Senate/Perliment does preclude having a genocidal internal and external policy.

giving people protection of their personal soveriegnty isn't giving them more power than others.

[razboz]

MKS first: The whole gay rights marriage and so on? This is not protection of a minority. This is a question of equality between the said minority and the rest of the population. the rest of the population does nat agree that Gay people are the same as other people, so thes are not aforded the same rights, its a s simple as that.

Certain groups, religous or otherwise, might need protection from other groups.

This protection can be afforded on the grounds of criminal offenses. Specific protection concerning indivdual minorities as groups is not necessary.

Jim crow and Nuremburg rested on the fact that not all people were the same as the MAJORITY.

Which fact? Evidence please that Jewish persons are not the same as other German, Austrian, French or other people. Evidence please that people of Black African Decent are not the same as Aboriginal Americans or Americans of Caucasian decent.

And please read what i wrote: accepting that race is not an issue, your point bears no relevance to the issue.

And yes, lots of people who were not the same as the majority did a lot of travelling under those regimes and a lot of dissapearing too...

What are you referring to (if anything)? I dod not mention travelling. Or disapearing. Please clarify this point.

Though late in coming, Bull Connor and Heinrich Himmler would no doubt appreciate the defense...

Please reread what i wrote very carefully: you'll find it does not defend anyone. What you imply is insulting.

giving people protection of their personal soveriegnty isn't giving them more power than others.

Giving people exceptional protection of their indivdual rights, beyond that which every citizen receives is giving them more power, because it means they have more resources at their disposal than others.

[colonelguppy]

Which fact? Evidence please that Jewish persons are not the same as other German, Austrian, French or other people. Evidence please that people of Black African Decent are not the same as Aboriginal Americans or Americans of Caucasian decent.

And please read what i wrote: accepting that race is not an issue, your point bears no relevance to the issue.

except that people don't accept that race is not an issue... thats the problem.

Giving people exceptional protection of their indivdual rights, beyond that which every citizen receives is giving them more power, because it means they have more resources at their disposal than others.

and likewise giving the majority power to control them means it gives the majority control of more recources. this is why collective ownership is stupid as hell.

[razboz]

Originally posted by colonelguppy@October 28, 2006 04:19 pm

Which fact? Evidence please that Jewish persons are not the same as other German, Austrian, French or other people. Evidence please that people of Black African Decent are not the same as Aboriginal Americans or Americans of Caucasian decent.

And please read what i wrote: accepting that race is not an issue, your point bears no relevance to the issue.

except that people don't accept that race is not an issue... thats the problem.

Giving people exceptional protection of their indivdual rights, beyond that which every citizen receives is giving them more power, because it means they have more resources at their disposal than others.

and likewise giving the majority power to control them means it gives the majority control of more recources. this is why collective ownership is stupid as hell.

Thats what we call education. Race is of no relevance: why is that i accept this while others do not? Because i am smarter than them? I doubt it. Its because this is what i was brought up to know. If we taught racial equality in schools, in the media (all media) and so on, race would rapidly become incocequential to all but a minority of insane White, Black and Jewish Supremists.

Why should the majority not rule?

[MKS]

The whole gay rights marriage and so on? This is not protection of a minority. This is a question of equality between the said minority and the rest of the population. the rest of the population does nat agree that Gay people are the same as other people, so thes are not aforded the same rights, its a s simple as that

.

It is about the protection of equality amongst the citizenry. To exclude a minority from any aspect of civil, economic or social oppurtunity is in my opinion wrong. Just because the majority of the population might beleive in the discrimintory act or law it does make the crime against equality any less severe.

Specific protection concerning indivdual minorities as groups is not necessary

.



Why isnt it nessecary? I would think it is very nessecary to any society claiming equality.

So is populism not compatible with true equality?

[razboz]

It is about the protection of equality amongst the citizenry. To exclude a minority from any aspect of civil, economic or social oppurtunity is in my opinion wrong. Just because the majority of the population might beleive in the discrimintory act or law it does make the crime against equality any less severe.

All of what you said is true and entirely correct. I agree very much. But what i am saying is that laws to specifically ensure the protection of certain groups is akin to giving such groups increased rihts over the rest of the population. It is necessary to protect individual freedom equally, not more for some than others.

Why isnt it nessecary? I would think it is very nessecary to any society claiming equality.

It is not necessary, if the protection of all is assured. Equal rights means equal protection.

So is populism not compatible with true equality?

Ill admit i never heard of populism being used as an ideological stand point.

From the little reaserch i did though it seems populism is just for giving more power ot individuals and to the People in general. Nothing wrong with that.

[ZX3]

[quote]Originally posted by razboz@October 28, 2006 04:14 pm
]

Which fact? Evidence please that Jewish persons are not the same as other German, Austrian, French or other people. Evidence please that people of Black African Decent are not the same as Aboriginal Americans or Americans of Caucasian decent.

And please read what i wrote: accepting that race is not an issue, your point bears no relevance to the issue.

And yes, lots of people who were not the same as the majority did a lot of travelling under those regimes and a lot of dissapearing too...

What are you referring to (if anything)? I dod not mention travelling. Or disapearing. Please clarify this point.

Though late in coming, Bull Connor and Heinrich Himmler would no doubt appreciate the defense...

Please reread what i wrote very carefully: you'll find it does not defend anyone. What you imply is insulting.

"Minorities either integrate or dissapear" were your words. It is impossible for an ethnic monority to integrate. So they "dissapear" as millions did under the nazis. The formula is the same. That is my reference to a defense of a Connor or Heydrich (though obviously the latter was much worse), since your note can easily jsutify the Holocaust, despite your intentions to the contrary.

[MKS]

But what i am saying is that laws to specifically ensure the protection of certain groups is akin to giving such groups increased rihts over the rest of the population. It is necessary to protect individual freedom equally, not more for some than others.

It is not increased rights it is equal rights, which should be ensured by the people but history has shown that sometimes the people act against the principles of egalitarianism. Now one could argue that once true equality is obtained that most prejudices and atcs of discrimination will vanish, this may be true but I do not think that it will be as quick as some assume. If the people truly had unchecked power than it is possible that some groups of our society will be segregated and not allowed to share equallly in their society. The judicial or legislative body must re-act to popular currents that may be contrary to the egalitarian principles of the new order. There is a conflict though when you allow a group of people power over the larger mass, when you give them the right to define such a subjective term as discrimination and allow them to act on that defintion. True inpartiality is impossible and therfore any system established to judge the moods of the people as "good" or "bad" may be (usually is) corrupted by the nature of authority.

So, given that how is it possible to correctly administer an egalitarian society?

[Orion999]

Can a truly equal society exist without some method of coericion or oversight of popular attitudes in order to protect the entire citzenry including the minorities.

No. Some form of government will always be required.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by razboz+October 28, 2006 11:24 am--> (razboz @ October 28, 2006 11:24 am)

colonelguppy

@October 28, 2006 04:19 pm

Which fact? Evidence please that Jewish persons are not the same as other German, Austrian, French or other people. Evidence please that people of Black African Decent are not the same as Aboriginal Americans or Americans of Caucasian decent.

And please read what i wrote: accepting that race is not an issue, your point bears no relevance to the issue.

except that people don't accept that race is not an issue... thats the problem.

Giving people exceptional protection of their indivdual rights, beyond that which every citizen receives is giving them more power, because it means they have more resources at their disposal than others.

and likewise giving the majority power to control them means it gives the majority control of more recources. this is why collective ownership is stupid as hell.

Thats what we call education. Race is of no relevance: why is that i accept this while others do not? Because i am smarter than them? I doubt it. Its because this is what i was brought up to know. If we taught racial equality in schools, in the media (all media) and so on, race would rapidly become incocequential to all but a minority of insane White, Black and Jewish Supremists.

Why should the majority not rule? [/b]

because the majority is not always right, and i would go as far to say that they are seldom right.

[razboz]

I get your point MKS, but i still beleive there is no need to legislate the protection of minorities in an egalitarian society, so long as there some kind of safeguard against violence or exclusion, such as a police of some sort. If there are certain written down rules such as "no one shall be subject to racial, religious or cultural segregation, on pain of community service" or something it would pretty much cover all the issues you talked about. Therfor there is no need to protect an minority so long as all are treated equally and any abuse is sanctioned.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by razboz@October 29, 2006 08:06 am
I get your point MKS, but i still beleive there is no need to legislate the protection of minorities in an egalitarian society, so long as there some kind of safeguard against violence or exclusion, such as a police of some sort. If there are certain written down rules such as "no one shall be subject to racial, religious or cultural segregation, on pain of community service" or something it would pretty much cover all the issues you talked about. Therfor there is no need to protect an minority so long as all are treated equally and any abuse is sanctioned.

How can a community be egalitarian, if a minority of the community is made of people who speak different languages, or have a different religion, different cultural history, from that of the majority?

[MKS]

How can a community be egalitarian, if a minority of the community is made of people who speak different languages, or have a different religion, different cultural history, from that of the majority?

It's simple, that minority would still be accorded the same rights and privlages as everyone else in the society or community thus ensuring equality or the egalitarian ideal. Look at most Western Republics, most minorities are allowed to vote, own property, receive medical care, enjoy freedoms of expression, communication, religious worship, and are also held to the same legal codes of that community. They for the most part are treated as equals under the law or constiution. Whether that ideal is a reality is another matter, but the system allows for equal protection.