Majority Rights?

Former Member

According to the judge in this case, minority rights should never outweigh majority rights. Which leads me to a couple of questions and I'd be interested in your thought on what the judge said...

1. Aren't rights there to protect the population from the Govt, not each other?

2. Aren't rights applicable to all, so the concept of minority vs majority doesn't actually apply?

Former Member

Does the idea of rights being applicable to all not set itself up to fail though?

The whole free speech vs. no discrimination thing springs to mind?

Former Member

How can rights not apply to everyone?

Besides, I don't see how those two are exclusive. Discrimination is by action not words, surely?

Former Member

I'm pretty sure racist language is not allowed.

Former Member

It sounds like the judges' comments are obiter dicta, so I don't think it really means all that much. Basically they were just trying to explain legalistically why they threw out an appeal by a bunch of tosspots.

Indrid Cold

If you ask me, the only way "majority rights" and "minority rights" clash is if they're logically mutually exclusive. Like 10 people being in a room, 8 of them are hot and want the AC on and the other 2 are cold and want it off.

Former Member

I don't see how this case demonstrates minority rights vs. majority rights at all. These men were found guilty of using threatening and abusive language. Now whether or not you agree with that law, I don't see how it makes any difference whether the victims and accused are members of a majority or a minority group.

Where rights genuinely conflict with each other, I prefer to look at it in terms of the rights of those who have no choice about something superseding the rights of those who have a choice.

Former Member

The guys argued that the case infringed on their right to free speech. That's where the minority vs majority argument came in, the judge pointed out that in this case their actions caused harassment, alarm or distress to the majority of people in the area.

I'd also point out that there is nothing in the public order act that says you have to swear to be in breach.

Former Member

Slartibartfast wrote: »

1. Aren't rights there to protect the population from the Govt, not each other?

The Human Rights Act states,more generally, public authorities.

The appellants were claiming that the relevant public authorities had infringed their right to free expression under Article 10. However that particular right is a qualified one. The following restrictions suggest they were doomed to fail . . .

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Slartibartfast wrote: »

2. Aren't rights applicable to all, so the concept of minority vs majority doesn't actually apply?

I think those remarks are taken out of context and as Arctic Roll said obiter dicta.

Former Member

God of Schmuck wrote: »

I think those remarks are taken out of context and as Arctic Roll said obiter dicta.

I am generally correct in my assumption though, aren't I? Rights apply to all, there is no such thing as "minority" rights...

Former Member

Isn't democracy basically an extension of majority rights? Goes back to what Indrid said.

Former Member

Thunderstruck wrote: »

Isn't democracy basically an extension of majority rights? Goes back to what Indrid said.

Not in the UK it isn't. We have minority Govt all the time.

You don't have the right to choose the govt, just to have a vote. Unless you are a Prisoner but that will change. Because, hey, the convicted have rights too as the ECHR has recently ruled.

Former Member

Thunderstruck wrote: »

Isn't democracy basically an extension of majority rights? Goes back to what Indrid said.

Or go back to what Larry Flynt said "Majority rule will only work if you're considering individual rights. You can't have five wolves and one sheep vote on what they want to have for supper."

Former Member

Slartibartfast wrote: »

I am generally correct in my assumption though, aren't I? Rights apply to all, there is no such thing as "minority" rights...

Yes. (Unless you consider the individual to be a minority )

Former Member

I don't think this is a case of minority rights... It's a bunch of guys being wankers.

Former Member

Here is Hilary recently extolling the virtues of freedom of expression

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-Vy8fFnz18&feature=player_embedded

(a qualified right )

Former Member

God of Schmuck wrote: »

Here is Hilary recently extolling the virtues of freedom of expression

Freedom of expression isn't the right to say whatever you want whenever you want. But of course you know that. Or at least I presume you know that because only a simpleton wouldn't.

Former Member

CptCoatHanger wrote: »

Freedom of expression isn't the right to say whatever you want whenever you want. But of course you know that. Or at least I presume you know that because only a simpleton wouldn't.

It must be my lucky day.

I know that despite being a simpleton.