Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Anyone is welcome to join. Sign up here

Majority Rights?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
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?

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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 MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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 MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm pretty sure racist language is not allowed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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 ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    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 MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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 MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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 MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.



    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 MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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 MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Isn't democracy basically an extension of majority rights? Goes back to what Indrid said.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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 MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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 MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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 MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't think this is a case of minority rights... It's a bunch of guys being wankers.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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 MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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 MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.