Petition [EN] Pétition [FR] Petición [ES] Petiţie [RO] Ψήφισμα [EL] Petice[CZ] Petition [DE] Petizione [IT] Petycja [PL] Petitie [NL] Petíció [HU] Petição [PT] Namninsamling [SV] Underskriftindsamling [DA] Petícia [SK] Achainí [GA] Peticija [LT] Петиция [RU] Eskaera [EU] Petskribo [EO] Petició [CA] Athchuinge [GD]
The right to practise ones religion is a fundamental human right. It isn't in the same league as expressing one's preference for a football team. I'm not a religious person and I often think the world would be a much better place without religion but the bottom line is that there are a number of religions and it wouldn't be a fair point for me to say that people always have a choice about whether they practise a religion or not, any more than people have a 'choice' about what age or gender they are. These are all characteristics that affect how people live their lives and the way in which they can access society.
I think you underestimate how seriously some people (mainly men) take football:
"Football is not a matter of life and death, it's far more important than that!" Bill Shankly
But, more seriously, just because some people take their beliefs seriously, this does not mean that the rest of us must do so. Nor does the state have to do so, apart from allowing freedom of belief - except where this has a negative impact on others. Must we really take the idea of teaching creationism seriously, just because some people take it seriously?
The current republication of the Danish cartoons which upset some Muslims is an example. Free speech, even when it offends others (in fact especially then) is a vital freedom. Religious people ought not to be able to limit this right, especially not by threats of and actual violence, even murder. Learning to deal with feeling offended is an important requirement of living in a tolerant, civilized society. If everything is the will of Allah, as some believe, presumably it was his will that they were published - perhaps to test the faith of Muslims (cf. a Christian argument for the reason for evil in the world).
There is also the problem that there are so many religions, are you going to try to accommodate the wishes of all of them, sometimes conflicting with each other?
Also it's not like age, about which one has no choice; people can and do choose to leave a religion, join another one, or manage without one. The fact that someone might feel they have no choice about their beliefs and feel unhappy that the state does not accommodate those beliefs - e.g. that abortion, divorce, etc. should be banned and that the stoning of gays and adulterers, etc. should be enforced - is their problem. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice. Blog - Nice Experience
I have not been trying to dissect my own views here but to look at UK/European discourse around equality.
Personally, I do not believe that giving people the right to express their beliefs or follow a religion in any way should over-ride the rights of any other person to have freedom and safety in how they live their life. Yes, some people take religion very seriously but I think it is a private matter for them and should not interfere with anybody else's life. Just to make that clear.
I also do not believe that religion should have any place in dictating public policy. ie public policy to say that christian values should be upheld according to so and so's interpretation of the Bible - where gay people are sinners and women must be meek and mild and children must not know anything about Darwins theory of evolution.
I'm talking here about service provision. Someone who has been brought up within a strict religious environment is not going to be empowered or may not wish to ignore their upbringing. So a muslim woman will not allow herself to be examined by a male gynacologist - what if she has cervical cancer? She'll die if she isn't accessing services due to there not being a female doctor. The same provision can be given to a woman who won't allow a male doctor to examine her because she has been abused or raped. It benefits more than one to put further thought into delivery of services to accommodate individual needs rather than a one size fits all model. But equally, there are not the resources to completely individualise the service, so, understanding demographics and the associated characteristics allows services to be planned to meet as many needs as possible, effectively.
But the key point I am trying to make is that legislation says that individuals should not be discriminated against on the basis of having - or NOT having - a religion or belief. And the question is around how do service providers ensure that needs are met and that they do not indirectly discriminate against certain groups because they have failed to take their needs into account?
I am also not just talking about religion but ethnicity also - the two can be completely separate. Ad astra per aspera
Let's have a look at your example, the women that doesn't want to be seen by a male gynecologist... See I don't even say she "could" be muslim, some women disliking males as a generality (and no, it's not a sexist remark :-) ) or simply some old spinster quite shy !
If you allow such attitude in a given society, you state that men and women are not equal... And if you search work it's just natural that you won't bee paid in a similar manner!
If on the contrary you state that men and women have equal rights, that means that you'll have male and female doctors everywhere. If you state that medical examination is a right for all (male, female, old young, rich, poor), then you have a social security system that allows for a given women to "choose" the doctor she want's to see - either on a qualification basis (he's the best!), sexual one (he's cute), or whatever goes by one 's mind (he has seen a flying saucer!).
Which one is the best service ? the one that fits all or the one that has "tagged" waiting lines (men, women, children) - Uh oh... The little green one there from Mars hasn't a chance ! - "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
I agree there should be choice, but the system as it is does not offer that full choice and is a long way from doing so.
Given various inequalities in society, there are fewer women doctors available, especially in certain fields. So it takes thought in the planning process to ensure that some clinics will have female doctors available, which may require extra resources to be put in to achieve that.
I'm not saying I disagree with choice to access the services as, when and how ANY individual wants to - I'm saying that services (in the UK at least) are not delivered that way, therefore thought must go into the planning process to make sure that groups are not being missed off or disadvantaged.
I'm NOT saying that minority needs should be prioritised over majority needs, but they must be considered and attempts made to remove any barriers to access - which the majority do not face.
If you can plan services to provide good access for minorities and therefore catering for diversity, then the side affect is that it will benefit the majority because service delivery has become more diverse, therefore meeting more needs whether people can 'tick a box' or not. Ad astra per aspera
Another example in the same style would be the "Jehovah" followers. They don't allow for blood transfusion... Does the doctor let the kid die to respect the faith of his parents ? Do you allow for excision on young girls, because it's "tradition"?
The point is not that such country, faith, ethnic group, old lore, is "bad" per se... But you can't believe in human rights at the same time then closing eyes on their regular violations on "cultural" pretexts ...
It's not without analogy to "systems", when you start with one, you usually have to go all the way...
It's also about "private" rights, space, liberty, etc. A full dose of liberty and you can kill who you want (no laws, what for ?), a full dose of restriction of liberties and you have totalitarianism (there's only one law, me - the chief).
The there is the "public" part - how much of it? Is it an "in-between" that would allow for some to "breathe" and link the myriad's of minorities, or is it the major space of our societies ?
It's like rope walking... Not easy and a fragile imbalance (not balance) or you fall ! "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
I have no dispute with you saying fundamental human rights to each and every person but I'm not seeing how that is implemented in practice in France.
Human rights should quite rightly over-ride religious or cultural traditions that cause oppression or indignity to individuals - the UK does not attempt to turn a blind eye or allow violations of human rights such as the examples you offer. So we are saying the same thing about human rights but go about implementing that in different ways. Ad astra per aspera
It reminds me of an Indian cartoonist book on the "third eye's view" :-)
Human rights were designed by occidental prone people - in enlighten times - The Afghan problem diary, here on ET, mentions that "viewpoint" siding... And that's the trouble. You can live well in a completely different cultural world, if you believe fully in it, in it's goals (religious or not). The everyday emotions would be the same... So why should we change them???
Is it because of immigration overload? Why is there in the first place? Why would I go to another country, live there, take the nationality ? Surely it must be, because either I feel it's freer system then mine, or it's because I'll have more money... In one case I came for the values in the other for the value... Maybe not exactly the same thing! :-) (ok, it's late)!
It is really an important but difficult point... And it's hard to have an external viewpoint ! :-) "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
There is a crucial distinction between law and orders. One definition of "liberty" is freedom from control by another person, that is, freedom from commands. Law may be restrictive, but isn't inconsistent with liberty.
A chief's will isn't law, because it isn't a rule intended for universal application to unspecified persons. (A chief may make laws, of course.)
There are good, practical reasons for using this definition of liberty. For one, it makes "liberty" an ideal that can be approached by a civil society, rather than being recipe for anarchy that must be avoided by a wide margin. Many libertarians misunderstand the concept of liberty, and their misunderstanding gives it a bad name, which, of course, undermines liberty. -------------
In the present context, I'd argue that there should be a framework of universal law, grounded in a concept of human rights, and that within the broad limits of that law, groups should be able to make more specific law applicable to their members. This principle, applied geographically, is an aspect of federalism. Why must it be based on (coarse-grained) geography? Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
"personal laws" bring back the idea of casts. In Europe we moved out of it quite some time ago. Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Regarding exiting a group, I think this must be a universal right, but not timed so as to escape an acceptable punishment for an offence (the meaning of "acceptable" here is in need of crafting, and the boundary would surely be fuzzy). The analogy here is emigration, only not necessarily geographical in nature.
Regarding corporations and taxes, as you say, this is already a problem; non-geographical (or fine-grained geographical) law does not change anything essential. (As for corporations, there is no reason to regard them as having rights in the first place, which provides considerable latitude for applying restrictive laws.)
Regarding castes, freedom of exit makes an enormous difference. Membership in a restrictive group would be optional, reversible, and not necessarily hereditary. ----------
The alternative, it seems to me, is to pit groups seeking order and decency (by their standards) against those seeking a different sort of order and decency. Or, to put it concretely, indigenous peoples (e.g., those of Europe) have more reason to fear immigrants if those immigrants may eventually establish noxious laws that are universally applicable throughout their ancestral homeland. They would have less reason to fear if groups could get most of what they want without forcing it on others.
Note that the world is becoming saturated with surveillance systems, and that this will change possibilities for law enforcement in relevant ways. In particular, it will likely make restrictions more effective and potentially personalised. All the more reason to be able to opt out of other people's offencive notions of right and wrong -- and to opt into a context that enforces one's own enlightened standards. Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
They would have less reason to fear if groups could get most of what they want without forcing it on others.
Really interesting point. I think the UK approach tries to provide for the needs and wishes of different communities but not to the extent that it forces this on any other individual or community. So the balance is continually being struck sometimes with success and sometimes not. Ad astra per aspera
But the UK has been through various models of 'public engagment' or consultation over the years.
The approach is to accept that information will not get out to everyone and even when it does, not everyone will know what alternatives they could ask for or to be empowered to ask for that. So services have a responsibility to anticipate need based on good practice elsewhere, and research findings on the needs of different communities and successful interventions. Ad astra per aspera
