What is the limit of western freedom of expresion?

Remove all ads!

We have, to a degree, transcended the idea of pure democracy. Pure democracy would have been a severe impediment to womens sufferage, de-segregation, the opening up of gay rights, the requirement of equal pay for equal work, etc. Fortunately, the US is not a pure democracy. Women who aren't allowed to vote wouldn't have much of a say in their rights even though there are more women than men in the world since they, uh, can't vote. Minorities, being minorities, would have no ability to ensure equal rights since there are less of them. The United States is, technically speaking, a republic and not a democracy. The same is also true of most other "democracies" in the world.

 

First of all democracy does not mean equal rights to everyone.
And if just read the history books, in Athens were Democracy as a political system was founded, there were slaves (only they were better treated than other areas), there were still disputes over the laws and the everyday matters. There were still supressed minorities, the absense of women rights and much more.
The one most sigtnificant difference between that democracy and modern "democracies" around the world, is that is difficult -if not impossible- to get the people to spent 3 or more hours per day discussing these subjects in a parliament. And i mean all the citizens that have the right to vote.

Another big difference is that the law system was so intelligently structured, that left little or none at all space for mischiefs by the persons who consisted the goverment. And if you ask me i wish we could bring that system in the today world.

Now the problem is that politicians are becoming more and more a cast (and pretty tight one). Which in fact isolates them from the rest of the world, and the problems this world faces.

But then again it seems that everyone in this world chooses isolation, either conciously or unconciously.
That happens in the form of not being able to imagine what impact ones actions may have on the rest.
Classical example is the Mohammet drawings, and the naive approach of the Iraq invasion by the US officers.
In both cases the people who acted, imagined that the counteraction will be the one they would have in these actions.

In the case of the drawings this was not freedom of speech. It was ignorance of the reality. And a total violation of the Muslim ethics (like it or not these ethics religious or not were insulted) which by no way express a lack of freedom of expression in their countries.
But rather a total lack of respect to the fellow human being. It is IMHO completely different to criticize someone for his actions, beliefs whatever, than to insult straightforwadly them.

 

@drew: You're right. They are republics. But there are modern democracy theories that back the republic systems.

The german philosopher Hauke Brunkhorst defines (modern) democray not as a form of rule or dominion, but as an instrument of hindering it. Those who govern us have to abide to a complicated controlling system. That's why they constantly try to undermine it.

The human rights that almost every democratic republic has in her basic law catalogue are "positive rights for every single human being". It does not matter if he or she is or is not citizen of the respective nation. That is why the majority - minority picture does not fit unto modern democracy. Blame the french.

The only exception is the right to vote, which is reserved for citizens.

And that is why you are right, too, Mithranthir. The right of free speech ends where you overstep the boundaries to insult or defamation deliberatly.

Your freedom ends where you limit the freedom of someone else.

 

There is no protection for minorities in a democratic/republic government. A dem/rep government can pass whatever laws it damn well pleases provided they are voted for by the majority. That's exactly how it works. A constitution CAN be changed provided the majority wishes it so.

Minorities are INDIRECTLY protected by a dem/rep government by the morals of the majority. A demo/rep government could pass a 'Death to blue eyed babies' act provided the majority voted for it, but I strongly doubt they would. A government could pass a 'death to all homosexuals' act, provided the majority voted for it, but it wouldn't pass. I'm seeing a trend here, it seems to be the words 'provided the majority voted for it'. THAT is democracy. You can try to cover up this rather dark fact as much as you like, but it's still there.

Well that bit in bold is the birdy. You haven't said 'most' people will not be pleased. I'll give an example of the New Zealand constitutional monarchy and how we work our laws, it could be different. Whenever a bill becomes an act it superceeds any previous act before it, if an act passed today says the exact opposite of an act passed yesterday, the act today is law. In 1990 NZ could pass an act saying that NOBODY, whether ethnicity, gender, age, shape, form, religion or whatever can be discriminated against. If today we pass an act stating that all Mosques must be destroyed by next tuesday then it is law. HOWEVER the 1990 act is still in effect, just that destroying Mosques is now no longer considered discrimination. Yet I must remind you again that this act would only come to pass if the majority wished it so, and such events would most likely never take place.

The safety net of democracy that prevents the abuse of human rights is the morality of the voting citizentry in that country. A democracy has the ultimate power to pass whatever laws the majority of citizens want, anything less would not be a government.

 

I believe there is a common mistake here in the terminology.
When you say majority or minority you don't speak for the majority or the minority of the people.
You talk about the majority/minority in the Parliament.

Which is quite different from the people, since most politicians are so isolated from the everyday reality we experience. It is like having Greeks making laws for the USA. (or vice versa).
So effectively, for better or worse, we have the minority (which is allienated from the majoritys needs) which who taking the decisions.
And i believe that we all have finally realised that political parties and politicians to be more specific, have their own agenda. And that agenda is not the one they represent in their election campaigns.

 

However these people are elected by the citizenry. If the parlimentarians do not push the issues in the manner that the citizenry agrees with, they won't be re-elected. Eventually, after all the channels, it's the people who are in charge.

If an act is passed that the majority of people do not agree with, that party will probably be voted out of the next election, a new party will come into power (most probably one swearing to counter the act made by the previous party) and undo what the previous party did, because the people wanted that.

 

In the US it takes a 2/3 majority of congress approving an ammendment followed by the ratification a 2/3 majority of the individual states to change the constitution. It isn't very easy to change our constitiution.

That said, judicial review will cause any laws which violate someone's constitiutional rights to be changed, so the system really isn't blanket majority rule. It has to be a really big majority before ammending the constitution is actually possible in the US. These fail-safes exist to protect minority rights, among other things.

 

@Mithranthir: No, I'm speaking about the people, not the parliament.

@Abomination: I currently don't know what status of basic law in NZ is. Do you have a constitution or the common law like GB?

If there are laws that guarantee human rights, every bill that goes against these is not legal and revisable by the supreme court (or some similar institution). I suppose NZ has one.

As far as changes in the constitution are going: There is a reason that these are commonly very hard to achieve. If there would be a change like the one you described, the state would have to change the constitutional human rights also.
In that case, NZ would have not the right to call itself democratic anymore, because it activly discriminates a part of its people.

By the way: In Germany, those 20 paragraphs in the constitution that guarantee the human and civil rights are not changeable at all.

 

We have an unwritten constitution, much like GB. We agree that the Queen gets the final say on any act we pass, the Queen agrees to agree to any act we pass.

In a sense but nearly the opposite. We have an act that protects human rights but this act is subject to all other acts.

Since when does discriminating against your own people make you non-democratic? The US does it with prisoners and the underaged who don't have equal rights to everybody else. I would argue that New Zealand is MORE democratic than the US since our voting public has more power than the US citizenry. The government in New Zealand is supreme, it can not be overruled by the courts. Our government is free to do whatever it so pleases and frankly I'm very happy with the system. I view the USA's constitution as foolish since it limits the government's ability to govern.

 

Because the people are the sovereign, the ruler of the nation. A people which discriminates againt itself is an paradoxon. It denies a minority the same rights as the majority, and establishes a new kind of dominon over a part of itself. And that is not democratic in the modern sense.

I don't approve that the US are denying their convicts the right to vote. But that's the only issue I have with the US voting system in this matter, despite it being problematic.

 

Well, I prefer systems with high-flexible constitutions, where the constitutions is changed nearly as easily as a law. Interestingly, the dogma here is that there is no beter protection for a minority than unrestricted democracy.

 

Really? Could you elaborate on that a bit?

No, I'm not being a smartass, I'm curious.

 

I, for one, find the idea of unrestricted democracy frightening. In such a system, minority rights would be completely unprotected.

 

Well, because the electorate is nothing but an amalgam of different minorities. Everyone is in someway or another member of a minority (single mom, married, protestant, catholic, teacher, broke, rich, living near a highway, living on a mountain, Appenzeller...).

Therefore, everyone realizes pretty fast that restricting the freedoms (without good cause) of others represents a grave danger for his very own freedom.

Therefore, the electorate in a more democratic society becomes very moderate and responsible. It's used to decide on a regular basis about its own skin and will think thrice before taking away someone else's rights. Everything that goes around comes around...

Fiscal irresponsability for an example is a typical desease of a represantative system. No democratic checks and balances through direct voter participation.

But I understand that the dogma in other countries is quite the opposite. The tyranny of the majority is a obsolete argument and pretty much empirically proven as not so convincing.

Yet, I rember reading an eloquent essay by an American lawyer that there's no property in Switzerland. Because the government (i.e. direct democracy on the municipal level and the "zoning-laws") was too democratic and as a result personal freedoms (including property) not safeguarded enough against random democratic decisions. Funny!

 

Thank you, Iago.

 

Actually, considering the whole holy status Constitutions have, an ever changing Constitution makes people lose faith into laws - rather the system - rapidly. When, what is supposedly the highest ranking, and safe guard of people's rights and duties becomes a mere piece of paper, a sentiment of unfaithfulness and desbelief will overwhelm the population. How is that desireable?

 

@Iago: The holocaust wasn't that long ago. Neither was the attempted genocide occurring under Milosevic. Slavery wasn't very long ago either, and still happens in many parts of the world. The US just stopped segregation within the last 50 years and women are still not paid equally for equal work. People are still fired when it is revealed that they are gay, or that they have HIV. The "tyranny of the majority" is alive and well. To refuse to see it is to allow it to creep up on us all again.

 

I often look at the problems arising from the American constitution, a main one being gun laws, the right to bear arms or arm bears or whatever it is has led to very high numbers of gun related crimes/deaths.

A government that doesn't have the power to do what is required, when nessisary is not an effective government. A government that is limited, potentially, can not meet the needs and wants of its people.

Holding a constitution to be almost 'sacred' just drags a government back to the same problem as a fundamentalist government - unchanging laws. We don't know what the future is going to be like, we don't know what a 'firearm' will eventually become and what is just and right today could be backwards and harmful in 20 years.

 

Well, the gun problem doesn't really stem from the ammendment about the right to bear arms. It's a question of where to draw the line. A shotgun or rifle for hunting or a handgun for home protection are not what the NRA is fighting for and it isn't what the vast majority of gun control supporters are against. Gun control advocates don't think people should have assault rifles and feel that there should be a short waiting period (3 days to a week) and a background check before a gun can be purchased. Advocates of gun rights don't want any waiting period and feel that people should be able to own assault rifles, if they want. This is what the "great gun control debate" is really about........it has nothing to do with whether or not Americans should have the right to bear arms (which could be taken away if enough Americans actually wanted that).

The constitution may be invoked by both sides, but it really has nothing to do with the argument at all.

 

Svyatoslav

In a different system, a constitution wouldn't have that sanctified status. Which obviously means, that something eles would have to have that status. Maybe the participation of the whole electorate in the law-making process, or at least the possibility to intervene?

Drew

Well, I don't know. Aren't dictatorships per se a tyranny of the minority? They usually oppress the majority, they usually, don't let the majority decide, they ..äh... dictate.

I was talking about democracies not being the tyranny of the majority, but being quite the opposite, the participation of the minority.

Your constitution was built on the Montesquieu-Rousseau controversy. And Montesquieu took the lead on the federal level. Montesquieu was one of them who thought that ochlocracy (mob-rule) was democracy and therefore democracy undesireable. Or at least, only in the form of a very restricted constitutio mixta, were democratic input pretty much was reduced to a small minimum. Because democracy would be nothing else than the tyranny of the majority and therefore had to be avoided.

While Rousseau had the idealized Genevoise concept of democracy in his mind. With the ability to vote about fundamental things whenever the electorate felt to do so. Geneva by the way has a very old tradition of not only being laicist but also having a highly flexible constitution. They had all 20 years a vote about the constitution as a whole and if they wanted to keep the constitution.

Compare that to the Jefferson proposal about a similar procedure for the US-Constitution which was rejected. It seems to me that the argumentation in connection with this recjected proposal is deeply buried in the conscious of US-Americans. While for other parts of the world that chose to have a highly-flexible constituion, the point is rather old and moot.