Thursday 19 September 2013

Complete Equality

As many of you know, I class myself as an Egalitarian. My ideal in life is that every single person in the world deserves the same rights, opportunities and respect as each other, which of course goes hand in hand with everyone having the same personal and social responsibilities such as being subject to the law, etc.

In my interactions around the web it's coming to my attention that many people seem to have a fundamentally flawed concept of what equality actually is and what complete equality actually entails.

It's very easy to fight for the equal rights of people you agree with, even if you don't share their reasons. For example, more and more straight people, myself included, are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with the LGBT community to see the end of injustice on the grounds of sexual orientation and identity.

It's much harder to fight for the rights of those you don't agree with, the bigots, the criminals, the oppressors. To stand up and say "though I don't agree with their beliefs or actions, it doesn't stop them from being a human being with the exact same rights and responsibilities as everyone else." But this is exactly what complete equality entails. It's not just a social club where we get to pick and choose who we let in and who we don't, because if it's not for everyone then it's just not equal!

So if your method of fighting for a cause leads you to denigrate those whose opinions differ from your own then you've lost your moral high ground.

6 comments:

  1. Welcome back!

    I noticed your extended absence, I hoped all was going alright for you and your family.

    "It's much harder to fight for the rights of those you don't agree with, the bigots, the criminals, the oppressors. To stand up and say "though I don't agree with their beliefs or actions, it doesn't stop them from being a human being with the exact same rights and responsibilities as everyone else."

    What exactly do you mean by this? Can you explain further?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Sheldon, Thanks for noticing :) My son was off school for the summer holidays and I'm in the early stages of trying to set up as self employed so not had as much time to post as I'd like :)

    What I mean is that, as distasteful as it may often feel, people with bigoted or utterly idiotic beliefs have as much right to hold them as everyone else, it is only when they act on such beliefs in a manner that violates the rights if another or breaks the law that they cross the line and fall foul of their social and personal responsibilities.

    For example, I'm not religious, I find all religions pretty distasteful and the belief in one or more deity to be laughable. I'm pretty sure that most religious people would find my views on the subject distasteful, and neither stance is right or wrong, since they are only concepts within our minds that have no material effect. For either person to denigrate or discriminate against the other on such a basis would be tantamount to persecuting thought crime (though arguing against the beliefs is perfectly acceptable.).

    And, quite rightly, if either was to restrict the rights or commit a crime against the other on such a basis they would be subject to social justice.

    It's the fundamental separation of the individual from the views that they hold, because regardless of what anyone says, does or thinks, nothing can strip away their basic human rights, and if that's true on the grounds of sexuality, gender, race, ability, etc, then it has to be true on all grounds, even those we dislike.

    I hope that's clearer :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK. I remember several years ago, when Westboro was first making waves with their military funeral protests that I was the lone dissenter on a local discussion website against about a dozen people who wanted the protests outlawed or severely restricted.

      My feeling was that even though they were disgusting excuses for human beings, they still deserved the legal right to speak their mind. That view wasn't popular then, but those people eventually came around to my side, they saw the point of it. (Besides, they have done more to help the cause of gay rights than any gay rights organization, ironically, lol).

      I understand that in religion, people can be prosecuted for any statements considered to be racist or supporting genocide/denying that past genocides happened. Is that correct? If so, between laws like that, and the universal CCTV coverage in London, etc, it makes me wonder why you guys over there didn't learn from George Orwell's warnings. ;)

      Delete
    2. The laws covering discrimination/hate crime/incitement here are a but of a minefield at the moment, tbh, but I think that it's a necessary evil in the process of finding the balance between free speech and human rights. I'm not certain (I'll have to double check this later) but I think we've finally repealed the ridiculous law that made offending someone a punishable offence, which is a step in the right direction!

      The CCTV is far more ineffective than widely publicised, since there's never enough funding to have them all recording all the time, but I think the biggest issue is that we (as a nation) have become far to complacent and lazy and let far too much slide for the sake of a quite life :/ Politicians know that as long as the lights are on, the food's coming and the TV's on the public's never going to revolt ;)

      Delete
  3. Glad you had a good holiday with your son and hope the job/self employment is going well. Welcome back.

    ReplyDelete