Just noticed some comments from someone I rather enjoy reading and from them realised that there is a blog entry missing. Not only that but it's not even saved as an edit so I can't repost it (now ehere and how did it go I wonder?) Still, here's a bit of late night food for thought (and a bit of a regurg' of former, now lost, post.
I was rather interested in the case of the four Brit's who recently (4th Sept I think) went to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) with claims of discrimination against them causing them to lose their jobs.
The four were:
Nadia Eweida - British Airways and the banning of her wearing of a cross
Shirley Chaplin - acted against by an NHS trust for the same reason
Gary McFarlane - sacked by Relate because he had problems giving sex therapy advice to homosexual couples, and
Lilian Ladele - a Registrar who faced disciplinary action over her refusal to conduct same-sex civil partnerships.
What we have here is a mixed bag and the reality is that there is an obvious inconsistency in the way that people react to situations. I heard of a person who said they couldn't work in a shop's meat department because they were vegetarians and so, they were moved. Transpose this into Ms Ladele's situation and immediately the responses change and attitudes harden and this demonstrates that some are more equal than others!
The real issue is the situation when rights clash. That moment when one person's equality renders someone less equal and the reality is that my right to believe as I do has to remain a right and that which I understand to be right (or wrong) in terms of lifestyle is something I should be allowed to have as a basic right. The problem comes when that right I have acts against another's right and this is where the facile, "Let's agree to differ," crashes and burns. This is what makes the case before the ECHR so interesting and potentially important (and law-changing too!).
But (always a 'but' isn't there) what gives me more than just a little concern is those who are seeing in the ECHR cases an opportunity to make that which should be protection (let use the word 'defensive') more proactive (and here the word 'offensive' springs to mind in more contexts than one) and this leads us to a situation where abuse of that hitherto 'defence' makes it something it wasn't and shouldn't be (an example being Rimsha Masih's 'blasphemy case - this law being used to silence critics and be used as a weapon against those who think or believe differently, which is exactly where we're going with the ECHR cases).
I think it was Keith Porteus who spoke about the cases saying that if they (the Christians) won their case there would be a hierarchy established where the Christians would find themselves at the apex with the others (homosexuals) somewhere below. The problem is that blasphemy laws, like those which seek to prevent persecution and discrimination are excellent until there is a (often thinly) veiled self-interest and then we're in that place where rights clash - and all see their particular lifestyle (with or without belief) as the overarching rights.
Would that we could live in a tolerant society where we could hold our views and practice our beliefs without turning everything into a fight for supremacy. I work to dialogue and engage with people, even though we differ, and try to understand their side of the equation and put mine - the problem is that being in a faith group here puts us on the same unsafe ground as being in a different faith group in Pakistan - both are sad and both are wrong.
Showing posts with label when rights clash. Show all posts
Showing posts with label when rights clash. Show all posts
Friday, 14 September 2012
Tuesday, 6 March 2012
Rights can be wrong!
Earwigging a number of intriguing conversations over a fair period of time has resulted in a collection of sound bytes and positional statements that have been used to attack, or defend, the views of others on a number of 'rights' issues. The different types of 'right' and the way they are perceived and presented interests me greatly, for those engaged in any dialogue of this kind are engaged in the art of apologetics ('apologia' giving an answer or defence of who we are and what we believe/live by) and this is a subject close to my heart.
One of the sadnesses when it comes to 'rights' is the fact that whilst the subject might be interesting and even bring some great close-quarter combat (of the intellectual kind), the bottom-line is that when the biggest objective lens of our theological/philosophical microscope is selected, we are dealing with people. What for some is merely a challenging or interesting topic is for others their reality and this needs to be an ever-present consideration as we enjoy the cut and thrust of debate. What some speak of an issue is the person with the issue's life and whilst this shouldn't stop us discussing, it should mean that we practice kindness and generosity whilst we do it (and this cuts both ways!).
One of the challenges of 'rights' is the fact that having a 'right' means that there is also a responsibility! This consideration makes some of the 'rights' debates rather interesting. I'm going to touch on just a couple for now (another busy day beckons and tea almost gone):
Animal rights - Animals have the right to be treated humanely, that should go without having to be said but, as I understand it, they are a lower class to humans and so we find them being used to feed us and, at times, used to advance medical science. What they are not fair game for is the testing of cosmetics and esoteric medical research for the sake of it (which I am sure doesn't happen).
Rights of the 'ethnicity' kind - Now I, naively, thought this would be a fairly simple area. Over the course of history we have seen various people groups opposed by other group. When I mentioned this in North London I was told it was white vs black. Move down the road a little and I found it was all about Turk vs Greek, a bit further up the road and it was African vs Caribbean. Heading towards the City and I found that it was Jew vs Gentile that was the compelling source of injustice! I travelled across town and found it was oppression of the 'British' on Pakistan, Islam, was sikh versus Hindu, Indians vs Pakistanis and the list continued far past the point that I willing to continue travelling.
Prejudice, oppression and intolerance existed, and still exists, in many places fror many reasons (real and perceived).
I tried to understand who was 'black', Indian, British, Pakistani and any other identifier and found that some who I thought were one thing were thought of as being something else by themselves or others! There was the young lady whose ethnic identity was 'half-caste' which meant she was rejected by all sides of the community (excluding 'Praise God' the local church).
Some naively think that being born in a place makes them members of that nation group but I have met many young people who are third-generation British and yet consider themselves to be otherwise.
Some naively think that this area is concerned with lack of oppression and the affording of general human rights but whilst this may true there are others in this battle because it is also a potential source of power, additional benefits (and I don't mean of the state-funded kind) and excuses for bad (ie. anti-social) behaviour.
Visiting an African-American church in the US I was taken up by a 'charter' affixed to the wall of the foyer. It spoke of being treated fairly and justly, of acting for the good of the local community and the nation as fully-integrated and committed members of the nation. On a separate wall were some words along the lines of:
One of the sadnesses when it comes to 'rights' is the fact that whilst the subject might be interesting and even bring some great close-quarter combat (of the intellectual kind), the bottom-line is that when the biggest objective lens of our theological/philosophical microscope is selected, we are dealing with people. What for some is merely a challenging or interesting topic is for others their reality and this needs to be an ever-present consideration as we enjoy the cut and thrust of debate. What some speak of an issue is the person with the issue's life and whilst this shouldn't stop us discussing, it should mean that we practice kindness and generosity whilst we do it (and this cuts both ways!).
One of the challenges of 'rights' is the fact that having a 'right' means that there is also a responsibility! This consideration makes some of the 'rights' debates rather interesting. I'm going to touch on just a couple for now (another busy day beckons and tea almost gone):
Animal rights - Animals have the right to be treated humanely, that should go without having to be said but, as I understand it, they are a lower class to humans and so we find them being used to feed us and, at times, used to advance medical science. What they are not fair game for is the testing of cosmetics and esoteric medical research for the sake of it (which I am sure doesn't happen).
Rights of the 'ethnicity' kind - Now I, naively, thought this would be a fairly simple area. Over the course of history we have seen various people groups opposed by other group. When I mentioned this in North London I was told it was white vs black. Move down the road a little and I found it was all about Turk vs Greek, a bit further up the road and it was African vs Caribbean. Heading towards the City and I found that it was Jew vs Gentile that was the compelling source of injustice! I travelled across town and found it was oppression of the 'British' on Pakistan, Islam, was sikh versus Hindu, Indians vs Pakistanis and the list continued far past the point that I willing to continue travelling.
Prejudice, oppression and intolerance existed, and still exists, in many places fror many reasons (real and perceived).
I tried to understand who was 'black', Indian, British, Pakistani and any other identifier and found that some who I thought were one thing were thought of as being something else by themselves or others! There was the young lady whose ethnic identity was 'half-caste' which meant she was rejected by all sides of the community (excluding 'Praise God' the local church).
Some naively think that being born in a place makes them members of that nation group but I have met many young people who are third-generation British and yet consider themselves to be otherwise.
Some naively think that this area is concerned with lack of oppression and the affording of general human rights but whilst this may true there are others in this battle because it is also a potential source of power, additional benefits (and I don't mean of the state-funded kind) and excuses for bad (ie. anti-social) behaviour.
Visiting an African-American church in the US I was taken up by a 'charter' affixed to the wall of the foyer. It spoke of being treated fairly and justly, of acting for the good of the local community and the nation as fully-integrated and committed members of the nation. On a separate wall were some words along the lines of:
Those who deserve rights - live and work to see them given to others.
'nuff said I reckon!
Monday, 27 February 2012
When Rights Clash - Part the First
I was asked about this and so, as I drink my tea, thought I'd pen some initial thoughts:
The world, like the sea, is full of 'ebb and flow' moments when it come to the minefield that is 'rights' as the history books clearly show.
Black rights - Women's Rights - Animal rights - Gay rights - Welfare Rights - Human rights - Asian rights - Women's Human rights - Civil Liberties - Vegetarian rights - Christian rights and more besides.
In many of them the previously oppressed 'minority groups', having experienced the low tide of life acting against them, sees the tide come in such that we have the ridiculous situation of 'positive discrimination' (here's a clue - if it has the word 'discrimination' in it, positive or negative, it is wrong!) and in some sort of bloodguilt response, society 'makes allowances' or treats them differently such that they oppress those who are assumed to have been the oppressors.
I've been in situations where a vacancy was destined to be filled by someone from a previously oppressed group and I have struggled with this, especially when a less able candidate was chosen because they were ...... (insert category).
I've been in workplace situations where disciplinary action was abandoned due to the offender being a member of a minority group. In fact the group they belonged to suddenly found that rather than be oppressed they were placed in the driving seat and whatever they did was largely ignored because of fear of looking anti whatever they were.
Whenever a group exerts a right that denies, demeans or degrades a member of another group then this is wrong. Whenever a group is showed favouritism or given privileges because of fear of condemnation, or even action, because they were once oppressed, then they do themselves, and their group, no justice.
I meet many who extend the rights of groups into the realm of nation groups and in this etting approve, and applaud, the actions of nations and ethnic groups who have been oppressed who take 'pre-emptive' action and disregard humanitarian and moral codes because of their 'sorely abused' or 'under threat' status.
The Bible calls us to act justly. To show mercy and most of all, to act with humility (that is living as one who sees all as equals) rather than puffing ourselves up and seeking only what we desire regardless of the cost.
So there you are, my thoughts (as requested) - now we need to look at the religious side (which will be another day soon - as another busy week this end of the wire (hallelujah!)
pax
The world, like the sea, is full of 'ebb and flow' moments when it come to the minefield that is 'rights' as the history books clearly show.
Black rights - Women's Rights - Animal rights - Gay rights - Welfare Rights - Human rights - Asian rights - Women's Human rights - Civil Liberties - Vegetarian rights - Christian rights and more besides.
In many of them the previously oppressed 'minority groups', having experienced the low tide of life acting against them, sees the tide come in such that we have the ridiculous situation of 'positive discrimination' (here's a clue - if it has the word 'discrimination' in it, positive or negative, it is wrong!) and in some sort of bloodguilt response, society 'makes allowances' or treats them differently such that they oppress those who are assumed to have been the oppressors.
I've been in situations where a vacancy was destined to be filled by someone from a previously oppressed group and I have struggled with this, especially when a less able candidate was chosen because they were ...... (insert category).
I've been in workplace situations where disciplinary action was abandoned due to the offender being a member of a minority group. In fact the group they belonged to suddenly found that rather than be oppressed they were placed in the driving seat and whatever they did was largely ignored because of fear of looking anti whatever they were.
Whenever a group exerts a right that denies, demeans or degrades a member of another group then this is wrong. Whenever a group is showed favouritism or given privileges because of fear of condemnation, or even action, because they were once oppressed, then they do themselves, and their group, no justice.
I meet many who extend the rights of groups into the realm of nation groups and in this etting approve, and applaud, the actions of nations and ethnic groups who have been oppressed who take 'pre-emptive' action and disregard humanitarian and moral codes because of their 'sorely abused' or 'under threat' status.
The Bible calls us to act justly. To show mercy and most of all, to act with humility (that is living as one who sees all as equals) rather than puffing ourselves up and seeking only what we desire regardless of the cost.
So there you are, my thoughts (as requested) - now we need to look at the religious side (which will be another day soon - as another busy week this end of the wire (hallelujah!)
pax
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)