Cell-States within Body-State

[Egeides]

I got to think about this from TMA's thread about the Sharia being applied in Canada:

Let's say that we have a minority called Wongobongo. Should the laws of majority be enforced on the minority when a legal case is between members of this minority, so not touching the others?

If not, isn't it to enforce the law of the majority on the minority?

I do have a personal opinion, but I'll wait to get a few comments first.

[scotsman]

In New Zealand we have a situation similar with the New Zealand maori and European settlers.

My belief is, if the minority choose to co-exist with the majority, accessing all the same services, they should abide by the laws of the service providers. If they choose to ignore these laws they should also ignore the services provided health transport etc.

To do this would mean a step backwards towards the American west and land treaties with the Indians, building reservations.

We are a modern world with most if not all countries made up of a variety of race, colour and creed. All peoples rights need to be respected and considered in law. Its not a case of imposing attitudes on others, rather attempting to live in a society where a balanced law will encourage a mergeing of cultures.

Wishfull thinking? perhaps.

[Egeides]

To do this would mean a step backwards towards the American west and land treaties with the Indians, building reservations.

We are a modern world with most if not all countries made up of a variety of race, colour and creed. All peoples rights need to be respected and considered in law. Its not a case of imposing attitudes on others, rather attempting to live in a society where a balanced law will encourage a mergeing of cultures.

Sure, but they may not have the same ideas you have on this point. And in THIS case, it would be about a case between two Maoris, it's not like if it was between a Maori and an European settler. Would you consider the case differently then?

[scotsman]

Where do you draw the line when you consider if the person is part of the minority group. How far back down the blood line before the local law (rather than federal law) can apply to the person. In the case minority person vs majority person, who's law applies?

Is this not what country constitutions are intended to do, bring together differing people under a common law?

There are situations where differing cultures exist in harmony. In the medical world east meets west with acupuncture and herbal remedies. If cultures can and should co-exist then it should also be reflected in a common law.

Law is intended to hold a society together. By having separate laws for different groups of people within the same society will only cause it to fracture (appartied)? One child who is caught stealing gets a slap on the wrist, while another looses their hand?

For laws to work, they need to be respected by society and for this to happen, the law needs to be seen to be fair and just for all.

[Scrinlord]

Exactly, very well put.

[Acriku]

I believe, concurrently the founding brothers of the United States believed this, that the minority should always be able to be protected from the majority, in the case of mid-1900s the black minority striving to be protected from the white majority. The rights of all are all equal.

[Egeides]

All equal, but when BOTH members to whom the law is applied asked to be under a different system, why should they be applied the majority's preference, since the majority isn't even involved?

You and all your Maori people decide that when all parties are Maori sanctions for treating the other of "wawawa" will be sanctioned since for the Maori council, representing voting Maori, sees it as a threat right now. Or better: they want to see alcohol prohibited for them and all their people because it became a problem.

[Edric O]

Only a really, really stupid minority would voluntarily segregate itself. Haven't they learned anything from history? Segregation breeds intolerance and hatred. It is the preferred method of the majority for keeping a minority subdued.

People of all races, religions and nationalities have fought long and hard against segregation. Let's not re-introduce it now.

I am vehemently OPPOSED to the idea of having different laws for different ethnic groups. All people should be equal before the law.

[Egeides]

Edric, you can believe they are stupid if you want but you're not the one deciding what they want to do! Some Muslims would want the Sharia to be applied to them, some Native Americans asked to get alcohol prohibited for a while or strictly controlled, some tribes want their ancestral social rules not to be forgotten. It's up to them, and laws is not always equal "segregation".

[Edric O]

Of course it's their choice - I was only giving my opinion on it.

If they want a separate set of laws, I will respect that. It is their right to self-determination. But this begs the question: What happens when there is a conflict between the laws of a minority group and the overall laws of the country they are living in? Who gets the final word?

If the members of a certain ethnic group want to keep themselves apart from everyone else, I believe the best way to do that is to simply declare independence and set up their own country.

[Acriku]

Why would they want their own set of laws? As Edric said, just make your own country. Go to Antarctica or something.

[Egeides]

Acriku, perhaps not each group wants to be so radical just because there is a set of laws they disagree with.

[Acriku]

If they disagree with it, have them become politicians and attempt to change them. That's what everyone else does.

[Egeides]

Acriku, a minority politician wont pass with the minority. What you said is the equivalent of "The majority wants something else? Well your only choice is to convince them to not do it. That's what everyone does."

[Acriku]

So move to a community where they are not a minority, and run for office. But even still, why would they want laws only for themselves?

[scotsman]

Egeides

There has been quite a lot of discussion since I was here last. How about you let us know what your feelings are on the subject?

Another thought I have on this subject. These people wanted to come to the country. They wanted something that there own country could not give them. Why force there new home into ways of there old country. The people of their new country accepted them for who they are, lets not lose sight of that. They came to there new home knowing full well the laws of the land, if they do not like the laws then they did not have to come.

Personal freedom, by that I mean religion,choice,travel etc all come at a price, and that price is common law.

By having different laws for minority group(s) you start placing restrictions on the very freedom that common law is trying to protect.

An analagy I thick might work in this case. People buy land near an airport where the land is cheap. They new the noise pollution that is generated by the planes was severe but that was represented in land prices. The airport had never expanded or increased its arrival or departure intervials. During the years the number of home owner around the area increased, until one day they had enough people to lay a commplaint against the airport for a reduction in noise control. The airport was forced to reduce its operating hours due to this complaint. The airport had done nothing wrong, the home owners capitalised on land prices and a strong voice when there numbers were many. My point, the home owners new what they were getting into when they bought the land, but forced there opinions anyway when they had a loud enough voice to be heard.

Canada has a law that covers all canadians. If I move to Canada, I would expect the law to treat me in the same way as any other canadian. In a way its a compliment, you are accepted into the canadian way of life. To be treated differently, would mean your are not accepted and could be seen as an insult. Why would anyone choosing to leave their country for another, not want to be accepted by there adopted country?

[Egeides]

scotsman: You're talking about an ENTIRELY different case. Same for Acriku. I'm didn't ever talked about a case where the majority is implied. I'm talking about a case between two persons of a same minority that would like the law to be different FOR THEM ONLY. So in the case of your airport, it's not the same thing.

Acriku:

I gave some examples: a group wants alcohol prohibited (post-colonialism), a group wants some ancestral laws to be kept, etc. Anyway, it's not up to you or me to see if they have a reason, it,s up to them.

My opinion:

I had given my opinion a bit already... I'm not exactly sure. What I think is that if a minority wants laws to be different WITHIN THE PEOPLE OF THEIR MINORITY, since it does not imply someone else, it shouldn't be stopped. But anyone wanting to see the normal, general, law applied to them should get just this. But then, it brings to problem of immigration. So I guess this would apply to those who were there already, simply to stop excesses. But all this to me is an hypothesis.

[scotsman]

Where does the country draw the line on minoity groups with individual law? How big a group will they have to be? How many nationalities can the country sustain with individual laws. What about human rights issues with differing laws. Family issues, with parents supporting one law and their children supporting the other. Two people in a minority group break the law in a public place or building, whos law applies? These are but a few issues that need to be addressed before common law is splintered (if indeed it has to be). There is nothing wrong in maintaining religion and tradition within minority groups, but when there is a chance that the action will spill over into the majority then these laws cann't be changed or re-written.

The law, is the law of the land for the people. Not the law of the people. If a group of people choose to live by a separate law than the rest of the country then designated areas will have to be set up (reservations). People living or entering into this area will have to be made aware of the new law and must enter of a free will. This in my opinion is a step backwards.

[Egeides]

scotsman: I have no reason to enforce my own ideals when it concerns people that agree among each other that they will deal among each other differently. As long as it's not affecting me, it's ok. If it spills over the majority because the majority wants such laws too, then it is up to the majority to ask so willingly. If someone in a group supports a different law than his group, he simply decides not to opt within this group. Simple: a group decides to see alcohol prohibited among them? Those that do not wish to be part of this will decide to take the majority's laws.

The only ones it is supposed to affect is the ones that chose it to be so for themselves, and themselves only. Of course, there are logistical limits, and these are to be entered in the whole thing just as you wont go to a judge to know if a 25 cents is yours or your neighbors. Who pays for this? Like I said, it is not the majority that should get the impact of this so those who pay for added fees will be the people concerned (now, I'm not too sure on this kind of stuff...).

Like I said, this is only hypothetic in my mind. If I would write something about it, then it would be called an essay, nothing more.

[scotsman]

Egeides

You have certainly created a lively debate. For that I thank you. When I look back through this thread I have had only one train of thought, and that is how should separate laws be enforced. Perhaps the real issue is along the same lines as religion. It is not a law, but a choice, that a group of people make. It is the groups choice not to buy alcohol or use modern technology like the amish. A groups collective choice not to do something or carry out something is ok, providing they do not break the countries laws. It would be a fine balance, theft within the group could be resolved within the group but murder within the group has to be resolved by the countries laws. There are a lot of groups that interact like this in todays society already. All I ask, is that there choice to abstain or include within the group stay as a chioce within the group and not become a separate issue of law.If court proceedings are required where legal precedents are followed or created then the countries law must always be enforced so the system can be seen to be fair to all.