SAM SAID:
According to one biography I have read of Fortuyn, "He wanted to halt
immigration from Muslim countries because he feared that Muslims would erode
the country's tolerance of homosexuals."
DMB SAYS:
Typical right winger. Irrational, illogical and hypocritical. Think about
it. Fortuyn's "idea" here is that intolerance is justifed to protect
tolerance. He merely advocates one form of bigotry over another. And the
so-called animal rights activist who killed that Dutch skinhead isn't any
better.
Sam wrote recently (in the MoQ and the Middle East thread):
"If you see that there is a higher value than the nation, the doctrine of
human rights, then you will accept that there are times when it is necessary
to go against your own nation in pursuit of that higher value. It also means
that you need to work to reconstruct your own nation so that it is geared
around support of those rights, that it is criticised when it breaches those
rights, but also that it is defended from other nations that may be less
likely to respect those rights themselves."
DMB says:
Totally ageee. Rights protect intellectual values from social control. But
we can't rightly expect to protect rights by violating rights, as Fortuyn
apparently believed. (or as John Ashcroft seems to think.)
SAM:
So, if you accept that tolerance for homosexuality is part of a more general
respect for human rights (as seems to be the settled will of Dutch society)
then acting against a potential threat to that (immigration of people
opposed to that settled will) seems reasonable, and "high quality" in MoQ
terms - it is the defence of an intellectual level value against a social
level value.
DMB:
If anyone violates the rights of gays they can be prosecuted under the law,
whether they're religious or immigrants or not. But its wrong to ban whole
classes of people because some of them MIGHT do something illegal. Again,
its reasonable to defend rights and intellectual values from social codes,
but NOT in such a way that contradicts those higher values. That would
pretty much be the definition of hypocracy.
SAM:
[Of course, it doesn't have to be a ban on immigration per se that achieves
that result. A system such as operates in the United States, where all
immigrants must swear allegiance to the US constitution, would seem to
accomplish the same thing.]
DMB:
Exactly. Now you're talking. We are protected by the rule of law. Fighting
bigotry with bigotry is quite hopeless.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:15 BST