Shifting sands
Fascinating.
Not sure what that means for hate speech and how we as a group then choose to move forward. I supported the NSW anti-vilification laws which are a form of limitation of free speech and would do so again although I would fight harder for the clause to be ‘vilification on the basis of sexuality’ rather than ‘vilification on the basis of homosexuality’. Ditto ethnicity versus membership of an ethnic minority.
This is one of the reasons why I am more interested in concepts of anarcho-syndicalism, which to me try to balance the needs of the group with the needs of the individual, than liberal democracies, which trumpet the rights of the individual over all things. And why I sometimes clash with purist anarchists who don’t want to have consultative processes but prefer to operate solo.
Anyhow, thanks to Creed O’Hanlon for the heads-up and while we’re at it, put July 6 in your diary as the date that Hazel Dooney’s art exhibition opens at MARS, with photography and video by Creed.
March 18th, 2006 at 11:56 am
Frankly, I don’t think his whole premise has any merit. The more I look at it, the more vacuous it looks. All “rights” are predicated upon not conflicting with the rights of others. Even the US right to bear arms doesn’t mean that Americans have the right to kill their neighbour at will. (… though too many try to and then end up in jail.) All things which we consider to be basic rights, such such as the pursuit of happiness which Stoppard refers to, explicitly or implicitly include the concept of not depriving others of their rights. There isn’t, and has never, to my knowledge been, anyone suggesting that rights automatically trump the interests of the society or group, except Stoppard.
Rights have always been kept in check by rules. I’d guess that there have been laws against libel and slander for as long as there have been people claiming that freedom of speech is a right. It’s just a formal way of dealing with the part about not depriving others of their rights. We are now seeing a renewed Western interest in “hate speech”, which is nothing more than a form of slander used against a group rather than an individual.
March 18th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
I agree that his premise looks pretty vacuous. The presence or lack of a god doesn’t mean rights are any less inalienable. They’re inalieable because a just society must recognise equally the value of each individual.
Throwing in the word “Darwinian” appears to have absolutely no link to anything else he says in that piece, too. I hate when people use Darwinian to imply certain things that are not implied by Darwin, nor by evolutionary theory… grr.
March 19th, 2006 at 1:06 am
another vote for the vacuity of stoppard’s premise. he’s set up a strawman. unless you want to sully your politics by scrabbling ’round in the metaphysical for a first cause to prop up your ideas, what is self-evident about human rights is that they are all part of the *human* project to come up with an ideal model for society. there isn’t a platonic form for human rights floating out there in the ether, and batting down free speech because it doesn’t have one misses the blindlingly obvious point that none of them do.the inalienability of human rights derives from their place as a logical cornerstone of a human conceptual model, not from any appeal to metaphysics or biology.
March 19th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
arrrgh!
“the inalienability of human rights derives from their place as a logical cornerstone of a human conceptual model”
“a” model. one of many. not universal.
that the rights of the individual vie with the common good, mediated through government, judiciary and honour systems (be it the mob, the church, or less institutional cultural practices) is a given. that human rights are a universal trump card is contended.
that idea is the one that, post-war, was written into this and that declaration, charter, etc, bringing those all-american Indepence values to the world. (in the US this did lead to some cool shit, like the civil rights movement, etc)
“human rights” as an expression has become synonymous with this set of values. but some of us see other things as being just as important. some people believe in family rights, community rights, religious rights, etc. They’re not just about individuals so they’re harder to conceptualise in the western “rights” framework. But that’s why much of the world just doesn’t get “human rights”.
I’m a lot less interested in these moral narratives than asking what people actually want. then we’re getting somewhere.
rave over.
March 23rd, 2006 at 12:18 am
huh? what’s the ‘arrgh’ for?
i did say -a- model, not -the- model.
stoppard is slapping down freedom of speech because it’s not based on some invariable, universal truth.. i’m saying that no rights are universal, but that each model has implicit rights at it’s core, and if you take away those rights the model falls down. hence they’re inalienable because the model is totally dependant on them.
i’m not saying which model is best, i’m saying “we are making this shit up as we go, so lets get it internally consistant.”