DEMOCRACY IS TOUGH ON "FREEDOM"

One of my blog readers sent me an Email soliciting my support for opposition to
removing the word “god” from our national anthem because, he said, only 14% of respondents wanted the reference omitted, we had no “right” to allow the other 86% to be pushed around. (I am paraphrasing.)

I responded this way: “I have wanted to write another piece on what John Stewart Mill called "The tyranny of the majority." Essentially it is an argument against depriving people of their rights simply because they are in a minority. Do you believe that the majority, who believe in God, should have the right to impose that on other people? I have long ago given up on the "imploring the divine" process that has become such a part of our thinking. I neither thank nor praise. It is an opinion I hold dear. However, I also have no right to impose that on other people, no matter how flawed and mystical their belief happens to be. But in what we call public space, there should be no room for dogmas, however widely held they may be. The majority tends to want to oppress the minority. Didn’t most people believe the earth was flat? Didn’t the ancients believe that thunderstorms were the wrath of the gods? Didn’t people justify slavery by Scripture?”

He may have been surprised, not expecting that I would represent the dissenting 14%. It isn’t that their argument is more cogent, legitimate or persuasive. That’s not the issue. And the issue is certainly not to so enfranchise the majority that they have the right to trample of basic rights.

Like it or not, and to look at how the Tea Party sees intervention – as an assault on Law and Order, civilized democracies have one or both of the traditional safeguards: Supreme Courts and a Constitution (and Bill of Rights.) We have a notion here that “Parliament is supreme.” And perhaps it should be. Except that without a high court to rule on the innate justice of an issue, we could have a steamroller majority pushing through legislation that, while it may be appropriate, is often not democratic. It is why in this country we have appeals “under the Charter.” If any law violates the rights of anyone, that person is entitled to make representation before the courts. It does not mean, as many on the political right believe, that we are co-opting government. In the U.S. there is continuous whining about the “liberal” members of the Supreme Court who would overturn the “will of the people.’ The irony is that it is always these people who insist that the Constitution be served. (I wonder how many have read it, or have read the even more important document, the Amendments which represent the Bill of Rights.)

Democracy is not convenient. It is not easy. It can even be clumsy at times. But it is what separates us from dictatorship. An oppressive government majority can be dictatorial. In this country, and I am no jurist, Parliament is still supposed to be supreme and no court should be allowed to thwart government. Or should they??

You may have been struck by the recent preposterous extension of the First Amendment in the U.S. A demented pastor in Florida burned the Quran. No one could stop him. He was exercising his “freedom.” America has no hate laws which would allow prosecution of a group or individual that inspires anger and hatred. The law has an old slogan that should be applied: “Many evils are subsumed under the rubric of free speech.”
So, to my loyal reader, I will not join your crusade to keep "god” in our national anthem, but I will not oppose your right to voice the opinion. I just happen to think you are wrong.