Polish court's ruling: A sikh vs. airport security checks

[grumbler]

I noticed that with Solmyr's description of what liberalism isn't roughly according with my idea of what it is.  I wonder if, at least with Poland, it's due to the influence of French rather than English liberalism.  Maybe more rooted in anti-clericalism, which doesn't have any strong, real influence in English thought?

Maybe.  Rousseau's idea that "freedom" consisted of conforming to the General Will, and it's corollary that some people had to be forced to be "free," is right up Marti's alley, I would think.

[mongers]

Did the polish court reject his case on the issue of civil liberties or security regulations ?

My understanding is concealed bombs in headdresses are now a real security concern, more so that shoe bombers, so I think the Poles are right to insist on everyone being subject to such searches, but that they could accommodate Sikhs and fellow travellers by allowing their turbans to be examined in a non-public space.

[Solmyr]

I noticed that with Solmyr's description of what liberalism isn't roughly according with my idea of what it is.  I wonder if, at least with Poland, it's due to the influence of French rather than English liberalism.  Maybe more rooted in anti-clericalism, which doesn't have any strong, real influence in English thought?

To be fair, I am somewhat ambivalent on this or similar issues. My view has more to do with the idea that religion should be a private matter without any ability to influence state politics or legal procedures. Religion can be taken into consideration and special arrangements made, if they are convenient to everyone involved.

[Razgovory]

Ah so it's a hostility to religion as oppose to a hostility to hats.  Religion as a dirty habit that if you must practice it do so in private.

[Solmyr]

Secularism doesn't equal hostility to religion. Just don't think it should be dictating politics and laws.

[Martinus]

Sheilbh is right. In this part of Europe, the political thought has been influenced by the French enlightenment (secular liberalism) and German romanticism (patriotic conservatism) with some French Catholic integrism/ultramontanism thrown in for a mix. Anglosaxon philosophy didn't really take root except perhaps as a fad (in fact to many philosophers/theorists of state and law, Anglosaxon school of thought has been for long regarded as an example of "how not to develop a scientifc method", since it is more inductive than deductive, hence anathema to our Germanic scholastics).

When people talk about philosophers of liberalism/Englightenment, they mean Montesquie, Voltaire or de Tocqueville first, and Locke and Mill distant second. Our liberalism is heavily influenced by an opposition to and from a culturally dominant religion.

[Martinus]

I noticed that with Solmyr's description of what liberalism isn't roughly according with my idea of what it is.  I wonder if, at least with Poland, it's due to the influence of French rather than English liberalism.  Maybe more rooted in anti-clericalism, which doesn't have any strong, real influence in English thought?

Maybe.  Rousseau's idea that "freedom" consisted of conforming to the General Will, and it's corollary that some people had to be forced to be "free," is right up Marti's alley, I would think.

Well, Rousseau was not a liberal, but yeah I agree with a lot of his theses. I also thought Plato had good ideas about governance.

[grumbler]

Secularism doesn't equal hostility to religion. Just don't think it should be dictating politics and laws.

This case isn't dealing with politics or laws.  It is dealing with regulations or procedures, which are neither.

[Razgovory]

Well, Rousseau was not a liberal, but yeah I agree with a lot of his theses. I also thought Plato had good ideas about governance.

I would have thought you guys had gotten that out of your system.

[Martinus]

Secularism doesn't equal hostility to religion. Just don't think it should be dictating politics and laws.

This case isn't dealing with politics or laws.  It is dealing with regulations or procedures, which are neither.

Airport security guards are part of the state apparatus, at least in Poland (they are a sub-type of police and/or military forces). As such, they have to operate according to procedures established by law.

[Ideologue]

Does the state apparatus not have to operate according to procedures established by law?

I also have no idea what grumbler's saying when he says a reg isn't a law.  Regulations aren't legislation, but they are most certainly law.  Unless it's internal regulations promulgated and enforced solely by a private airport facility, but I somewhat suspect that anti-terrorism measures in Poland are not left to private actors to determine.

[Martinus]

Does the state apparatus not have to operate according to procedures established by law?

I also have no idea what grumbler's saying when he says a reg isn't a law.  Regulations aren't legislation, but they are most certainly law.  Unless it's internal regulations promulgated and enforced solely by a private airport facility, but I somewhat suspect that anti-terrorism measures in Poland are not left to private actors to determine.

Yeah that's my point. I was making sure this is not so in the US, as in Poland such regulations are almost certainly law (even if they are not always legislation).

[Ideologue]

I misread a "not" in there when there wasn't one.  My bad.

[grumbler]

Well, Rousseau was not a liberal, but yeah I agree with a lot of his theses.

Given that you are not a liberal, either, this is understandable.

[grumbler]

I also have no idea what grumbler's saying when he says a reg isn't a law.  Regulations aren't legislation, but they are most certainly law.

What I am saying is that regulations are not laws.  Dunno how much clearer that could be.

Regulations and procedures are made to enforce laws, and are backed by law to the extent that laws make violations of regulations/procedures (just "regulations" from here on out, with "procedures" being understood to apply where applicable) a violation of the law the regulation was designed to enforce, but they are distinct from laws.  Regulations are made by executive authority, not legislatures, and they can be changed without recourse to the legislature.  Thus, an appeal against a regulation is an appeal against an administrative determination, not against a law.  Regulations can be overturned without impugning the law they are designed to help enforce, and can, indeed, be overturned because they violate the intent of law they are designed to help enforce.  In fact, the authorities that can overturn a regulation do not, at the lowest levels, have any power to overturn the law in question.

When one is charged with a crime, one is charged with violating the underlying law, not the regulation.  Regulations are not laws.