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

[sbr]

Oh god, grumbler has been engaged.  Time to eject.

[Martinus]

Regulatory law is subordinate to statutory law, yes.  Statutory law is just as subordinate to constitutional law.  I see no reason to not to call it law simply because of this, and most people (which is to say, all minus you) agree that the CFR and state codes of regulations are "sources of law."  They establish citizens' legal rights and duties, can involve substantial penalties and authorize remedies, and acts adjudicating cases involving regulations can be appealed into courts.

What's funny to me is that I could see an Englishman arguing the incorrect position grumbler takes - because with no written constitution there, all acts of parliament are indeed, technically, unable to be repealed by the judicature and consequently have a distinct quality from secondary or delegated legislation. But for an American, this is bizarre, considering the very hierarchy of sources of law is evident from the fact that you already have a constitution.

[Martinus]

Three non-lawyers argue about what is a law.  Who wins?

You throw a lot of stones from that glass house, Raz. Not making a judgment on it. Just saying.

While I generally agree with the comment about Raz, I think this time he should be absolved, as his pun/jab (Punjab?) was funny because two out of three people were actually lawyers and it is a running joke to question their competence.

[Solmyr]

In short, to many Americans, saying that freedom of religion is OK, but should be limited to what one does in private is akin to saying that freedom of speech is OK, but it should be limited to private conversations.

However, when freedom of religion starts requiring people not of that religion to take (or not take) certain actions which would otherwise be entirely normal, it starts going a bit beyond freedom of speech (which does not require anyone else to do anything they wouldn't have to do otherwise). Certainly, state apparatus can offer certain accomodations to religious practitioners, but this should be at the state's discretion and without any demands placed on citizens who don't practice said religion. So, while airport security could offer that sikh a private room to take off his turban if conditions permitted, if there were, say, 5000 other people waiting in line and this would significantly slow them down, then a case exists for not offering special accomodations.

[Razgovory]

Why should it be at the state's discretion?  It's not our job to serve the state, it's the job of the state to serve us.  Other basic freedoms can inconvenience others as well, but I'm not comfortable putting their practice at the state's discretion.

[Solmyr]

Why should it be at the state's discretion?  It's not our job to serve the state, it's the job of the state to serve us.  Other basic freedoms can inconvenience others as well, but I'm not comfortable putting their practice at the state's discretion.

Because the state government is elected by us, thus we put trust in it to make such decisions.

[Razgovory]

We may elect the government but we don't allow it to curtail our rights at it's own discretion.   That's a recipe for Tyranny of the Majority.

[Solmyr]

We may elect the government but we don't allow it to curtail our rights at it's own discretion.   That's a recipe for Tyranny of the Majority.

Nobody is curtailing anyone's rights in the example given though, because getting special treatment that nobody else is getting is not a right.

[Martinus]

In short, to many Americans, saying that freedom of religion is OK, but should be limited to what one does in private is akin to saying that freedom of speech is OK, but it should be limited to private conversations.

However, when freedom of religion starts requiring people not of that religion to take (or not take) certain actions which would otherwise be entirely normal, it starts going a bit beyond freedom of speech (which does not require anyone else to do anything they wouldn't have to do otherwise). Certainly, state apparatus can offer certain accomodations to religious practitioners, but this should be at the state's discretion and without any demands placed on citizens who don't practice said religion. So, while airport security could offer that sikh a private room to take off his turban if conditions permitted, if there were, say, 5000 other people waiting in line and this would significantly slow them down, then a case exists for not offering special accomodations.

I agree. Freedom of religion is no different from a more general freedom of expression which essentially means people are free to do what they want, as long as it does not harm others (or, more practically, there is no compelling reason to restrict this freedom in some way - e.g. by telling them to drive on one side of the road).

If we think there is a compelling reason for some rule to restrict personal freedom (e.g. "remove your hat during security checks", "do not slaughter animals in some particular way" etc.) then such rule should apply to everyone equally. Likewise, if we think someone's religious beliefs are a good enough reason to override such rule, then everyone should have a right not to obey that rule on other grounds, and not just because of their religion.

A good example is military service in countries that practice conscription. One person may object to it based on their religion. Another person may object to it based on their non-religious pacifistic worldview. If we create an exemption for the former but not for the latter, then this is discrimination pure and simple and the most glaring inequality under law imaginable - certainly nothing that can even remotely be described as a "freedom" of any kind.

[Ed Anger]

Oh god, grumbler has been engaged.  Time to eject.

Negative Ghost Rider. The pattern is full.

[garbon]

However, when freedom of religion starts requiring people not of that religion to take (or not take) certain actions which would otherwise be entirely normal, it starts going a bit beyond freedom of speech (which does not require anyone else to do anything they wouldn't have to do otherwise). Certainly, state apparatus can offer certain accomodations to religious practitioners, but this should be at the state's discretion and without any demands placed on citizens who don't practice said religion. So, while airport security could offer that sikh a private room to take off his turban if conditions permitted, if there were, say, 5000 other people waiting in line and this would significantly slow them down, then a case exists for not offering special accomodations.

Obviously freedom of religion can go beyond freedom of speech. They are different concepts.

Anyway, don't private rooms already exist for more intrusive manners of screening? I don't see where the hypothetical thousand comes in at all. Now when a person refuses reasonable accommodations than they choose to give up access to the service that security is protecting (e.g. flying in a plane).

[Solmyr]

Anyway, don't private rooms already exist for more intrusive manners of screening? I don't see where the hypothetical thousand comes in at all. Now when a person refuses reasonable accommodations than they choose to give up access to the service that security is protecting (e.g. flying in a plane).

Isn't that basically what I've said? Of course, there may also be insufficient manpower to accomodate special needs, in which case also tough shit.

[garbon]

Anyway, don't private rooms already exist for more intrusive manners of screening? I don't see where the hypothetical thousand comes in at all. Now when a person refuses reasonable accommodations than they choose to give up access to the service that security is protecting (e.g. flying in a plane).

Isn't that basically what I've said? Of course, there may also be insufficient manpower to accomodate special needs, in which case also tough shit.

I don't think so. You seem to focus on the state making accommodations if they possibly have the resources (which cash strapped States tend not to have) whereas I think the state should always make reasonable accommodations available...especially in cases where acccomodations are already available but just need to be added to protocol.

Sorry we only respect your religion if not busy isn't the freedom of religion, I'd want to have.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think so. You seem to focus on the state making accommodations if they possibly have the resources (which cash strapped States tend not to have) whereas I think the state should always make reasonable accommodations available...especially in cases where acccomodations are already available but just need to be added to protocol.

Sorry we only respect your religion if not busy isn't the freedom of religion, I'd want to have.

Indeed.  In this case I think it would be entirely fair to ask him to step into a private room and take off his turban - if it was necessary - much as I'd think it was right for a Muslim woman or a nun.

[Martinus]

I don't think so. You seem to focus on the state making accommodations if they possibly have the resources (which cash strapped States tend not to have) whereas I think the state should always make reasonable accommodations available...especially in cases where acccomodations are already available but just need to be added to protocol.

Sorry we only respect your religion if not busy isn't the freedom of religion, I'd want to have.

Indeed.  In this case I think it would be entirely fair to ask him to step into a private room and take off his turban - if it was necessary - much as I'd think it was right for a Muslim woman or a nun.

If such accommodations were available and used for nuns and muslim women (which I am not sure whether they exist at Polish airports) then yes. Otherwise no.