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

[Martinus]

Not really. The freedoms of speech and assembly are important parts of the political process and must be exercised in public to be effective. Freedom of religion does not. If people stopped exercising their freedom of religion tomorrow and everybody became faithless, this would not affect the democratic process - if everyone suddenly stopped to exercise their freedom of speech and assembly, this would severely harm the democratic process. So comparing both makes no sense.

What? So personal freedoms that might inconvenience others should only be exercised in public if they can also be used to further the political process (with the actual freedom being a fringe benefit)? Why should everything be subordinate to the government? We should probably ban homosexual acts in public and bring back don't ask, don't tell. Those don't serve any legitimate purpose for the gov and could be very inconvenient for citizens who find such things repulsive.

Homosexual acts (as well as heterosexual acts) are already banned in public - you can't fuck or give someone a blow job in a public place with other people looking. And remember that we are arguing for a restriction of public exercise of freedom of religion here in the context of a compelling security reason - there is no such compelling reason in onlookers "not being repulsed" (but as I said, we already restrict a lot of freedoms in terms of their public display because of public decency and public morality).

So again, the principle I described stands: people may be annoyed by public exercise of freedom of speech, but this freedom is so important to the democratic process that we do not restrict it or restrict it only in a very slight manner (e.g. by banning public vulgarities/obscenities, or "shouting fire in a crowded theatre"). On the other hand, we are quite happy to ban public displays of artistic expression (such as porn) or sexual freedom on grounds of public decency.

[Martinus]

They cannot be compared in the context of giving them equal rights, because they are different things.

Actually, they cannot be compared because they are extremely difficult to distinguish from one another... as your examples show.

Yeah I don't understand this distinction at all.  Marti seems to suggest that because certain rights serve a certain social purpose they should be more difficult to restrict, while others aren't socially useful so we should be more sanguine about restricting them.  It seems a rather dangerous position.

I can't work out Solmyr's basis for his hierarchy of rights, so I can't judge.  But his attitude seems like a secularist version of a right not to be offended.

Surely the best option is to treat all rights equally?  They should only be restricted if they harm others' liberties (and I'd use 'harm' more restrictively than freedom from being hassled) or if there's an overwhelming public need.

But we do not treat all rights equally. Just look at all restrictions of freedom of speech and freedom of expression based on public decency.

So once again this boils down to all of you Anglosaxons insisting on religion (and religion-related rights) getting a special treatment, not an equal treatment.

[Sheilbh]

But we do not treat all rights equally. Just look at all restrictions of freedom of speech and freedom of expression based on public decency.

So I know what we're talking about, what examples do you have for modern restrictions based on public decency?

[MadImmortalMan]

On the other hand, we are quite happy to ban public displays of artistic expression (such as porn) or sexual freedom on grounds of public decency.

No we're not. Every time that's done we have a moral angst session over it.

[Martinus]

No, because being a Jew does not harm or hinder anyone else. Being free of someone actively trying to convert you to Judaism is another story.

So you'd just ban Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons?

No, but the question here is not to ban members of a given religion, but whether special accommodations should be made for members of certain religions.

Btw, as a general remark, I don't agree with insisting on treating equally immutable, in-born traits (gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity) and acquired, chosen traits (religion, political views).

[Martinus]

But we do not treat all rights equally. Just look at all restrictions of freedom of speech and freedom of expression based on public decency.

So I know what we're talking about, what examples do you have for modern restrictions based on public decency?

Can I buy a billboard space on the Oxford Circus and display there a giant picture of penis and balls?

Can I advertise a book arguing that David Cameron is really a cross-dressing serial killer?

Can I have an artistic installation in a public street in front of the St. Paul Cathedral involving a group of naked people fucking?

[The Brain]

But we do not treat all rights equally. Just look at all restrictions of freedom of speech and freedom of expression based on public decency.

So I know what we're talking about, what examples do you have for modern restrictions based on public decency?

Can I buy a billboard space on the Oxford Circus and display there a giant picture of penis and balls?

Can I advertise a book arguing that David Cameron is really a cross-dressing serial killer?

Can I have an artistic installation in a public street in front of the St. Paul Cathedral involving a group of naked people fucking?

Christmas is over, freak. You'll have to wait a year. And is please a dirty word?

[Solmyr]

I can't be arsed to split hairs over every silly example people have given me, so I'll just summarize my views. I'm not arguing that religion should be banished to private locales only. And I recognize that some religions have ways of practicing them that are highly visible. However, when such practices infringe on someone else's freedoms, either by forcing them to involuntarily participate or physically intruding into their course of daily life, restrictions may be called for. Freedom of speech is different because as a general rule, nobody has ever died or gotten hurt (extreme examples of hate speech notwithstanding), so there is much less need to restrict it. And for the record, I support allowing almost any kind of speech. As well as removing the restrictions on "public decency", which is based on morals not everyone may share.

[Solmyr]

Can I advertise a book arguing that David Cameron is really a cross-dressing serial killer?

There isn't such a book already?

Can I have an artistic installation in a public street in front of the St. Paul Cathedral involving a group of naked people fucking?

This is, in fact, an entirely possible scenario in Germany and the Scandinavian countries, as long as you excuse it as a "work of art".

[MadImmortalMan]

You can't do certain things on the property of others as free speech if the owner doesn't let you, naturally.

[Ideologue]

I was going to wait a bit till I trotted out that argument, but go ahead.  It does seem somewhat odd the different way Americans and Europeans view government.

I'm sure he'll have a logically inconsistent argument to rebut it. Besides, I wouldn't judge Europe by the beliefs of Mart and Sol, anymore than I'd judge America based on the beliefs of Habbaku or Dps.

That's an interesting own goal.

Anyway, I really don't understand what everyone else is having a hard time understanding about freedom of worship.  Shit is like the easiest freedom to explain there is.  "[The legislature] shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion.]"  Unless that expression violates other rights or public policy.

Like Santeria.  OH WAIT.  Stupid Supreme Court.

[The Brain]

Anyway, I really don't understand what everyone else is having a hard time understanding about freedom of worship.  Shit is like the easiest freedom to explain there is.  "[The legislature] shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion.]"  Unless that expression violates other rights or public policy.

I don't get it.

[Ideologue]

[The Brain]

It sounds just like the generic catch-all freedom.

[mongers]

As a 'free speech activist' , I'd like to say listening is also important.