I think the ACLU needs to nuked from orbit. People think the ACLU is all for rights, but half of the "civil rights" the ACLU pushes for require the violation of someone else's rights.
Here's the newest thing: the ACLU thinks that freedom of religion includes the right of a Muslim woman to keep her face covered while she testifies in court.
A Michigan court dismissed a civil suit brought by a Muslim woman when she refused to remove her "niqab." As a result, the Michigan Supreme Court is considering a proposed rule to give judges "wide discretion" on regulating witnesses' attire.
What's on the line for a Muslim woman if she removes her niqab? The ghost she believes in might get upset. What's on the line if the ability of a court to judge a witness's credibility is compromised because her face is hidden? The life and property of a defendant.
The true individual right at stake here is the right of an accused to confront witnesses against them. If you've been hauled into court and your property or life is now at stake, it is wrong to allow someone's irrational belief's to violate your right to defend your property or life.
Courts (and goverments) have no business recognizing religions of any kind, in any context. They might as well recognize astrology. Then witnesses could refuse to testify on the grounds that the Moon is currently in an evil transit of their House of Testimony.
Labels
- Abortion (2)
- Activism (2)
- Altruism (7)
- Animals (1)
- Art (2)
- Atheism (2)
- Ayn Rand (2)
- Capitalism (7)
- Children (1)
- Culture (15)
- Economics (14)
- Education (5)
- Environmentalism (5)
- Envy (2)
- Ethics/Morality (10)
- Evolution (2)
- Foreign Policy (7)
- Free Will (1)
- Funny (2)
- Gas/Energy (3)
- Gay Marriage (2)
- Gender (3)
- Government (4)
- Health (1)
- Healthcare (22)
- Immigration (4)
- Law (11)
- Makes Me Happy (7)
- Media (3)
- Money/Wealth (2)
- Multiculturalism (3)
- Objectivism (3)
- Parents (3)
- Personal (5)
- Philosophy (8)
- Politics (27)
- Psychology (3)
- Race (2)
- Rants (6)
- Religion (9)
- Rent Control (1)
- Rights (11)
- Science/Technology (3)
- Smears (3)
- Snarky (5)
- Tax (4)
- Terrorism (2)
- Unions (2)
What am I thinking?
Feed this blog!
3 comments:
This story reminds me of another one where the freedom of religion is the issue. You will notice something weird if you ever visit New Delhi, India. On bikes and scooters besides the driver you will see the men on the backseat wearing the helmet but not women.
A few years ago when government made it mandatory for both people on a two wheeler to wear helmets there was a lot of protest from the Sikh community. Supposedly it hurt the religious sensibility of the Sikh women (men are exempt because of their turbans) as the Sikh religion says that if they covered their heads with any head gear he/she will die of leprosy for seven lives. A petition which was filed in SC by a Sikh was dismissed The judge remarked that accidents do not distinguish between Sikh women and others. The bench also advised the lawyer to 'think rationally.'
In spite of the court ruling the Government quietly went along with the Sikhs resulting in no women being fined for the helmet law since they could not discriminate between women of different religions.
Rajesh --
I would say that government has no business making people wear helmets, or fining them if they do not.
Governments should be concerned only with protecting citizens' rights, which means, protecting citizens from the initiation of physical force. A proper government would use force only in retaliation against someone who had initiated force.
If someone refuses to wear a helmet, they have no physical impact on anyone but themselves. They are not initiating physical force against anyone. If the government uses physical force to make someone wear a helmet (by threatening jail for noncompliance with the law or for failure to pay fines for disobeying the law), then the government violates rights by initiating force.
However, if someone chose not to wear a helmet (which would be a bad choice) and was then injured, that person couldn't ask the government to provide health care. Health care should also be private, not a government function. No-one has a right to tax others to pay for their health care.
I think I should have mentioned that I think helmet laws are silly. The point of my story was that one silliness is compounded by another when government does not stick to what it should be doing which as you say is to protect citizens from the initiation of physical force.
Today they decide on helmets, tomorrow they might force full body armours on us. It should be left to individuals to decide what is good for them. Lack of objectivity in society leads to ridiculous situations like the one mentioned by me.
Unfortunately with ever expanding nanny states, we might be seeing more of the same. I just posted on my blog what Mark Styne said "Americans face a choice: They can rediscover the animating principles of the American idea—of limited government, a self-reliant citizenry, and the opportunities to exploit your talents to the fullest—or they can join most of the rest of the Western world in terminal decline."
Post a Comment