Minorities Rights [continued from other thread]

[His Name Is John]

From another thread:

well, the 'cool' thing is, that those 2 points can counter any attempt to change the points themselves.

I have a law that says 'the minority can block the passing of bills of the majority that infringe on their rights'

the majority says 'we want to change that law!'

the minority says ' sure, you can suggest that change, be we will use our right to block that change if we think your bill has a possibility of getting passed, especially if that bill wants to change that very right'

it's an infinite kind of 'loophole' that guarantees the protection of the minority.

but a more important point has already been made, that everybody belongs to a minority in one way or another, so the system keeps itself afloat.

That is a very good law. At first look I would say all countries should accept it.

The only problem I can see is conflicting rights between minorities. How does your government work that out?

that's a bit of a downside to our system, we drive on compromise, meaning minority A and minority B are going to have to come to an agreement or situation they can both live with. if they can't, the case will go to independent court, which can decide whether any given situation is actually violating people's rights or not.
But it depends on what exactly the conflict is about.
I'll try to find some actual cases, but I feel like I'm hijacking the OP so maybe we should go back to our prostitutes and such.

I thought that would probably be the problem.

Another possible problem would be if the rights of the majority clash with the rights of the minoritys. From what you have said I would think in such a case the minorities win, but that doesn't seem right.

Is that the case?

[McCulloch]

I think that we need a few concrete examples for this question, rather than discuss these rights in abstract.
One example is that a subset of the majority heterosexuals think that their rights are being trampled if we allow the word marriage to be used in relation to homosexuals. I don't get it.
Perhaps another example would be more appropriate and less controversial. Ideas?

[His Name Is John]

I think that we need a few concrete examples for this question, rather than discuss these rights in abstract.
One example is that a subset of the majority heterosexuals think that their rights are being trampled if we allow the word marriage to be used in relation to homosexuals. I don't get it.
Perhaps another example would be more appropriate and less controversial. Ideas?

Actually McCulloch I was talking about the laws in Fustercluck's country rather than just the minorities rights in general. His country seems to have a flawed but still good system of dealing with the rights of minorities. I guess the discussion in this thread should be more around the ways his country deals with said rights, and how the system could potentially be improved.

But yes, I agree, some concrete examples might be nice.

[RobertUrbanek]

Perhaps a more useful question would be: "Who decides what are inalienable rights and why should we believe them?"

[Dantalion]

From another thread:

well, the 'cool' thing is, that those 2 points can counter any attempt to change the points themselves.

I have a law that says 'the minority can block the passing of bills of the majority that infringe on their rights'

the majority says 'we want to change that law!'

the minority says ' sure, you can suggest that change, be we will use our right to block that change if we think your bill has a possibility of getting passed, especially if that bill wants to change that very right'

it's an infinite kind of 'loophole' that guarantees the protection of the minority.

but a more important point has already been made, that everybody belongs to a minority in one way or another, so the system keeps itself afloat.

That is a very good law. At first look I would say all countries should accept it.

The only problem I can see is conflicting rights between minorities. How does your government work that out?

that's a bit of a downside to our system, we drive on compromise, meaning minority A and minority B are going to have to come to an agreement or situation they can both live with. if they can't, the case will go to independent court, which can decide whether any given situation is actually violating people's rights or not.
But it depends on what exactly the conflict is about.
I'll try to find some actual cases, but I feel like I'm hijacking the OP so maybe we should go back to our prostitutes and such.

I thought that would probably be the problem.

Another possible problem would be if the rights of the majority clash with the rights of the minoritys. From what you have said I would think in such a case the minorities win, but that doesn't seem right.

Is that the case?

took a while to find this thread, srry bout that, still very new here.

an example of what I'm talking about.
epic wall of text incoming since our political system is the most complicated I have ever studied.

we have a dutch speaking population of 60 %
and a french speaking population of 40 %

let's say I, a dutch speaking belgian, aka flemish, want to go live in the french speaking side.

Now let's say I want to be able to vote for my old flemish political party in a regional election.
the law states that is impossible, the government in the area is still a french speaking one and is not obliged in any way to conform to my desire even to have them address me in dutch or to allow a flemish party to be formed and be able to get elected in their french speaking territory.

Now

I am a member of a majority, and our federal government is also divided in 60% dutch, 40% french.

which would mean, in theory, that since the separation of the language border and all issues that may arise from it is a federal matter, the 60% flemish side could just say 'we now declare it to be possible to vote for flemish parties in the french territory.'

however this is just not possible, because in order to change it there must first be a 7/10 majority, second the french side can initiate an alarm procedure if they feel their rights are in danger (this would be the case here), upon which the whole case will be suspended in order to have a new vote a few months later, third if the vote continues to have the same majority (rarely does, there are so many elections in our country the flemish socialists are more likely to team up with the dutch socialists thn with the flemish liberals) the case will go to independent court (and actually there are a few steps before 'first' lol, government needs to vote whether or nor they want to consider changing the constitution first, which is another matter entirely lol) fourth if the court rules in favor of the flemish the law doesnt need to be put into practice until the year after, fifth the law will often be formulated in a way that in reality nothing changes, like the minimal amount of votes the new party have to have in order to become a part of the local government will be so high it would take several decades to get enough flemish people in that french town, and even thn they would not all vote on the same party (there are dozens, so that our governments are usually rainbow coalitions: nationalists, democrats, ecologists, liberals, socialists all together trying to find compromises that suit them all) sixth if no compromise is made, the government will fall and new elections will be required, seventh there can be a no confidence vote from the minority, which forces the 6/10 majority to find a 7/10 majority that wants to continue to support the government, 8th there can be a second alarm procedure.

ANYWAY lol
our political system is constructed in such a way that it is impossible for a majority to enforce any kind of law upon the minority which they feel infringes on their rights.

a pretty basic step in order to protect several minorities from several majorities (because we all belong to some minority in one way or another)
is not to have a 2party system

[Dantalion]

From another thread:


I thought that would probably be the problem.

Another possible problem would be if the rights of the majority clash with the rights of the minoritys. From what you have said I would think in such a case the minorities win, but that doesn't seem right.

Is that the case?

well, the definition of compromise is that neither side 'wins' lol.
if A wants a blue car
B wants a yellow
we will end up with a green car OR the government will fall on the issue and we have to vote again, so it's 'compromise or bust'

that's how me make progress, slooowly, but it is progress nontheless and usually pretty well thought out.
We don't have any 'from now on it's illegal to shoot a brown deer with a black rifle while standing on a white boat!' kind of situations

[His Name Is John]

took a while to find this thread, srry bout that, still very new here.

No worries

an example of what I'm talking about.
epic wall of text incoming since our political system is the most complicated I have ever studied.

we have a dutch speaking population of 60 %
and a french speaking population of 40 %

let's say I, a dutch speaking belgian, aka flemish, want to go live in the french speaking side.

Now let's say I want to be able to vote for my old flemish political party in a regional election.
the law states that is impossible, the government in the area is still a french speaking one and is not obliged in any way to conform to my desire even to have them address me in dutch or to allow a flemish party to be formed and be able to get elected in their french speaking territory.

Now

I am a member of a majority, and our federal government is also divided in 60% dutch, 40% french.

which would mean, in theory, that since the separation of the language border and all issues that may arise from it is a federal matter, the 60% flemish side could just say 'we now declare it to be possible to vote for flemish parties in the french territory.'

however this is just not possible, because in order to change it there must first be a 7/10 majority, second the french side can initiate an alarm procedure if they feel their rights are in danger (this would be the case here), upon which the whole case will be suspended in order to have a new vote a few months later, third if the vote continues to have the same majority (rarely does, there are so many elections in our country the flemish socialists are more likely to team up with the dutch socialists thn with the flemish liberals) the case will go to independent court (and actually there are a few steps before 'first' lol, government needs to vote whether or nor they want to consider changing the constitution first, which is another matter entirely lol) fourth if the court rules in favor of the flemish the law doesnt need to be put into practice until the year after, fifth the law will often be formulated in a way that in reality nothing changes, like the minimal amount of votes the new party have to have in order to become a part of the local government will be so high it would take several decades to get enough flemish people in that french town, and even thn they would not all vote on the same party (there are dozens, so that our governments are usually rainbow coalitions: nationalists, democrats, ecologists, liberals, socialists all together trying to find compromises that suit them all) sixth if no compromise is made, the government will fall and new elections will be required, seventh there can be a no confidence vote from the minority, which forces the 6/10 majority to find a 7/10 majority that wants to continue to support the government, 8th there can be a second alarm procedure.

ANYWAY lol
our political system is constructed in such a way that it is impossible for a majority to enforce any kind of law upon the minority which they feel infringes on their rights.

a pretty basic step in order to protect several minorities from several majorities (because we all belong to some minority in one way or another)
is not to have a 2party system

That seems like a ton of work. With the language barrier why not split the country in two?

It seems so divided.

Another problem I could potentially see is can minorities pass laws about themselves? Or would they still need 7/10?

Finally, does the system work? I could see it as taking rather long for any change to take place, is this not the case?

Many thanks for replying to my question, I am grateful you took the time

[Dantalion]

took a while to find this thread, srry bout that, still very new here.

No worries

an example of what I'm talking about.
epic wall of text incoming since our political system is the most complicated I have ever studied.

we have a dutch speaking population of 60 %
and a french speaking population of 40 %

let's say I, a dutch speaking belgian, aka flemish, want to go live in the french speaking side.

Now let's say I want to be able to vote for my old flemish political party in a regional election.
the law states that is impossible, the government in the area is still a french speaking one and is not obliged in any way to conform to my desire even to have them address me in dutch or to allow a flemish party to be formed and be able to get elected in their french speaking territory.

Now

I am a member of a majority, and our federal government is also divided in 60% dutch, 40% french.

which would mean, in theory, that since the separation of the language border and all issues that may arise from it is a federal matter, the 60% flemish side could just say 'we now declare it to be possible to vote for flemish parties in the french territory.'

however this is just not possible, because in order to change it there must first be a 7/10 majority, second the french side can initiate an alarm procedure if they feel their rights are in danger (this would be the case here), upon which the whole case will be suspended in order to have a new vote a few months later, third if the vote continues to have the same majority (rarely does, there are so many elections in our country the flemish socialists are more likely to team up with the dutch socialists thn with the flemish liberals) the case will go to independent court (and actually there are a few steps before 'first' lol, government needs to vote whether or nor they want to consider changing the constitution first, which is another matter entirely lol) fourth if the court rules in favor of the flemish the law doesnt need to be put into practice until the year after, fifth the law will often be formulated in a way that in reality nothing changes, like the minimal amount of votes the new party have to have in order to become a part of the local government will be so high it would take several decades to get enough flemish people in that french town, and even thn they would not all vote on the same party (there are dozens, so that our governments are usually rainbow coalitions: nationalists, democrats, ecologists, liberals, socialists all together trying to find compromises that suit them all) sixth if no compromise is made, the government will fall and new elections will be required, seventh there can be a no confidence vote from the minority, which forces the 6/10 majority to find a 7/10 majority that wants to continue to support the government, 8th there can be a second alarm procedure.

ANYWAY lol
our political system is constructed in such a way that it is impossible for a majority to enforce any kind of law upon the minority which they feel infringes on their rights.

a pretty basic step in order to protect several minorities from several majorities (because we all belong to some minority in one way or another)
is not to have a 2party system

That seems like a ton of work. With the language barrier why not split the country in two?

It seems so divided.

Another problem I could potentially see is can minorities pass laws about themselves? Or would they still need 7/10?

Finally, does the system work? I could see it as taking rather long for any change to take place, is this not the case?

Many thanks for replying to my question, I am grateful you took the time

we have a system where the richest part of the country pays a solidiarity fee for the poorest. the richest being flanders, the dutch speaking part, where I live, the more poor part being wallony, the french part.
so yeah, it would make a lot of sense to switch to a system of confederalism, meaning each region governs itself, but the french part doesn't want that ( they get over a billion euros a year from us btw) and we can't just call ourselves an independent nation without the support of the EU.

and it's not just the language part. our language barrier is actually the barrier seperating germanic culture (flanders, netherlands, germany, scandinavia) from romanic culture (wallony france italy spain)
so it's a VERY complicated situation, Belgium was actually 'constructed' to form a buffer state between france and germany.

we actually had no government for a whole year last year because we couldn't reach a compromise. I think we are the only western country where that happened for so long lol, and without any drop of blood shed

but to answer your questions, yup, the minority also needs a majority in parliament in order to pass laws

and the system works yes, but very, very slowly, as you can imagine.


actually the thing I dislike the most about my country is that because of the division between germanic and romanic, we don't have a true sense of nationality

[His Name Is John]

we have a system where the richest part of the country pays a solidiarity fee for the poorest. the richest being flanders, the dutch speaking part, where I live, the more poor part being wallony, the french part.

Ah, I see where the problem lies.

so yeah, it would make a lot of sense to switch to a system of confederalism, meaning each region governs itself, but the french part doesn't want that ( they get over a billion euros a year from us btw) and we can't just call ourselves an independent nation without the support of the EU.

What a tricky situation.

and it's not just the language part. our language barrier is actually the barrier seperating germanic culture (flanders, netherlands, germany, scandinavia) from romanic culture (wallony france italy spain)
so it's a VERY complicated situation, Belgium was actually 'constructed' to form a buffer state between france and germany.

we actually had no government for a whole year last year because we couldn't reach a compromise. I think we are the only western country where that happened for so long lol, and without any drop of blood shed

but to answer your questions, yup, the minority also needs a majority in parliament in order to pass laws

and the system works yes, but very, very slowly, as you can imagine.

It doesn't seem like such a great system after all...

I mean, perhaps some of the principles about the rights of minorities could be used by other nations, but it would have to look rather different to the way it is working in your country at the moment.

actually the thing I dislike the most about my country is that because of the division between germanic and romanic, we don't have a true sense of nationality

That must be very strange.

I think a separation into two different nations would be the only solution. But as you said, that is very unlikely to happen.