Dear all, (SFMPE)*<\/p>\n
I see all this looking for ways to surely protect minority rights,
\nfundamentally without sense. Why? Because that problem have not a
\nspecial solution.<\/p>\n
Understand me: I believe the minorities rights have to be protect; I’m a
\nfervent supporter of the Voltaire’s ideas. “I disagree with you, but
\nI’ll give my life so that you could express it”. But I think that
\n“protection” cannot result from any law, court, constitution o other
\nsimilar instruments. It can be resulting from existence of true
\ndemocratic citizens majority only.
\nCan we be *sure* that majority of people will always protect the
\nminority rights? No. But any different “solution” is worse than the bad.<\/p>\n
I saw somebody, f.i. Kevin, propose general rules (fundamental
\nsafeguards) to protect minority and a Court to decide about the
\ncontravaentions. He wrote:<\/p>\n
> A proposed law which appears to contravene such
\n> fundamental rights would not be registered. A declaration from the court
\n> could be obtained as to whether these fundamental safeguards were to be
\n> contravaened or not.<\/p>\n
Kevin,
\nthat you presented is the normal current way to “protect” minorities.
\nYou said that works fine until now. Right. At least, it’s true enough.<\/p>\n
But if we give a closer look at it, we can see the <
\nproblem> of the
\nmajority dictatorship isn’t *solved* but only *moved*.<\/p>\n
Moved from direct judgement of citizens to a restrict number of members
\nof a Court. I see this like a shrink of direct democracy. It seems to me
\nthat You said: we can’t have always confiance in judgement of people,
\nthen let those matters in better hands, the hands of few wisdom man.
\nBut who assures us on real Court’s wisdom? Nobody can do it.
\nAnd who choices the members of the Court? In direct democracy is the
\npeople.
\nWhat about big mistakes of this court? can the people change her
\ndecision? And if he can do it, why the people can’t decide directly? And
\nwho decides when this Court is wrong?
\nWell, then this “solution” is a “Representative” solution, with all the
\ndefects of DR solutions.<\/p>\n
I prefer the people decides directly on important and general issue like
\nminorities rights. Without any “court”.<\/p>\n
I hear yet voices saying: “we must choice Court’s members by
\nsortition!”. I answear these voices that sortition don’t eliminate
\ncorruption at all. Every men can be corrupted after the sortition. And
\n… what about some members are mad ones? The voices say: but we’ll
\ncoice between a group of experts! And who decides when a normal citizen
\nis an “expert”? Answear: the people.
\nWhat about if these members make big mistakes? And even who decide when
\na member become mad or corrupted or show own incapacity? What if the
\ncourt makes mistakes? You must always come back to the decision of the
\npeople.
\nYou have only moved the problem, probabily making worse the problem.<\/p>\n
I saw somebody other propose supermajority or veto(Aki Orr and al.).
\nIt’s a sham solution. When you propose a 66% supermajority or even 99%
\nsupermajority you don’t solve the problem.
\nWhat about the rest 33% or even 1%? Maybe a minority of 1% don’t have
\nrights? And in this way you go from the risk of dictatureship of
\nmajority to the risk of minority dictatureship. It’s better?<\/p>\n
Aki said “The right of veto is not dictatureship”.
\nDear Aki, veto can esaily become dictatureship. If a minority wants a
\nspecial law for itself, it suffices that it menaces vetoes on every
\ndecision, and then, if the majority don’t want rest paralized, it is
\nforced to yeld.
\nYou could said: the veto effects only decisions about minority. And I
\nasks you: who decide *when* a decision effects the minorities rights?
\nWe haven’t choice. If we don’t want a possible minority dictatureship,
\nwe must risk a possible majority dictatureship.<\/p>\n
And at last (but not least, it goes without saying) the fashinating
\ndefinitions of my friend Antonio Rossin.
\nHe stated:<\/p>\n
| No decision or policy addressing a well-defined target
\n| can be admissed to votation without that target’s direct
\n| asking for ”<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
| “no minority’s rights can be the subject of a democratic
\n| Law (which might turn itself into the dictatorship of the
\n| majority) unless that minority had asked for.<\/p>\n
My dear friend, as you have yet saw, there is not agreement on what is
\nthe target. About the abortion f.e., you say the target is the feto,
\nOtto say the target is the mother… and then?<\/p>\n
One more time you should have to come back to the people asking: who is
\nthe target? (And, I’m sure, someone will say the father! or the family!
\nor all society, ‘cause the cost belongs to all citizens, and so on…)
\nThe same about when a “subject of a democratic Law” is a minority. Who
\ndecides? A Court? (See above). If you want be a DD you have to directly
\nask the people, then always the majority decides.<\/p>\n
In conclusion I see all these (vains) efforts as a fruit of fear. Fear
\nthat the people can keep wrong and bad decisions. It is a realistic
\nfear. But if we want be direct democratics we are forced to accept it.<\/p>\n
We must establish only the general principle that the minorities must
\nhave grant the same general rigths than the majority. But this
\nprinciples will must be assured only by the majority. As well as for all
\nother dd principles and rules!!<\/p>\n
Democracy is a risk. The risk that the decision, that we believe the
\nright decision, lose. If we don’t accept this risk we aren’t
\ndemocratics. Even less, direct democratics. Every attempt to limit this
\nrisk is a more o less little lack of democracy.<\/p>\n
The people have the right to be wrong by its own hands.<\/p>\n
Maybe can democracy kill itsself? Yes. In this unfortunate case I’ll
\nfight with other means.<\/p>\n
The only remedial is: fighting to have more flexible, aware and fully dd
\nmind-oriented citizens.<\/p>\n
That is one of our two hard aims. The other, it goes without saying, is
\nto conquer a fully dd institutional system.<\/p>\n
CorDDialita’,
\nPino Strano.<\/p>\n
(*) Sorry For My Poor English. \ud83d\ude42<\/p>\n
(**)Tratto da un post scritto sulla mailing list cicdd nell’agosto 2000<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Dear all, (SFMPE)* I see all this looking for ways to surely protect minority rights, fundamentally without sense. Why? Because that problem have not a special solution. Understand me: I believe the minorities rights have to be protect; I’m a fervent supporter of the Voltaire’s ideas. “I disagree with you, but I’ll give my life […]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politica","category-4-id","post-seq-1","post-parity-odd","meta-position-corners","fix"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.pinostrano.it\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.pinostrano.it\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.pinostrano.it\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.pinostrano.it\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.pinostrano.it\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.pinostrano.it\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.pinostrano.it\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.pinostrano.it\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.pinostrano.it\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}