To take part in discussions on talkSFU, please apply for membership (SFU email id required).
Should we obey bad laws?
I find this an interesting topic. A law exists, and that law is bad. Do you follow it on principle, or make your own decision about right and wrong? The follow-proponents will say that it's only a small step from making a tiny personal exception to law, and a big one. The law-breakers will say that that's stupid.
I guess I'm a law breaker, then. I have been know to, and will continue to be known to, smoke a marijuanna cigarette or two. I speed sometimes. I turn left on red arrows when the through-traffic has a green light, but left turning is oddly disallowed, even when it's 3 in the morning, and there's nobody f-ing coming.
Let me give you the situation that sparked this discussion. A few months ago, a Saudi Arabian girl was caught meeting with a man to whom she was not married. Now, so far as I know, there is nothing more to the story. They weren't "doing it" (not that I would care if they were,) they were just meeting. Ostensibly, they were courting. Anyway, she was found out, and was sentenced to fifty lashes. I think it was fifty. Regardless, it was a lot. It then quickly came out that the girl was in the hospital with severe injuries, even though her lashes weren't scheduled for quite some time. Turns out, her brother had beaten her almost to death, for shaming the family. The brother was apparently looked at for assault charges, but none were ever pressed. A major newspaper expressed disapproval with the brother, on the grounds that the situation clearly warranted an "honor killing," and that he should have beaten her fully to death, not just half way. I suppose the brother is what passes for a "moderate."
This story comes on the heels of a similar one, where an unmarried couple were holding hands in public, and a man shot them both dead. The man was aquitted by the Saudi Supreme Court, under the defense that he was only acting to enforce the Sharia (Islamic law.)
So I expressed my disgust with the state of things "over there." And, much to my amazement, I encounterred resistence. Their reasoning was: She knew the laws. She broke the law, doing what she was doing, and thus deserves what she gets. "But... but... but, it's a horrible law!" I protest. "It's still the law," they reply.
I don't like this. These people are unwilling to disobey our laws, ok, fine. But at least they'll criticize them. Political correctness is so wildly out of control that one guy I was talking to literally, point-blank refused to say that it was a bad law. Not just that it was a bad law that she still should have obeyed. Just that it was bad. He couldn't say it. He's been conditioned from birth, you see, with the basic assumption that anything that happens outside of North America is beyond the scope of our judgemental powers. We can't judge another culture's ideals, actions or rhetoric. Can I start a trend, here? Let's judge. Let's judge all the time. Like, 24/7. A lot. Judgey judge McJudgersen.
But anyway, the argument was basically distilled down to this binary question: Should we be expected to obey bad laws?
Pot is illegal, which is stupid. I don't obey that law. In a few years, when it is no longer illegal, pot will be exactly the same as it is today. The law has no bearing on pot's dangers, benefits or effects. It is what it is, and I say: screw bad laws. I claim the right to make that decision for myself, and I claim the right to be outraged if the government decides to bust me for misdemeanor possession. Yes, I knew the law, and that law is stupid. I claim the right to be indigant at the enforcement of that law. Just as I claim the right to be outraged on this girl's behalf. I don't care that it was the law. The law sucks, and so any enforcement of that law is flawed axiomatically.
Do no obey bad laws.
Anyone agree? Disagree?
I guess I'm a law breaker, then. I have been know to, and will continue to be known to, smoke a marijuanna cigarette or two. I speed sometimes. I turn left on red arrows when the through-traffic has a green light, but left turning is oddly disallowed, even when it's 3 in the morning, and there's nobody f-ing coming.
Let me give you the situation that sparked this discussion. A few months ago, a Saudi Arabian girl was caught meeting with a man to whom she was not married. Now, so far as I know, there is nothing more to the story. They weren't "doing it" (not that I would care if they were,) they were just meeting. Ostensibly, they were courting. Anyway, she was found out, and was sentenced to fifty lashes. I think it was fifty. Regardless, it was a lot. It then quickly came out that the girl was in the hospital with severe injuries, even though her lashes weren't scheduled for quite some time. Turns out, her brother had beaten her almost to death, for shaming the family. The brother was apparently looked at for assault charges, but none were ever pressed. A major newspaper expressed disapproval with the brother, on the grounds that the situation clearly warranted an "honor killing," and that he should have beaten her fully to death, not just half way. I suppose the brother is what passes for a "moderate."
This story comes on the heels of a similar one, where an unmarried couple were holding hands in public, and a man shot them both dead. The man was aquitted by the Saudi Supreme Court, under the defense that he was only acting to enforce the Sharia (Islamic law.)
So I expressed my disgust with the state of things "over there." And, much to my amazement, I encounterred resistence. Their reasoning was: She knew the laws. She broke the law, doing what she was doing, and thus deserves what she gets. "But... but... but, it's a horrible law!" I protest. "It's still the law," they reply.
I don't like this. These people are unwilling to disobey our laws, ok, fine. But at least they'll criticize them. Political correctness is so wildly out of control that one guy I was talking to literally, point-blank refused to say that it was a bad law. Not just that it was a bad law that she still should have obeyed. Just that it was bad. He couldn't say it. He's been conditioned from birth, you see, with the basic assumption that anything that happens outside of North America is beyond the scope of our judgemental powers. We can't judge another culture's ideals, actions or rhetoric. Can I start a trend, here? Let's judge. Let's judge all the time. Like, 24/7. A lot. Judgey judge McJudgersen.
But anyway, the argument was basically distilled down to this binary question: Should we be expected to obey bad laws?
Pot is illegal, which is stupid. I don't obey that law. In a few years, when it is no longer illegal, pot will be exactly the same as it is today. The law has no bearing on pot's dangers, benefits or effects. It is what it is, and I say: screw bad laws. I claim the right to make that decision for myself, and I claim the right to be outraged if the government decides to bust me for misdemeanor possession. Yes, I knew the law, and that law is stupid. I claim the right to be indigant at the enforcement of that law. Just as I claim the right to be outraged on this girl's behalf. I don't care that it was the law. The law sucks, and so any enforcement of that law is flawed axiomatically.
Do no obey bad laws.
Anyone agree? Disagree?
Comments
we shouldn't follow laws, we should follow our moral standards, it just so happens that the vast majority of the laws follow our moral standards
Using the saudi girl as an example, she broke a law that her society had created based on their culture and beliefs. The reason we can't judge the validity of the law is because that would be a very subjective thing to do. Who are we to say that holding hands in public IS ok as opposed to not ok? Just because the norms of North American society are more laid back and open does not mean that those are the norms that should be everywhere. The world isn't like that, nor will it ever be. People differ in their beliefs everywhere and they will create laws based on those beliefs whether we like it or not.
Another thing to keep in mind is that cultural beliefs are dynamic (as laws should also be). It all comes down to power and influence. Whereas we have a system of elected political officials, lawyers, and judges influencing and changing the laws we must abide by (who are in turn influenced by others as well), I doubt it is like that in a lot of countries. I guess we can lump that luxury under the western definition of democracy. Thats why you can smoke pot and get away with it. Theoretically, if everyone started smoking pot, then the law would be deemed redundant and unneccesary, thereby "changing." In Saudi countries, it is the sheiks and royal families that rule the country. Far from being democratic, the elite families create and enforce laws based on their personal family beliefs which are passed down generation after generation to the point that they have become norms. The only way to change that would be some sort of radical change, or revolution, which has occured in countries...and your right, it starts with an individual refusing to conform.
we may think it's a horrible law because our laws are different from them.. we have more liberties and freedoms.. but this liberty is not free for all.. some countries cannot afford this price for freedom and others choose not to recognize it because of the chaos it brings.. keep in mind that the politics and government stability of the country is vastly different from any North American countries.. in their eyes... whatever keeps the country run in peace is justifiable.. even unreasonable laws such as these...
I recently saw exactly this issue debated on the BBC. Some sniveling intellectual was up there, whining about how Al-Qaida guerrillas were justified in having blown up a UN embassy, because their target was a man who had pushed for economic sanctions of Indonesia, when Indonesia had been imposing a military Islamic rule over a neighboring republic. This endorsement of terrorism, and outright murder, is absolutely repulsive.
There is a disturbing undercurrent of uncaring for other races in this, as well. This chinless fool on the BBC would sure as HELL fight against the imposition of such laws in his own country, but will take the high-minded road of cultural relativism when it is someone else who is already being subjected to it; it's a far different matter when you're the one in danger, isn't it?
But, I wonder, is he really willing to accept the full implications of what he's saying? Continuing the train of thought, we can no more judge genocide in Darfour than we can this law. I mean, their culture is one which excuses murder for religious reasons, and for revenge. Their culture is one which parallels the family of an offender with the offender himself, leading to retribution against dozens, for the actions of one. That's their culture. And we can't judge that. Right?
No. This insular thinking is downright dangerous. Not only is it a flat refusal to assist in alleviating suffering, it's also a fairly short-sighted policy, simply from the perspective of self preservation. The upshot of cultures such as these is not a similar hands-off respect for OUR culture. It is the building of extreme Islamic madrasahs by the thousands. Places that tell children that Saddam Hussein was a Jew, and indeed that Jews are so closely linked to the devil that they are born with literal horns. Places that tell children that the United States executes Muslims for declaring belief in Allah and that women in the West walk the streets naked, rutting in alleys at every opportunity. The upshot of "tolerance" for evil is the death of the tolerant. This isn’t an issue of civil rights, of the necessity of being able to peacefully disagree. This isn’t a disagreement. It is a violation of basic human rights, and in a very real way, it’s the carrying out of war.
I honestly believe that political correctness is the mentality most likely to doom our way of life to destruction; the complete and utter inability to say: "No, that is not compatible with our way of life. We will not be respectful of your views, we will not be apologetic for your actions" will be our undoing. I really believe that.
I wonder whether we would be so quick to reference Hitler as the ultimate incarnation of evil, if he had not been a white Catholic. I wonder if a brown Muslim Hitler wouldn't today have his own cadre of apologists. I wonder.