From: cs226a030@husky1.stmarys.ca
Newsgroups: alt.peeves
Subject: Legal and Moral Rights (was drug testing stuff)
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:04:15 GMT
Organization: St. Mary's University, Halifax, N.S., Canada

In article <6!nm2wh@lynx.unm.edu>, baldwin@carina.unm.edu (Chris Baldwin) writes:
> In article <1992Jul27.184207.1@husky1.stmarys.ca> cs226a030@husky1.stmarys.ca writes:
>>Actually, here in Canada, I think both of those are legal. If they aren't,
>>then "they" DON'T have a right to have those forms of sex. Just because you
>>*think* that something should be legal, doesn't mean you have a right to do it.
> 
> 	This is patently false, unless you are a fascist. Rights are 
> independent of the legality of an action. You can never have the right
> to unjustly kill someone(i.e. murder) regardless of murder's legal
> status. By the same token, the people under the Stalin's government still
> had the right to free speech, but it was denied them. Now, if you really 
> are a fascist and think that our rights are defined by the government and
> the state should be the final arbiter of what is right then none of this 
> applies. 
> 

Rights only exist if they are recognised by a group of people. For example,
human rights are recognised by the UN. Subsequently, all the nations that have
signed the Human Rights Treaty ( or agreement, or whatever it is) agree that
people have a set of basic rights.
	If a group A nation for example chooses not to recognise a set of
rights then that set of rights does not exist for that set of people. For
example, if China were to suddenly pass legislature stating that their citizens
were not to have the right of free speech, then that right would cease to exist
for those people (unless one considers the UN's declarations to override
China's laws.)
	The Soviets under Stalin might *not* have had the right to free speech.
My Russian history is not what it should be, SO I don't know if there were laws
passed or not, but if the Russian governing body passed a law denying free
speech, free speech for the Soviets woulf no longer be a right.
	Now bear in mind I an *not* saying that this is a *good* thing, nor
something I am even in favour of. However, I *am* saying that once a law is
passed, it's a law, good or bad. This includes laws revoking certain rights.
That's how things like the War Measures Act work. You and I may not like this,
but the fact is, unless the law is defeated somewhere along the line of Due
Process (in the courts, by government revoking the law etc.) then the law is a
law.
	We can try to change that law by protests, voting in people who will
repeal it or whatever, but as long as the law is in effect, and a certaing
right is not recognised, it's a law, and it would be against the law to
excercise the right in question. This is how dictatorships work; they pass laws
that revoke rights.
	You may not like this, and I suspect that you don't, but I think you
are  mistaking what *you* think is *morally* right with what *I* think is
*legally* right. As you can see, there's a big difference ;-). The fact is,
however, you can't go doing stuff just because you think you ought to be
allowed to. I mean, I think *I* ought to be allowed to kill all the people who
annoy me, but if I did, I'd *still* go to jail, because murder is illegal.
*You* may think you ought to be allowed to take drugs ( and you might be
right... berhaps you *should* be allowed... it's your body, and assuming you
earned the money yourself, maybe such a thing *should* be legal), but right now
you can't. Taking drugs is illegal. Subsequently, even though you believe it is
your moral right to be able to choose to take drugs, that choice isn't your
*legal* right, and you'll *still* go to jail if you are caught and convicted.

Sorry, dude. That's the way it is. If you want to change things, the way to do
it is to protest, try and change people's minds, lobby government, run for
office, whatever. It would be a *bad* idea to just say, "well, I don't agree
with this law, so *I'm* just going to ignore it." For one thing, it sounds
childish. For another, you could wind up arrested.

Later
Mike


>>In the same token, just because something is illegal, dosen't mean it's morally
>>wrong. It *IS* illegal, though. If you do something illegal, you risk
>>punishment. It is that simple.
> 	This is true. But, I don't really see where it is relevant. I don't
> think that any of the people who are advocating doing something that is
> currently illegal expect the government to step in and say "Oh, we were just
> kidding about all those pesky law things. Carry on." if, or when, they get
> caught.
> 
> ObNazi: Himmler
> 	Now I've gone and mentioned the Nazi's, so this thread is
> closed by a well known net.guideline. There are well known news groups
> for this kind of thing. Geeze, Steve leave and suddenly politics erupts
> on alt.peeves...Oh, the humanity!
> 
> ObPeeve(I doubt anyone actually made it this far, so I might as well
> throw in a slightly compu-nerdy peeve.): News has started recycling
> articles lately. Old ones show up again and 2 copies of new ones have
> been appearing for the last coupla days. The problem seems to have
> cleared up, but it is annoying when something like this happens.
> 
> -- 
> Chris Baldwin                | Robert Johnson invented the pickle! 
> baldwin@carina.unm.edu       |                         - Adam Reid
>             If I were a carpenter I'd hammer my piglet. -- TMBG
Newsgroups: alt.peeves