This article is about how the country Kyrgyzstan will
likely soon pass and anti-gay law. In Kyrgyzstan a bill must go through three
rounds before it is passed. The anti-gay bill has already gone through two
rounds. Its first round it was voted 79 to 7 and its second round it was 90 to
2 in favor of passing the bill. It seems the majority of the parliament is in
favor of passing this bill. This bill would “ban the existence of LGBT organizations, shutter gay clubs, and
most notably, could result in one-year prison sentences for those found guilty
of propagating non-traditional sexual relations.” Violence against the LGBT
community in Kyrgyzstan is already a major issue and the passing of this bill
will only make it worse.
This article
reminded me of our discussion of Locke on Friday. It seems like a lot of the
class agreed with what Lock had to say. However, the one issue I have with
Locke is his focus on majority rule. This article is an example on where
majority rule might have negative consequences. In this case, the majority of
the Kyrgyzstan government is in favor of passing the anti-gay law. By passing
this law this would severely harm the rights of the LGBT minority in Kyrgyzstan
and put them in danger. I found this to be a big flaw in Locke’s ideas. I know
sometimes this is also an issue in our government where minorities’ rights may
not be represented. Do you guys think we should just go along with what the
majority rules because it is the majority? Or should there be a focus on
minority rights as well?
In this day and age, leaving an area where one is being oppressed can be easier than it used to. What would Locke say to the minority leaving to be better represented? What would he say if they can't leave?
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is much easier for people to leave oppressed places today than it was in the past. However, I think it is still very hard for people to leave places for a better life. This is clearly seen right now with all the issues over immigrants. Many must risk their lives to leave bad places and it is not easy for them to do so.
DeleteI do not think Locke would not be against the minorities leaving since it is their natural right to life, liberty, health, and property, so it is their liberty to leave if they want to.
Do you think there is a tension for Locke between a fondness for majority rule and for natural law? How might he square that circle? How would you?
ReplyDeleteI think because Locke believes that justice exists outside of the laws that he does not believe there is a conflict between majority rule and natural law. Locke believes that natural law means that everyone has the right to life, liberty, health, and property. Due to this I think that Locke believes that just because there is majority rule it does not mean that the minority loses their natural law. However, I do think this gets complicated when certain issues arise that are unclear as to whether they are dealing with a natural right. For example the gay marriage article I mentioned. I personally believe the right to marry whoever one wants is their liberty, however there are many people that do not agree with this. This is an example where I found conflict between majority rule and natural law. In these cases, however, it seems like there is nothing to do but follow majority rule until the majority becomes the minority as seen with gay marriage now being legal in the US.
DeleteI think that this is a good example of how different countries can have vastly different stances on very important subjects- for example, in 2015 this would not happen in the United States. According to Locke everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and property. If the majority rule is opposing that a certain minority group have rights (liberty), then I believe that the majority rule should not apply. Just because a group is a minority does not mean that they don't deserve the same rights that the majority already has. Also, according to the article, the bill is in violation of the Constitution but will most likely be passed anyways, which is a sign of a corrupt government.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is also worth noting that the people who are voting on this law are (most likely) not gay themselves. Is it just for these people to make such harsh decisions for the gay community while not being a part of the group that will have their lives affected by this law?
I think you bring up a really good point Sammy. It does seem somewhat unfair to have the majority rule on issues that would greatly affect the minority.
DeleteI agree with Hyla that natural law and majority rule are unrelated to Locke. Yes everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and property but Locke also addresses the importance of government. There's no way for a government to have a structure that accomplishes the liberties of everyone, so majority rule seems like the best solution theoretically. So the only way for things like gay rights to be addressed in a positive way is through making the minority view the majority
ReplyDeleteHyla I agree that there is an issue with following majority rule and that it can suppress minorities. The problem I have with not following majority rule is how would any law get passed at all. I think that minorities and their beliefs should be thought about and considered. How would we decide if a law should be passed. Locke does focus on the majority rule and how if the majority agrees that makes it just. I think that in a perfect world everyone would be able to agree on everything and that would be the only way to determine if something is just. Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world and with everyone having their own beliefs and ideas there is no way to get everyone to agree. If majority rule is not the best way to determine justice, then what is?
ReplyDeleteI am not sure majority rule is not the best way to determine justice. In many respects I think majority rule is the best way to determine things. However, I think in cases, such as this one with gay marriage, when the majority is against it the majority is wrong because they are taking away someone's natural rights. However, I do not know of another way to deal with these issues. Do you?
DeleteThis article brings up so many questions for me. I think that majority rule s nly beneficial to others when it matches their own personal beliefs. Because this article doesn't match my own personal beliefs I would like to say that majority rule is bad but most of the time I don't feel this way. I think majority rule is supposed to be a system that is quite fair. It is supposed to allow all to have a say. As to whether that is true in government is questionable. Based on the voting, I question those who voted and whether or not it was fair because it seems way ore people like in the area . I also question whether Kyrgyzstan has a set of rules that give their people basic civil or human rights. I think us as Americans are always going to be extremely judgmental against any system that opposes what we don't.
ReplyDelete