Barbara Hall presents us in today's online Globe and Mail with a very interesting opinion on the nature of human rights and their importance. Despite agreeing with many of her points, I feel she places too much emphasis on legislation and not enough on the individual and the distinction between right and freedom.
While it is true that many episodes of intolerance stem from prejudice and stereotypes, the point Hall seems to be pursuing is the need for state legislation and its enforcement. I disagree. It is the duty of the State to promote a peaceful and cohese society through education and awareness campaigns, a.k.a information. It is not the duty of the State to dictate people's behavior. There is the justice system to deal with the infringement of people's rights such as harassment, racism, bullying and other kinds of physical, verbal or psychological violence.
A formal and legal hierarchy of rights is not the mistake Hall presents it as. It would merely be a statement that certain rights that everyone is entitled to override the freedoms that certain groups can claim. For instance demanding that the local school serve halal meals is a reasonable request, however there should be no imposition on the school to do so. Enrolment of the child in the school implied acceptance of the terms (i.e. the school doesnt serve halal), while prior to enrolment the parent can choose a school based on that criterion or choose to supply the child with a home-prepared lunch. This is an option that allows parents to prevent their children pigging out on unhealthy food in the school lunchroom.
The above is just an illustrative example of how the right of others to choose what to serve (and any other choices they may make) cannot be trumped by demands stemming from a privately held belief. Needless to say in a true choice system schools failing to meet customers' demands will see less enrolment from those particular groups.
Hall's further elucidation on equal treatment not resulting in equal opportunities contains a few fallacies as well. It is not true that a company's policy banning religious garments will deny opportunities to Muslim women who choose to wear headscarves. A company is a private institution, and as such has the right to impose any policy it wishes. Being employed by this company is a rational choice people make and implies acceptance of the rules. As much as employing a person is a decision which is entirely up to the boss. In a true free market system discriminatory bosses would exclude talented individuals from their company and ultimately be overwhelmed by more talented competition, or be boycotted by rights-conscious consumers.
In the public sector, in any case, equality must be strictly enforced because the State has no right to discriminate against those who pay taxes just like everyone else. This equality however cannot trump other people's rights and choices. This difficulty in balancing rights and freedoms is exactly why the public sector should be reduced as much as possible, leaving the maximum space for an efficient competitive market.
I am first in line saying that discrimination is evil and merit and equality should be valued. But I also believe the market is the best enforcer of equality because it drives uneconomic and unviable choices (such as discrimination) to open failure. If Quebec passes the ridiculous PQ law it will drive skilled immigrants to other provinces, thus draining skill from Quebec and leading the province to decline and the PQ to failure.
Human rights advocates, as Hall says, still have a long way to go before achieving the society they envision. However I propose their focus be on education and promotion of awareness rather than legislation. Let the market fail out the discriminators.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071026.wcomment1026/BNStory/National/home
No comments:
Post a Comment