Paul Treanor raises an important point. He is correct, insofar as he argues
that a legal decision will confine itself to formal liberal rights, and say
little, if anything, about the social and economic relationships that make
begging necessary for many. I also agree that the critical analysis of
liberalism is essential. Indeed, I have been personally making this
argument for some years, as well as worrying about liberal rights and the
judiciary more generally.
That said, my decision to participate in this case was a tactical one. A
successful challenge will not - of course! - be sufficient, however, it
seems to me necessary. The dilemma, here as always, is one that comes from
simply being in the world. Liberalism so saturates our world, that it's
hard to avoid. Even my participation in simple acts such as going
shopping, or going to work, mean that I am reproducing and internalising
liberal-legal categories such as contract and public/private separation.
That doesn't mean that I'm happy with those categories, or that one should
try and expose them and make sense of the them (or even push them beyond
their orthodox bounds); rather, it simply suggests that the sort of
ethical purity proposed by Paul seems hard to sustain. But then maybe Paul
doesn't own property, go shopping, or go to work?
Best wishes,
Nick Blomley
>A central moral issue for any so-called 'critical' or 'radical' studies..
>
>Nick Blomley wrote on a proposed court case (anti-begging laws in cities)
>
>> I've been approached to help with a court challenge (in Vancouver) to the
>> city's anti-panhandling bylaw which, like many other regulations, restricts
>> the time and place that panhandling can occur (see sections below). The
>> hope is to challenge this under the Canadian Charter (freedom of
>> expression, liberty, equality etc).
>
>
>I realise Nick Blomley is not the initiator if this court challenge, but it is
>morally offensive, and he should have refused to co-operate with it.
>
>The ethics can be summarised by this question: what if the judge says that the
>new laws conform with the Canadian constitutional requirements? What will the
>initiators do then? They will go home quietly.
>
>The case, and similar cases in the United States, are a perfect illustration
>of the ethical orientation of liberalism. Provided Bill Gates and the poor
>respect each others formal rights, then that is the end of the matter, as far
>as liberalism is concerned. Justice or injustice does not enter into it. And
>instead of seeking a redistribution of wealth and income, the initiators of
>this court case want a formal procedure, to check whether the the rule of law
>has been respected. If they win, the poor will stay poor, but they can ask
>yuppies for money. If they lose, then the rule of law will prevail, and the
>huge inequalities of wealth in the region will continue.
>
>Is that moral? No it is not. Liberal-democratic societies were deliberately
>designed to be a-moral in this sense. Their founding philosophy explicitly
>rejects integral social concepts such as justice, and deliberately substitutes
>a set of formal rules and procedures.
>
>I'm sure Nick Blomley would be the first to protest, if tomorrow the Canadian
>military overthrew the democratically elected government, and instituted a
>totalitarian-egalitarian state. But would that be wrong? No it would not,
>certainly not if there are people begging on the streets.
>
>But the problem is precisely, that apparently everyone else in the 'critical'
>academic community, shares the consensus around liberal values. They may call
>themselves socialists, radicals, progressives, or marxists. But they mean:
>human rights, anti-totalitarianism, free speech, the rule of law, democracy,
>the separation of powers, civil rights, an open society, a free press. Liberal
>political philosophy, in other words. This consensus is so strong that it
>blocks all attempts to oppose the existing social order.
>
>--
>Paul Treanor
>http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/neoliberalism.html
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|