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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|