Majority rule, minority rights

On the surface, the principles of majority rule and the protection of individual and minority rights would seem contradictory. In fact, however, these principles are twin pillars holding up the very foundation of what we mean by democratic government.

Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.

Minorities -- whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate -- enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove.

Minorities need to trust that the government will protect their rights and self-identity. Once this is accomplished, such groups can participate in, and contribute to their country's democratic institutions.

Among the basic human rights that any democratic government must protect are freedom of speech and expression; freedom of religion and belief; due process and equal protection under the law; and freedom to organize, speak out, dissent, and participate fully in the public life of their society.

Democracies understand that protecting the rights of minorities to uphold cultural identity, social practices, individual consciences, and religious activities is one of their primary tasks.

Acceptance of ethnic and cultural groups that seem strange if not alien to the majority can represent one of the greatest challenges that any democratic government can face. But democracies recognize that diversity can be an enormous asset. They treat these differences in identity, culture, and values as a challenge that can strengthen and enrich them, not as a threat.

There can be no single answer to how minority-group differences in views and values are resolved -- only the sure knowledge that only through the democratic process of tolerance, debate, and willingness to compromise can free societies reach agreements that embrace the twin pillars of majority rule and minority rights.

Out of all the vaccines I have taken in my life, for Tetanus, rubella, measles, mumps, polio hepititis, and TB, I:

• Have never been coerced by a government in an attempt to have me comply

• Never before saw so much confusion over a vaccine that says I have to wear a mask, and socially distance even when fully vaccinated

• Have never had a vaccine where post injection data was obtained on an impromptu basis where it should have been discovered in trial stage

• Could still contract or spread the virus even when fully vaccinated

• Never had to have a double shot and have never been bribed by establishments to take the vaccine in order to win a car, cash, or other prizes

• Never thought I would live in a segregated country because of my freedom of choice

• Was never judged if I didn’t take it

• Was never discriminated against for travel or other regular services

With the vaccines I listed above it was never suggested I was a selfish person for not taking them.

I have never seen a vaccine that threatened the relationship between a family member or a close friend.

I have never seen it used for political gain and have never seen it used to persuade kids in favour of free ice cream (UK). I have never seen a vaccine threaten someone’s livelihood, job, school, etc. and I have never seen a vaccine that allows a 12-year-old’s consent supersede his or her parent’s consent.

So after all I have said, can someone tell me how I am a conspiracy theorist, uneducated and non-researched because I am not willing to take this vaccine.

Finally, after all the vaccines (shots) I listed above, I have never seen a vaccine like this one that discriminates, divides, and judges a society such as this one.

So much information is censored, deleted and removed from the internet due to non-conformation to mainstream media narrative.

So many accredited doctors and scientists are censored and forbidden to speak, out or ask legitimate questions, which is the cornerstone scientific debate.

Are we all not equal? Or is it that some are more equal than others?

RH Thompson

More Letters to the editor




The opinions expressed here are strictly those of the author. Castanet does not in any way warrant the information presented.

Visit our discussion forum
for these and other issues.

Previous Stories