blairbar, there is a hell of a lot more to democracy and human rights than "the majority decide". if you are not aware of the potential dangers and the actual history of tyranny by the "majority", then i suggest you read a little wider.

Quite so, bushbasher (and ozbib).

Funny, the notion of J.S. Mill's 'tyranny of the majority' also occurred to me in this context too.

Blair, I agree with bushbasher's suggestion that you do some reading on the subject of rights vis a vis the democratic State. Might I suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill as an accessible place to start?

Dear Ozbib and CJ
No need to condescendingly lecture me or anybody else on the dangers of the "tyranny of the majority". But could you please explain then who ultimately decides what should and shouldn't be worn, what should and shouldn't be seen etc?
Our democratic institutions eg legal system, freedom of the press, freedom of religion etc, did not evolve out of the ether; they were the results of decisions made and/or supported by parliamentary majorities over time.
The current debate on establishing a national Charter of Rights is deeply concerned with the formal establishment of rights. Proponents (and I suspect that includes Ozbib and CJ) do not trust the democratic parliamentary system and would prefer the knowledgeable few to decide and administer an appropriate Charter of Rights.
Perhaps you can give an example of the tyranny of the majority in modern democratic states. Or is it simply you both don't like some of the laws enacted by democratic governments in Australia and elsewhere?

blairbar, if you don't want condescending lectures, then try not to present truisms as solutions to subtle questions on conflicting rights.

>>Perhaps you can give an example of the tyranny of the majority in modern democratic states.

why the word "modern"? if you're arguing principle then what does it matter?

>>Or is it simply you both don't like some of the laws enacted by democratic governments in Australia and elsewhere?

"simply don't like". are you planning to beg the question?

in any case, how about laws against interrracial marriage? or is 1967 not modern enough, and virginia not democratic enough?

Well, I'd much rather live under Tyranny of the majority than the tyranny of a self appionted smug condescinding minority, who assume they have some claim to a moral high ground.

These thought police are the very worst of our modern society, & they usually claim some form of superior ethics, obvious only to them.

Hi Blair,

May I remind you that it was you who raised the very interesting question of the nature of rights in relation to this issue? If you're going to raise such profound questions, don't be surprised if you get serious responses and references to literature.

<< who ultimately decides what should and shouldn't be worn, what should and shouldn't be seen etc >>

Ideally, the person who's doing the wearing or displaying. The State shouldn't come into it unless there is demonstrable harm being done.

<< Perhaps you can give an example of the tyranny of the majority in modern democratic states. >>

I can think of a very good example from modernity where a very civilised democracy overwhelmingly elected a government that subsequently exterminated a large proportion of several minority groups within its own population.

Read the link, Hasbeen - you might learn something. In fact, I think you'd probably agree with much of what J.S. Mill had to say.