Friday, March 19, 2010

To The Republic

Gates of Vienna is a most excellent and well-researched blog. The commentators tend to be intelligent and first-class, as well, making GOV a great place to read.

Anyway, Baron over at GOV wrote a post, Violent Humiliation in Veenendaal, which touches on how gangs of Moroccan youth are essentially running wild beating up on Dutch citizens -- attacks that go far beyond simple muggings. Interesting reading, and an interesting topic should you further research it on the net.

What I find interesting about this is the political and legal idiocy that has allowed ("encouraged" might be a better word) such a turn of events.

I would like to review an article written back in late 2006, entitled Sharia could come via democracy: Dutch minister:

Sharia could come via democracy: Dutch minister
13 September 2006

AMSTERDAM — Dutch Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner has provoked an angry response by stating it has to be possible for Sharia Law to be introduced in the Netherlands via democratic means.

The Christian Democrat (CDA) minister made the suggestion during an interview for the book 'Het land van haat en nijd' (the land of hate and malice) which was published on Wednesday.

Donner indicated he was not happy with the tone of the integration debate in the Netherlands.

Muslims, he said, just like Protestants and Roman Catholics, have a right to the perceptions of their religion, even if that included dissenting rules of behaviour such as imams refusing to shake hands with women.

He went on to say: "It must be possible for Muslim groups to come to power [in the Netherlands] via democratic means. Every citizen may argue why the law should be changed, as long as he sticks to the law.

"It is a sure certainty for me: if two thirds of all Netherlanders tomorrow would want to introduce Sharia, then this possibility must exist. Could you block this legally? It would also be a scandal to say 'this isn't allowed!

"The majority counts. That is the essence of democracy."

Yes, this is the essence of unfettered democracy. People can vote to borrow money on behalf of their nation, and give themselves a free lunch, leaving an I.O.U. to their children. People can vote to destroy their country, leaving nothing at all to their children. People can vote to take away the rights of some of their fellow citizens. Anything goes, as long as you can convince a majority to go along with it -- a little PR, a little demagoguery, and your fellow citizens will demand anything that you want.

Unconstrained democracy...

Now, please repeat after me:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the..."

The United States is not a Democracy; the United States is a Republic.

From Article 4 Section 4 of our Constitution:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

The guarantee of a Republican form of government was explained by James Madison in Federalist 10:

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

In a Democracy, any mood swing of the people becomes the law of the land, and 51% of the voters can take away the rights of the other 49%. However, in a Republic, certain guarantees are in place to protect the inalienable rights of all citizens, with the result that 99% of the people cannot legally take away the rights of the remaining 1%. The remaining 1% retains rights such as right to freedom of speech, and of the press, and of assembly, and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and a myriad of other rights, not enumerated, but important nonetheless. Indeed, as the Ninth Amendment explains:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The point is that we retain not only the rights which we have explicitly retained, but all others as well; we surrender only those rights which have been explicitly surrendered to government. The limits are placed on the freedom of government, not on the freedom of the people.

Let me now present the second half of Sharia could come via democracy: Dutch minister:

His remarks are contrary to the stance taken by MP Maxime Verhagen, leader of the CDA in parliament. Verhagen had expressed concern Sharia Law could be introduced in city districts where Muslims are already in the majority.

Right-wing MP Geert Wilders of the Party for Freedom has posed written questions to Donner.

Wilders said Donner should be defending Dutch norms and values and resisting the introduction of "barbarous Sharia Law" in the Netherlands. The minister will face a motion of no confidence if he sticks to his views, Wilders warned.

Labour (PvdA), the largest opposition party, has also expressed surprise at Donner. MP Jeroen Dijsselbloem said Donner seemed to be forgetting that several points of Sharia Law are in conflict with the Dutch Constitution. "The Minister for Justice must invest his energies in opposing these sorts of opinions rather than signalling that such ideas can form part of our democracy," Dijsselbloem said.

Generally, these latter views are the correct ones. A Constitution is established to protect the rights of individuals against government; that is, against a majority, or against a politically-powerful minority.

Groups whose views are so "diverse" that they diverge beyond the constraints of the Constitution of the nation where they live should not live in that nation. The Constitution may protect such views, and the right to have them and to advocate them, but the remaining population needs to think hard about the issues in question, and not allow the diverse group to trample on the rights of everyone!

It is the most important duty of a Department or Ministry of Justice to protect those Constitutionally-guaranteed rights from infringement.  When the head of that department or ministry does not understand this, when that important government official sends the message that rights that should be inalienable are in fact negotiable, chaos can be the only outcome, and the nation in question has become a shabby and dangerous place.

And here we are, three and a half years later:  too many Dutch people have become sheep, defenseless against the wolves in their midst.

Notice the other clauses of Article 4 Section 4 of our Constitution. Why were they put in the same section with the Republican Government clause?

No comments:

Post a Comment