Constitutional right to equality
Published by MadMan October 12th, 2004 in LibertarianIn my last post on anti-discrimination laws, I asked whether the readers of this site saw the need for laws against discrimination in hiring people.
In the comments section, Sameer asks a question, which immediately rules out any chance of his membership to the Cartel. :)
quote SuperSam:
“Without a law, how would you ensure that the fundamental right to freedom from discrimination, based on race, religion, caste, sex, etc., prescribed by the Constitution is made available to the citizens?”
I’ve taunted him about this a couple of times, so I guess it’s time to put him out of his misery by explaining why he’s wrong.
First, what is this freedom from discrimination that Sameer talks about? Is it really in the Constitution of India? Why, yes it is. Here’s what the good book says:
The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
Please note that the language is very clear on this. It only says that The State shall not discriminate against its citizens. It does not say that private citizens are bound by the same rule. If that were indeed the case, you would find it very difficult to live in this country. You wouldn’t have the right to associate only with people you want to. All those matrimonial ads you see asking for “bride/groom from XYZ community” would be illegal. In a free country, you should also be be free to choose how you live your life.
I hope that clarifies things, Sameer.
PS: I will write a follow-up post on the discrimination as soon as Ravi finishes part 3 of his series on the same topic.
Ahh… thanks! That clarifies the matter. :)
Mad Man is being very selective on which part of the constitution he quotes. In the very link that he posts and quotes the very next line says
PART III
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Right to Equility
”
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to-
(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or
(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public. ”
Thereis no mention of the State here and the constitution clearly says that a citizen shall not be subject to ANY discrimination - not just by the state - being a little selective there MadMan - at least full read the contents of the links you post before jumping to a conclusion that supports your view on how the world should be :)
Ck, the constitution is a gray area in this regard and that is why (unlike Madman) I don’t put too much hope in it.
Let’s first get 2(b) out of the way as they are “maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.” I.e. either paid for or run by the state and therefore quasi state.
2(a) is the fun part. What is a public restaurant? Is any restaurant public? It’s a matter of perspective. I’ll grant you, by and large, the perspective that any restaurant “open to the public” is therefore public. Loads of issues exist. Can I open a “mens only” club? A “women’s only” club? A “Parsis only marriage hall”?
Sometimes places evade this by putting up a “Right of Admission Reserved” board, which implicitly states that “this is private property”.
But wait, even more fun in clauses 3 and 4, which show a bit of government hypocrisy.
A ha, so the government feels free to ignore its own laws just so it can provide what it will euphemistically call “positive discrimination”
In conclusion, this is a complex issue and I don’t think looking to the constitution helps in any way because the constitution itself is biased.
A funny double standard there Yazad - Madman bases his claim by QUOTING the consitution and saying (INCORRECTLY I might add) that discrimination laws apply only to the state.
I only pointed out that he was factually incorrect there but your immediate rise to his defense was that the constitution is all BS anyways so we shouldn’t pay attention to it.
Double standard?? - Madman slectively quotes the constitution to prove his point - I point out that he is factually wrong - Yazad jumping to the defense says the constitution is all BS anyways so we should not pay attention to it. Well why didn’t you say that when Madman quoted it - or is it just that he quoted the part that you like but when that inconvenient 2(b) is brought up, you decide its all BS?
Tch tch tch….Cartel members stick together no doubt ;)
Ck, I actually agree with you than on at least one point MadMan is factually incorrect.
I then analysed the same few clauses and gave my opinions. Just as MadMan overlooked clause 2, you seem to have overlooked clause 3 and 4.
My opinions on government (and by extension on its basis, the constition) are well known and not paraded to defend co-bloggers.