Tweet
THERE CANNOT BE TOLERANCE WHEN LAW IS NOT OBSERVED
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir.am
12:17:07 - 16/03/2009
In Armenia, discussions are being held on tolerance and intolerance,
but the sides of the discussions are not certain. The point is there
seems to be such a dilemma, there are social-political rumors that we
need tolerance, that the intolerance is going to destroy us but the
sides of these dilemma-discussions are not known because everybody
speaks about the necessity of tolerance. In this case, the question
occurs: who is intolerant. A new wave of discussions rose after the
annual report of the Human Rights Defender, where the Defender called
for tolerance and dwelled on the misdeeds and duties of the government
and the opposition in this relation.
Tolerance is surely good. It is even an important and necessary quality
especially for Christians. But whether it grows when increases the
number people who speak about it. Of course it does not. It does not
grow, because the tolerance is directly proportional to the level
of legality in the country. Tolerance exists in those countries
where laws are observed. In the opposite case, the intolerance may
be sleeping creating an impression of tolerance, but it wakes up
immediately when, for example, the statue of Saadam Husseyn is pulled
down in the central square. After this, total robbery, destruction
and intolerance rein. The reason of which is the absence of law and
of th e culture of legality in the country.
In Armenia, the intolerance is merely determined by the absence of law.
Consequently, we do not need to deal with tolerance and intolerance
but with legality and illegality. The tolerance and legality, and
intolerance and illegality are not always synonyms for each other. Very
often, the citizen becomes intolerant because the law tolerates the
superiority of some people or groups of people on the others, in case
the advantage is based on physical force and material richness. If
citizens are deprived of announcing their stances, holding rallies,
marches, protests, sure if this entire is not organized in connection
with the Holiday of Vardan and if the church and the government do not
lead the march, so the citizen becomes intolerant. In other words,
law allows violation of their rights and they turn out to become
intolerant little by little.
Or, the government does not tolerate the law which gives an opportunity
to the opposition of free activities. The government closes all the
ways at any cost when feels that the opposition is able and soon will
reach a legal change of government. In other words, the government
assaults the peace protesters in the morning, involves the army in
the process of clearance its relations with the opposition. Is not
the response of the opposition and the citizens appropriate to such
kind of government? In other words, everything is determined by l
egality or, better by its lack. The first to carry responsibility of
law in the country is the government. Consequently, the question on
tolerance-intolerance should not be brought up but the question on
legality which is much more concrete and clear and needs concrete
answers. After all, we deal with the State and not with the cartoon
"Adventures of cat Leopold".
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir.am
12:17:07 - 16/03/2009
In Armenia, discussions are being held on tolerance and intolerance,
but the sides of the discussions are not certain. The point is there
seems to be such a dilemma, there are social-political rumors that we
need tolerance, that the intolerance is going to destroy us but the
sides of these dilemma-discussions are not known because everybody
speaks about the necessity of tolerance. In this case, the question
occurs: who is intolerant. A new wave of discussions rose after the
annual report of the Human Rights Defender, where the Defender called
for tolerance and dwelled on the misdeeds and duties of the government
and the opposition in this relation.
Tolerance is surely good. It is even an important and necessary quality
especially for Christians. But whether it grows when increases the
number people who speak about it. Of course it does not. It does not
grow, because the tolerance is directly proportional to the level
of legality in the country. Tolerance exists in those countries
where laws are observed. In the opposite case, the intolerance may
be sleeping creating an impression of tolerance, but it wakes up
immediately when, for example, the statue of Saadam Husseyn is pulled
down in the central square. After this, total robbery, destruction
and intolerance rein. The reason of which is the absence of law and
of th e culture of legality in the country.
In Armenia, the intolerance is merely determined by the absence of law.
Consequently, we do not need to deal with tolerance and intolerance
but with legality and illegality. The tolerance and legality, and
intolerance and illegality are not always synonyms for each other. Very
often, the citizen becomes intolerant because the law tolerates the
superiority of some people or groups of people on the others, in case
the advantage is based on physical force and material richness. If
citizens are deprived of announcing their stances, holding rallies,
marches, protests, sure if this entire is not organized in connection
with the Holiday of Vardan and if the church and the government do not
lead the march, so the citizen becomes intolerant. In other words,
law allows violation of their rights and they turn out to become
intolerant little by little.
Or, the government does not tolerate the law which gives an opportunity
to the opposition of free activities. The government closes all the
ways at any cost when feels that the opposition is able and soon will
reach a legal change of government. In other words, the government
assaults the peace protesters in the morning, involves the army in
the process of clearance its relations with the opposition. Is not
the response of the opposition and the citizens appropriate to such
kind of government? In other words, everything is determined by l
egality or, better by its lack. The first to carry responsibility of
law in the country is the government. Consequently, the question on
tolerance-intolerance should not be brought up but the question on
legality which is much more concrete and clear and needs concrete
answers. After all, we deal with the State and not with the cartoon
"Adventures of cat Leopold".