I agree with you up to a point - disenfranchisement is one of several necessary conditions which can justify armed rebellion. But in the instances I cited, all within the UK in recent years, none of the 'insignificant minorities' is, or ever has been, disenfranchised. In fact, none of them is insignificant either and some of them are majorities in their part of the country.
-- Cheers, Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 19 October 2005 13:55 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: More Texas Photo Issues > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bob W" > Subject: RE: More Texas Photo Issues > > > > are you suggesting that insignificant minorities should be > allowed to use > > violence to close theatres, and that they should be allowed > to prevent the > > publication of books, films etc. that they disagree with, > and they should > > be > > allowed to threaten with death people whose views differ > from their own? > > > > If you trample the rights of a minority sufficiently, if you > systematically > disenfranchise them from the operation of the society in > which they must > live to the point the society itself becomes a hated enemy, > you can expect > that sort of thing. > I'm not saying it is right, or that there is any of that level of > disenfranchisement going on in the world today, not that two > wrongs make a > right, just that at some point, it is a natural result of > when oppression > reaches a certain level. > > William Robb > > > > >
