Today the Constitutional Court decided by 6 votes to 3 that the bullfights, cockfights, the school and the following corralejas be constitutional in Colombia, but conditionally . The case, as discussed in a column published in Semana.com was particularly difficult because rational admit a double interpretation from the perspective of constitutional hermeneutics. The Court considered that in this collision between the constitutional rights of animals, especially to not be mistreated, and cultural heritage that make up the runs, the latter must prevail. In my column I stated that even though I think the bull an ancient art of great aesthetic richness, I can appreciate and even enjoy it (not because of the torture of the bull but the overall artistic display of the "fiesta brava"), having been in my hands because failure would have prohibited the "meeting legitimate aspiration to eliminate all forms of unnecessary violence against living beings and defend the existence of the dignity of animals."
However, the judges decided to privilege the cultural value, even against opinion 78% of Colombians . Today Dworkin should not be too happy.
I leave with the column.
barbarian not consider someone who, with reasons and arguments, defending a line of thinking than mine. On the contrary, we I will be forever grateful for teaching me that the world has many faces.
Lévi-Strauss argued that barbarian is first of all who believe in "barbarism." That is, who considers barbarians who think and behave differently from him. I think that has happened to the majority opinion against the decision to make the Constitutional Court on whether to ban bullfighting, which has dominated debate over the heat reflection.
wild is very easy to tell who does not share our worldview. Lovers of bullfighting critics cataloged as uneducated and insensitive (no joke insensitive to the aesthetic taurine), and these in turn did not come down to the first, precisely, of "barbarians" because they enjoy and consider a "party" public torture of an animal placed at a disadvantage.
And yes, the bullfight is torture of animals, but is much more than that. It is also a fiesta brava " and one of the richest art on display aesthetic, like it or not. How can art suffering, death, violence? The literature of Georges Bataille, the painting of Picasso (Guernica evoke just ), the music of Beethoven, Wagner and Orff (Carmina Burana remember its ), the architecture of Gaudí, the clothes of Jean-Paul Gaultier, the Tarantino films or martial arts in general, whose main input is violence (the story that grow pacifism is just advertising) could answer this question much better than me.
occurs not only with bullfighting. Difficult cases are prevalent in the judicial task of constitutional courts in the modern state, are responsible for bridging the big debates in particular the open character of the constitutional provisions and the work of the legislature, fail to predict in the abstract. A major responsibility that requires much preparation as well as legal, historical sense, political philosophy and sharp: the significance of its rulings, the judiciary in the constitutional courts should be reserved for the greatest jurists of the country.
some examples. The burqa carrying some Muslim women. An intolerable outrage for the West, a symbol of subjugation of women, which violates the most basic human rights and mental health and even physical. "If you want to come and enjoy our first world should respect and integrity," shouted angry European nationals, while in Belgium, France, Italy, Netherlands and Luxembourg and its use is banned in public places.
But the burqa, the niqab and the veil are also expressions of religious freedom. Of freedom to profess and act out the cult that is chosen or, as most of the time, since little is imposed (for stupid that is). And authorize its use in public is a sign of tolerance for other's beliefs, acceptance of difference and therefore a good start on the road to true "integration" (because otherwise the "standardization" by deleting the difference is exactly the negation).
Sarkozy wants the French to remove foreign nationals who commit crimes, something that looks reasonable at first sight when they abuse the trust of the country that welcomed generosity. However, what was the purpose to grant nationality to follow if it was just treated like second class citizens? Would a "real" French ceases to be because it becomes criminal? No, just go to jail.
In Venice, a gondolier provides shamelessly walk 40 minutes to 80 euros, the official rate. A Frenchman is offended and tells an American thief rushes while happy with his glamorous wife on the boat. In practical terms, the gondoliers are a mafia, the Sicilian style, which can be accessed only be Italian (there are only 425 licenses to practice the craft, which cost about 300 000 euros each). A German woman, Alexandra Hai, tried for ten years to get into the union, which until recently was exclusively male, but only marginally got it working on three hotels in the midst of the insults of his colleagues, until a court intervened to at least respect it while sailing. Later, in 2009, Giorgia Boscolo became the prima donna Gondoliero a Venezia officially, it being understood that it was not gender discrimination, but only regionally.
Needless to say, when playing sacred places of the Catholic Church, as the medieval concept of family. In Latin America, Uruguay and Argentina legalized gay marriage. The Brazilian Superior Court of Justice just go further enabling the adoption by homosexual couples.
Who is right? The answer is easy: who the judges decide. It should be, in terms of Dworkin, who best tune with the philosophical and political conception of the historical context, temporal and spatial under review. In Rome the circus no longer exists, and the gladiators I do not doubt that his death may have been fighting a bloody show as artistic as to when the Romans "became civilized." But when was that? And more difficult, how can a judge civilize a people? By an exercise of argument, of course, materialized, however, in an act of power: the Case of constitutional protection or, in the case of Colombia.
The judge is not desirable that liar who says to fail "in law" because it found "the" solution for the case (the same superhuman being called metaphorically Dworkin Judge Hercules). On the contrary, one who understands and acknowledges that failure to move essentially means the right to within supporting that supports multiple solutions, some more plausible than others. And aplaudímetro varies depending on the context: in the midst of applause Catalan and English government's refusal on 28 July last the Catalan Parliament banned bull from 2012, becoming the second region, after the Canary Islands, dares to do so in the historic cradle of bullfighting. In other words, in judicial matters the verb "fail" is also the second meaning that recognizes the dictionary: mistakes, acknowledge fallibility.
If you were in my hands these failures would ban the bullfights although I understand their aesthetic value and I can enjoy them, because I find legitimate aspiration to eliminate all forms of unnecessary violence against living beings and defend the existence the dignity of animals, not outlaw the burqa, the niqab or veil, not because I seem admirable utensils (I'm addicted to the neckline), but because its ban, which affects only a minority group in Europe, it is counterproductive: the husbands of these poor women do not leave them out or the corner (or they also we will stop marrying?) would take the nationality Sarkozy for xenophobic, to see if they receive with the same bounty in another country (I hope not read this column because I was expelled from French territory) would be continued cheating tourists wealthy and happy, but encouraging the entrance to the office of more women, rather than witness the invasion of the canals of Venice gondoliers obese choked with McDonald's hamburgers, and allow homosexuals not only marriage and adoption, but also the priesthood, the military and the exercise of any other profession crazy or right reserved to heterosexuals.
However, I consider it barbaric to someone who, with reasons and arguments, defending a line of thinking than mine. On the contrary, I will be forever grateful for teaching me that the world has many faces.
0 comments:
Post a Comment