ManusJustus said:
It depends how far the law deviates from my set of ethics and what the punishment for the crime is. I would break a law if I thought the law violated my freedom (and by freedom I mean right to vote, free speech, etc.), but if something was trivial to me I'd just assume follow the law than be faced with fines or jail time. The rule of law is an extension of the accepted ethics of society. If a law goes against the ethics of a majority of people, then that law is obsolete and measures should be taken to overturn it. If it is impossible to overturn a such a law, then the upkeep of that law is unjust and undemocratic and should be broken. There is no difference between Zedalya breaking the law the and the protestors in Iran breaking the law. The difference here is, for your own interests, you want the protestors in Iran to succeed but you want Zedalya to fail. |
The difference is Honduras is a representative government.
The constitution is a document that represents the rules the people of the country expect everyone to follow. When Zedalya did what he did, he broke those rules, thus defying the people he was elected to govern.
Honduras can have multiple terms limits added to there constitution. It just needs to be done though congress. Congress better represents the people the a president.
So in Iran, the protests are the people fighting to be heard. Trying to create a form of government where the people have a say in what the government does.
In Honduras, that's happened already, and Zedalya's consequences for his actions are an example of it's execution.
In both Iran with the protests, and Zedalya being removed from office are the same side of an argument, so my position is not a contradiction. If you are for the protests in Iran, yours are however.
How can you be for one group fighting for a government that reperesdents the people, and then for a man who defies the will of the people?
