Uday Pasricha

CEO, Permaweld


This conversation is closed.

That INTENT of a LAW must become reason to enlarge its interpretation if it the INTENT is not delivering the intended benefit

A right is something that is "just given" in a democratic environment. I believe the a 250 year old charter has enshrined this in constitutions in almost ALL democracies all over the world.
Now we have some matured democracies and the literate know that a LAW starts off as a line phrased in a language which was driven and based on "the then circumstances that had a causality" . This logic we use to solve serious problems that do not create more conflict.
250 years ago the causality and circumstance was "slavery which had to be abolished in a sustainable way". I believe we should agree that lots of things have evolved and changed over 250 years and specially the numbers. While we never want to change any word within the charter; perhaps some additions, based on the fact that Every Law was designed to have an intent.
Society and judges ( not lawyers and activists) should consider INTENT to be to be a major factor IF A LAW HAS is been unable to deliver because of NEW circumstance and causality.
Logically when following the Law, everyone and anyone who physically lands or just stands in a democratic geography/soil must be granted his/her civil rights which are basic human rights. This is perfect.
BUT what if that person has no clue about "what this means" or has no concern for this new alien society since he or she has never lived in a democratic society, and he/she even has a logic to do damage to this new society. So what happens when persons who come from a land where there is NO DEMOCRACY are given freedom because he/she now just stands on a soil which has been built and declared to be a Free society by others. Now I will not state my opinion because there are many with more knowledge; so as an observer living (and having visited lands) where one is told is a democratic society has seen and experiences that Today just a fringe opinion or behavior seems to change and control the lifestyle of the majority. So is democracy based on soil or does it lie between the ears

  • thumb
    Feb 10 2012: Yes Erik but one cannot even think of trying to "update" constitutional individual rights issue as one could be considered a heretic and burnt at the stake. As millions and billions aspire to become "equal" the intent of getting a free society has failed. As mentioned this is similar to economics where trickle down was considered the obvious result of free markets. SO the statement of enlarging the scope and question to other thinkers whether INTENT can ever be considered to be legally relevant to question the 100% focus only on individual. IN THE LAST 2 decades, the majority in Society have had to change their lifestyle completely because of the action of a small group who are clearly in the minority. Whether it is Wall street that almost bankrupted the world or terrorists that change our way of life, we are increasingly starting to see "small fringe groups" starting to become more powerful than society in democratic environments, where society should be the the senior beneficiary. Unlike 250 years ago today the only group which threatens the freedom of individuals is Government. Those who were to be the protectors of our rights are the first to take them away. So an individual now only needs protection from the government, and not general society. Everything has now reversed in what i consider to be the non linear era.
  • thumb
    Feb 9 2012: The 250 year-old laws, how you call them mr. Udai, provide legal solutions to old problems that are present in today's society as well. Of course, a lot of things has changed ever since, that's why the laws have been adapted or amended to fit the present circumstances. Other new laws have been created as well in order to answer to new challenges that present themselves along with the technological, social, cultural and economical progress.

    In my opinon, laws shouldn't be INTERPRETED because some might exploit that and distort the intent of that law as they see fit for themselves. It's not the interpretation that needs to be enlarged. A law must simply be "updated" from time to time, and that is already happening in democratic societies.

    As for the person who comes from a society with no democratic background into a democratic society, I believe it's that person's DUTY to inform themselves over the laws that are there. If that person does not understand what it means, again, it's that person's duty to seek advice on the matter. There are plenty of services and law firms that do such counseling nowadays.