MRFH Political Debate #1

[FiveMileSmile]

It's been a while since we had an interesting political debate here on the forums, so I thought I would start this one in the hopes of getting some discussion going. I'm fairly sure that as a community of relatively sensible and sane people we can have this discussion in a rational way, without personal attacks et al.

Now, let me say from the outset that I'm not an expert on the American Consititution which is pretty much the centerpiece of this argument; however, I have watched 3 full Series of The West Wing and I watch FOX News every now and again, so I feel that I'm as well informed as anyone needs to be

On to the topic at hand:-

You may have noticed in the press recently that Senator Kelly (R) from Oregon is championing a bill which would require those individuals with evolutionary abilities beyond those of normal humans (who the press calls 'mutants', so I guess we'll use that term, even though it comes across as slightly derogatory in my opinion) to register their names, details, and descriptions of their powers with the government. His concern is that these individuals could use their extraordinary powers in ways that would endanger the freedoms and lives of ordinary US citizens.

I'm fairly sure that the consitutional arguments against this bill say that the 5th Amendment (Not being impelled to give testimony against yourself) and the Bill of Right's right to Free Association would mandate against a Mutant Registration Act; on the other hand, it has been demonstrated on a number of occasions that several of these 'mutants' have powers which are dangerous and potentially lethal to the public at large.

America requires those people armed with a deadly weapon to be registered with the state - would a mutant registration act not be a wise similar precaution? But what about the constitutional questions? I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

From a personal standpoint, I can understand people's very valid concerns about the safety of the public; but with possible hate or fear motivated crimes against mutants living in suburban communities, and possible discriminatory issues as far as jobs/housing/whatever are concerned would make many mutants unwilling to register for fear of persecution, making any such registration scheme difficult to enforce and ultimately unworkable.

- Rich

[druidGirl]

would make many mutants unwilling to register for fear of persecution, making any such registration scheme difficult to enforce and ultimately unworkable.

That sums up the whole argument right there. People just wouldn't register. As long as they could keep their powers a secret, that is. Then you'd have Mutant groups, coming together, to fight against the general public because they feel their basic rights were being taken from them. Such extremist groups are dangerous. Not just to the general public but to the average mutant who just wants to live a normal life, as normal as possible anyway. A small group of people outwardly expressing their views in a negative or violent way tarnishes the image of people who don't have the same social or political views. Then you've got an increase of discrimination against a group because of a small amount of people in that group. Next thing you know, near catastrophe at the statue of liberty.

[FiveMileSmile]

Surely that view a little disingenious though? Every large group with a belief system is bound to create such extremist groups, expressing themselves in negative or violent ways; an sure, amongst the politically ignorant such acts can be seen as stemming from a whole community. Eco terrorists burn down or blow up corporate projects that they consider environmentally unsound, but that doesn't necessarily equate to an outcry against the Green party.

For every activist group, tradition holds that there will be a moderate majority who, by openly discussing their culture or beliefs are able both to foster tolerance and to disassociate themselves from the acts of fringe radicals who proclaim to share their views. Do you think the general populace would prefer that people were open enough to admit that they belonged to this group of people, or deliberately hid the fact? Do you not think that mutants hiding themselves in the local populace will foster an idea amongst people that they have something more sinister to hide?

Admittedly, there would be valid concerns about the inital xenophobia that would be the inevitable result of a mass mutant 'coming out'; but the ultimate goal is not only to reassure the public, but to allow mutants to educate the general populace and allay their fears, ultimately becoming as accepted as the various other organisations that make up the melting pot of races and ideologies which is the foundation of American culture.

The consititutonal issues are still murky; but when California lore requires people with a certain degree of martial arts prowess to register themselves as deadly weapons, shouldn't people with the ability to send people comatose with a touch, or throw fire out of their hands, be compelled to show the same degree of public accountability?

[Magill]

FiveMileSmile said:

You may have noticed in the press recently that Senator Kelly (R) from Oregon is championing a bill which would require those individuals with evolutionary abilities beyond those of normal humans (who the press calls 'mutants', so I guess we'll use that term, even though it comes across as slightly derogatory in my opinion) to register their names, details, and descriptions of their powers with the government. His concern is that these individuals could use their extraordinary powers in ways that would endanger the freedoms and lives of ordinary US citizens.

How do we define what is "beyond those of normal humans"? Should we force anyone with an above-average IQ (say, 150 or so) to register? How about Olympic powerlifters? I'm sure they are far more strong than a "normal human." What about skills that are not innate? Should everyone who has knowledge of activities such as concocting explosives, safe-cracking, writing computer viruses and such be forced to register with the government? Even so-called "normal humans" have the ability to "endanger the freedoms and lives of ordinary US citizens."

FiveMileSmile said:

I'm fairly sure that the consitutional arguments against this bill say that the 5th Amendment (Not being impelled to give testimony against yourself) and the Bill of Right's right to Free Association would mandate against a Mutant Registration Act; on the other hand, it has been demonstrated on a number of occasions that several of these 'mutants' have powers which are dangerous and potentially lethal to the public at large.

You also have 4th Amendment issues--"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Since in most cases you can't visually tell whether one is a mutant, the government would have to do comprehensive genetic testing of the entire population. Which means the majority of people tested (assuming mutants are a minority population) are subject to "unreasonable search ansd seizure." Mandatory testing of all US citizens also brings up 1st Amendment issues--what if some religions (and I'm sure there are some) are opposed to such testing? Should their members be forced to partake?

The rulings for Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas (the recent overturning of anti-sodomy laws) both rested on the 14th Ammendment, which states in part that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This proposed law is a clear violation of the due process and equal protection clauses.

FiveMileSmile said:

America requires those people armed with a deadly weapon to be registered with the state - would a mutant registration act not be a wise similar precaution? But what about the constitutional questions? I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

I think you're bing a bit broad with your definition of deadly weapons. I'm certainly not required to be registered with the state for my posession of a set of Wusthof knives, which surely can be deadly. I can even transport them if I wish. Although I would have to be registered to carry them as "concealed weapons." However, as I'm leaving my apartment, I'm not subject to a full-body search to ensure that I am not breaking the law, which seems analogous to pre-emptive genetic testing.

Depending on the mutant's powers, I wonder if some people would also make 2nd Amendment arguments as to why the mutants should have the right to freely posess their "gifts."

FiveMileSmile said:

From a personal standpoint, I can understand people's very valid concerns about the safety of the public; but with possible hate or fear motivated crimes against mutants living in suburban communities. . .

Are you saying there would not be hate or fear motivated crimes in urban or rural areas?

[DarthToad]

FiveMileSmile said:

Surely that view a little disingenious though?

That word was on my SATs on Saturday.

Anyway, because of the equal protection under the law/due process clause of the 14th amendment, they can't do anything to mutants, because they disirve equal protection under the law. And again, the people with IQs over 180 don't have to be registered, so why should mutants? They're both human abnormalties that could have great advantages or disadvantages for society. In truth, they shouldn't have to register.

[Vorlina]

After all, although we licence people to drive, we should not licence them to live.



P.S. I think we all may have too much time on our hands.

P.P.S. Anyone who spots the "deliberate" spelling mistake in Rich's last post (high IQ, right) can have the prize that he promised me back in around 2002.

[DocD83]

Is it "disingenious"? Webster online doesn't recognize it, anyway.

[DARTHMADLER]

Not that I can entirely believe that I'm replying to this debate but my Geek genes are taking over:

If the mutants are a form of evolution what would be the point? If this is just an evolutionary process then eventually everyone will be a "mutant". Would everyone then have to register themselves?

In the X-Men universe there are good mutants and bad ones and fortunately the good ones are interested in keeping the bad ones in check. So I don't see any reason to bother registering any.

[funkymartini]

Maybe I haven't reached the level of geekiness that you guys have, but really, are you guys for real?

I mean I love X-Men as much as the next guy, but you're debating a fictional political issue that we do not and will not ever have to face.

Haha, to each their own

[DocD83]

Just wait until the next Mithril debate.

Let's see, weekly checklist: buy groceries, check; watch the Simpsons, check; mention mithril, check....

[Hucklebubba]

funkymartini said:

...you're debating a fictional political issue that we do not and will not ever have to face.

You make it sound silly.

Thus, slowly and painfully doth realization dawn as to what sort of message board you've gotten yourself into.

[Lissa]

I always thought that the interesting thing about the X-Men and the mutant registration act was that, while yeah, we're not going to be registering teleports any time soon, it's not THAT far off from reality. I mean, look at the way people from the Middle East have been treated in this country since 9/11. Or homosexuals. Or how hard a time people with HIV can have finding a job, or whatever. While the specifics are fictional, I think that the reaction of the government and the people have a strong basis in reality. However, the nice thing about debating something like this (note my active participation though) is that people don't get as worked up over it, because it's not real. Less vested interest or whatever.

Anyway, yeah, we get pretty into what might seem like silly debates. On the other hand, the environment here tends to be much nicer and more mature than any other forum I've ever seen.

All of which sounds much better than my original thought, which was the simple Simpson's quote "My cat's breath smells like cat food."

[Magill]

I entirely realize this is silly. But no one seemed to be taking Rich seriously, so I thought I'd at least try.

Plus, it killed time at work.

[FiveMileSmile]

Lissa's point is exactly what I was trying to convey - there's no reason why you can't have informed debates about theoretical situations? After all, that's pretty much what any Debate Team at any University does, and people don't find that silly.

Informed argument where passions aren't running high can be pretty good fun; after all, you know the other people can be brought around to your way of thinking, so its just about who can make the most valid points.

It was just an experiment, and it kept me entertained reading and responding, which I guess was the ultimate point of the exercise.

- Rich

[DocD83]

Here you spent all that time typing in the first post, and Justin gets a bigger response from "moo."

I love these boards.