It is a mandate not a choice !!!! We have to abide by law no second option . In my case I had no problem I was born in democratic society (India) I migrated to something identical in Canada :)
It is a mandate not a choice !!!! We have to abide by law no second option . In my case I had no problem I was born in democratic society (India) I migrated to something identical in Canada :)
Most assuredly. If one can't accept the laws of the host country, then one must not go there. Very simple. When you are a guest in someone's home, you follow their rules.
I may have some other thoughts about some rules of my country. Among them the strongest is against the rule for 50% reservation of all sector (as student of institutions, all Government aided service, all promotion of all types of service) for the people of designated CASTE basis, bypassing the quality as the parameter.
But still I obey the laws of my country, as I think it is the minimum qualification of a person to live in a country.
We have the wisdom of our ancestors, saying, "O stranger, be moral and be polite." As you are in a strange country or a strange place you must have the politeness and respect of others. You should, also, respect the rules, laws and the regulations of that foreign country and we should do that even in a strange place in our country!
This is not absolute and will always be a matter of judgement.
I approach this issue from a rights point of view. Of course in general it is the case that one expects to follow the laws of the country in which one resides or visits, but human rights are not bounded by national boundaries. Thus, if a law infringes human rights then it would be justifiable to 1) campaign against its imposition, and 2) where necessary disobey it.
if you were a doctor woking in circumstances where doing what you consider is in the interests of someone being treated conflicted with the legal regime in place, then it might be justifiable for that doctor to refuse to follow the law. For the physician to put the life of a patient above the requirement of law would in most circumstances be justified. The law might require him to breach confidentiality, and under some circumstances I can see that conflicting with medical ethics.
This comes down to the distinction between law and ethics. I doubt we would have developed an ethical legality if people had not been prepared to break laws on principles.
Some might argue that it depends on the degree of democracy in making laws. That is to a large degree so, but it is not absolute. So I think there are the following considerations:
1) is it a matter of human rights;
2) what the alternative course of action might be;
3) does it involve the life of another or others with whom you have agency.
If we are in Rome, we must do as the Romans do. We must be careful and not trample on the highly esteemed laws of a group. It shows our respect and our strong conviction that everyone is important. Best regards
Yes, obviously. If this country you are residing in is not your own country, and you find it unable to abide by its laws, then please do leave.
If the country is the one of your own nationality, then you are free to work within its legal and political systems, to get the laws changed.
To me, this is very much the same as individual households. If the rules of your own house are not to your liking, you are free to change them (in agreement with your spouse, hopefully!). If you are a guest, you abide by the rules of the host. End of story.
Yes, one must abide by the laws of the country of residence. This does not, however, keep one from questioning the system of laws and working peacefully to adapt antiquated laws to fit the changing of the times.
One should always reserve the right to disobey laws where they infringe human rights. We might do so as a form of civil disobedience, which in the past has been an effective way of bringing injustice to the fore politically. Of course, this might be done knowing the consequences of imprisonment or fine. Nor are laws inherently good or representative of custom. There is a difference between 'respecting the customs' of a country and its laws.
Having said this, it would be foolish to reside in a country without understanding its laws. Nor should all 'bad' laws be disobeyed or ignored, which is why I choose to use the term 'reserve the right'. What I mean by that is that we might choose to take the consequences of disobeying a law for a greater imperative.
No system of law can work if we simply chose to ignore those laws we considered bad. That would be anarchic. However, good law is not static. It evolves. The law on abortion in many countries has changed substantially in recent times.
We might also choose to break a law in protest in an unconnected cause. This might be so when demonstrating or protesting.
Another part of the question is whether it is ever justified to take such action in a country in which we do not reside as a citizen. Sometimes, the answer to that is yes. But again we should be prepared for the consequences.