Bush supporters 'in denial'?

[Marla_Singer]

So if you find the Patriot Act so offensive, perhaps it might be time to take a long hard look in the mirror. France continues to this day to practice legal procedures that we in the United States find repulsive.

examples ?
What are those repulsive legal procedures ? You have certainly something in mind, the fact kids can't wear a veil hiding their heads at school ? Please respect our traditions, and those are that religion is not a factor supposed to lead to different rights for the education. We don't ask you to do like us. So why are you asking us to do like you, without even knowing our profound traditions ?

so for you to suggest that this statute imposed in the wake of a truly horrific Act of Terror and designed to Prevent further such attacks is an assault on our freedom, you're a bit off track.

How's this off-track ? What is supposed to prove the fact we have a tradition of equal education for all you disagree with ? I don't see any link in here.

Granted, this document is flawed, just as every piece of paper passing through (and being modified by) two separate Legislative bodies and signed into law by the Executive will be. Which is why we have a Constitution that overrides any bad law that might infringe on our guaranteed rights. There have already been challenges in the Courts about aspects of the Patriot Act. This is as it Should be.. if parts of it are bad, they will be struck down, but the Act itself does not represent the failure of our Liberty or Freedom.

Do you support the fact that your country, which you present as a country of Freedom, haven't signed the protocol of the International Criminal Court of the Hague ? Have you just an idea about what example it gives to the world that the US, pretending to be the Apostle of the Human Rights, don't want to participate to a Criminal Court which has as exact purpose to make respect those Human Rights ?

And to be honest, I am under no illusions whatsoever that America is not 'loved' around the world as you put it. This has been clear for many years actually, long, long before George W. Bush became President. But I digress..

Which country in the world hasn't ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child ? Only two in the world ! Somalia and the United States of America.

Which country hasn't signed the Kyoto Protocol ?

How do you want the US to be considered as an example of Democracy in the world if that country keeps on considering itself as above the others ?

 

[Stapel]

Rather than start a new debate over the validity/fairness of that one aspect, let's temporarily set it aside and ask this question: (Apart from Capital Punishment) Is the United States an example of a 'Free nation' if one is referring to criminal jurisprudence?

That's a tough one!

First of all, the legal systems in Western Europe (safe Britain) are, iirc, based on the Code Napoleon, which is different from the Anglo-Saxon (weird name) legal system.

Any criminal law system will occasionally find an innocent man guilty, whether you use a jury, or a single judge.
In the Netherlands, we never ever use juries in trials. Minor criminal trials (NB: a minor case, can still be about a major crime), will be judged by one single judge. This person is well-educated, well-trained and well-experienced, but can still have a bad day.
In appeal, there will be 3 judges.

A jury lacks knowledge of jurisprudence, but that can be both an advantage or a disadvantage. I don't think the difference is that big, though here in NL, you will hardly find a single lawyer, DA or judge being a warm advocate of the jury system.

A jury system does have one important disadvantage, which could hit the nerve of Freedom: It might be sensitive for emotions, feelings, religion, lifestyle, or whatever.

If I, by pure chance, would face a court in rural Alabama, being accused of not paying my bill at a gaz station, a jury might very well find me guilty anyway, when the DA points out I am nasty stinking liberal!

Furthermore, the American criminal law system uses bargains. Admitting a minor offense, and then not being prosecuted for the major offense. I think that is questionable. It has its advantages, but it most certainly does increase the number of innocent people found guilty.

 

[Marla_Singer]

That's a tough one!

First of all, the legal systems in Western Europe (safe Britain) are, iirc, based on the Code Napoleon, which is different from the Anglo-Saxon (weird name) legal system.

The anglo-saxon one is called the common law.

 

[bigfatron]

examples ?
How do you want the US to be considered as an example of Democracy in the world if that country keeps on considering itself as above the others ?

But Marla, the United States IS above other countries, that's because they are better than us and deep down we all want to be like them!

See, it's really simple when you get the hang of it...

[j/k btw]

 

[Stapel]

The anglo-saxon one is called the common law.

Oh?
In NL, we usually refer to Angelsaksisch, for some reason.

 

[bigfatron]

Oh?
In NL, we usually refer to Angelsaksisch, for some reason.

It was the law agreed between Ethelred the Unready (literally 'unwise') and his subjects in 1014 which affirmed certain basic or 'common' freedoms to all men in England and which served as the basis on which Ethelred was allowed back to England and on to the throne after Sweyn died. When Canute (Cnut) reconquered England for the danes he married Ethelred's wife Emma and retained the common law as the basis for his rule.

Anglo-Saxon England was basically about seven centuries ahead of most of the rest of western Europe in recognising the basic rights of men regardless of station - this is partly why the Norman conquest of England was so great a disaster for the English natives, as it imposed an alien feudal, fealty-based system in place of the Anglo-Saxon duty-based system. It took until the late 14th century to reaffirm the common rights of Englishmen along the old Anglo-Saxon model.

All a bit off topic, sorry...

 

[The Last Conformist]

Not one sane person will step into a private religious institution (aka church) and seek religious recognition for gay marriage!

If so, there's no shortage of insane people.

 

[Stapel]

If so, there's no shortage of insane people.

Let me rephrase it a bit:

Not one sane person will step into a private religious institution (aka church), not accepting homosexual relationships as something God meant to be, and demand a religious recognition for gay marriage, from this perticular church!

It seems quite obvious to me that nobody has the right to tell what a religious organisation should bless, and what not. If a certain church only wishes to recognise marriage between man and woman, it seems indeed insane to me, when a person, not being a member of this church, steps inside, and demands the recognition for gay marriage.

To each religious group its own rituals and blessings, as long as they don't bother others!
(Making terrible noise with big bells on sunday morning, when Stapel suffers from a hangover, counts as bothering other people )

Having said this, I'd like to point out that there's no shortage of insane people anyway !

 

[The Last Conformist]

@Stapel: You seem to have read something into my post that I did not mean to put there, but your rephrasing does not change anything - there are people who demand exactly that, and there's way too many of them for my liking.

It might be an exclusively Swedish phenomenon, and some of it is clearly based on a failure or refusal to accept that the Church of Sweden is no longer a state church. But I have heard the demand directed at churches they know are not and never were anything but private, non-state organizations.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Freedoms do come in many flavors as you referred to. Usually it is just those economic freedoms that are pointed out in the United States as more liberal (apart from Denmark!)

For the record, Denmark wasn't the only country which beat the US in that particular ranking - I mentioned it because it was the one prototypical welfare state to do so. The most economically free country, again according to this particular ranking, is Singapore.

than other countries, while social freedoms aren't as universal. And yet, apart from those 'liberties' that Stapel listed, does the US really trail other nations in social freedoms or does it lead? We do have strong protection of religious freedoms and other freedoms of expression. The right to move about the country is something we all take for granted as well we should. Peacefully gathering, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, these are all guaranteed. Civil Rights are certainly guaranteed as well.

All those freedoms exist in your typical WEan country too, sometimes in higher degrees, sometimes in lower. Saying which country has the overall highest degree of social freedom would require weighting them; needless to say, people will disagree about relative weights. My subjective impression is that the US does trail countries like Sweden or the Netherlands.

And it has been noted in many other threads on this forum that we (the US) also still employ the Death Penalty. Rather than start a new debate over the validity/fairness of that one aspect, let's temporarily set it aside and ask this question: (Apart from Capital Punishment) Is the United States an example of a 'Free nation' if one is referring to criminal jurisprudence?

I don't think capital punishment is an issue here, really. Denying someone rights and freedoms is part of the point of capital punishment - the same goes for prison*. If anyone opposes CP because it makes someone unfree, they ought oppose prison spells too.

Anyway, yes, I think the US is an example of a 'free nation' as regards criminal jurisprudence, but not the example.

* There's a Swedish technical term for prison sentences that translates as "freedom-robbing punishments".

 

[Stapel]

@Stapel: You seem to have read something into my post that I did not mean to put there, but your rephrasing does not change anything - there are people who demand exactly that, and there's way too many of them for my liking.

It might be an exclusively Swedish phenomenon, and some of it is clearly based on a failure or refusal to accept that the Church of Sweden is no longer a state church. But I have heard the demand directed at churches they know are not and never were anything but private, non-state organizations.

Well, these people are indeed insane then. It would be the same as demanding my cat to be baptised.

This phenomenon is no point here, afaik. First of all, we have (I think that is a language thing) a clear difference between marriage (a 100% legal issue) and the religious blessing. A typical wedding invitation of a Christian couple sais something like:
We will get married at 11am in the townhall of Delft next saturday, Deo Volente.
The Churchial inblessing (literaly translated) will be at 1pm in the Church

There are also some liberal referends/churches that accept a marriage between homosexuals, but that's not really common.

 

[IglooDame]

Prostitution objectifies Women and Children, treating them as nothing more than saleable objects. What future is there for a prostitute who is no longer able to attract customers (assuming they survive that long)? How many diseases, acts of violence, unwanted pregnancies (and abortions), have they had to suffer? In countries where prostitution is legal, there are better conditions for the women, but that does not change the fact that they remain nothing more than commodities to be bought and sold.

Please pardon the cherry-picking, but everything you've said about adult prostitution applies equally to professional athletes. Indeed, for the non-elite players that are never going to see even local endorsement contracts, they have little to go on except savings (from their admittedly above-average salaries) once they're past their athletic prime, and football linemen in particular have bodies permanently and significantly damaged. Yet because sports are (aside from the whole touching pigskin Leviticus thing) a 'wholesome' entertainment whereas prostitution is a sin, we call prostitution degrading and shun women that make money using their bodies and in the same breath express admiration for professional athletes.

 

[Akka]

Oh, please IglooDude...
Don't play dumb and this one and pretend there is nothing in prostitution that is fundamentally different than athletes...

 

[IglooDame]

Oh, please IglooDude...
Don't play dumb and this one and pretend there is nothing in prostitution that is fundamentally different than athletes...

Ummm... Did I not express myself clearly? I was rebutting Elagad in pointing out that there isn't any material differences between prostitutes and athletes, at least in the aspects that he cites to support continued prohibition of prostitution.

We're on the same side in this one, shipmate.

 

[Mr. Do]

I'd like to know how many unwanted pregnancies and abortions a typical Premiership football player has had to go through...

 

[IglooDame]

I'd like to know how many unwanted pregnancies and abortions a typical Premiership football player has had to go through...

And I'd like to know how many knee surgeries a typical Amsterdam prostitute has had to endure.

But on a more serious note, don't prostitutes use birth control?

 

[Stapel]

And I'd like to know how many knee surgeries a typical Amsterdam prostitute has had to endure.

But on a more serious note, don't prostitutes use birth control?

Birth control? Prostitutes would never use such an immoral invention!

 

[Mr. Do]

And I'd like to know how many knee surgeries a typical Amsterdam prostitute has had to endure.

But you said that everything that applies to prostitution also applies to sports. Perhaps you might want to clarify that maybe there are some areas that makes prostitution slightly less socially desirable than sporting events. Not that I disagree with legalisation of prostitution, but I can accept that some people are not in favour of it.

 

[Stapel]

But you said that everything that applies to prostitution also applies to sports.

No he never said that.......... you ought to read better, I think.

 

[Mr. Do]

Elgalad: How many diseases, acts of violence, unwanted pregnancies (and abortions), have [prostitutes] had to suffer?

IglooDude: everything you've said about adult prostitution applies equally to professional athletes.

Am I hallucinating, or do you need to follow your own insulting advice, Stapel? Well, you might be right on a semantic level, as IglooDude did not say that prostitution is exactly the same as sports in every way, and you should have been able to work out what it was I meant.