|
Post by davedan on Jun 14, 2011 19:16:11 GMT -5
LHM: you wanted to know what was the illegality and smurfette told you. Tort of invasion of privacy. Now we don't have such a tort as recognised by law in Australia but the US does and the UK kind of do because of the EU Convention on human Rights. Just admit that you were wrong or thank smurfette for the information and move on. It is possible to be wrong and you'll be far less annoying than if you keep trying to salvage it.
Vene: You genuinely assert Australians have less rights than Americans? Four words: The Communist Party Case.
Despite all your so called rights you still made a political ideology illegal. Our parliament tried the same thing and our high Court slapped them down. Oh and Torture. Oh and holding people without trial in Guantanamo. Yeah your rights seem to be highly effective.
Chad and DPD - who is CWC?
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jun 14, 2011 19:19:53 GMT -5
It is not illegal to be Communist or even a Nazi here in the US.
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Jun 14, 2011 19:20:53 GMT -5
It is not illegal to be Communist or even a Nazi here in the US. Not at the moment but it was under McCarthy
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jun 14, 2011 19:22:53 GMT -5
It is not illegal to be Communist or even a Nazi here in the US. Not at the moment but it was under McCarthy You can't really use that as an example in this kind of argument. It falls flat.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jun 14, 2011 19:23:29 GMT -5
Vene: You genuinely assert Australians have less rights than Americans? Four words: The Communist Party Case. We have more rights stated in our legal documents. I am sure that, in practice, the difference is minimal.
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Jun 14, 2011 19:24:12 GMT -5
Not at the moment but it was under McCarthy You can't really use that as an example in this kind of argument. It falls flat. Um no it doesn't. Because you had the same relevant constitution at the time that an ideology was illegal. Therefore the constitution did not actually protect your rights. Ergo not falling flat. Being relevant and incisive. Which is how I roll.
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Jun 14, 2011 19:25:52 GMT -5
Vene: You genuinely assert Australians have less rights than Americans? Four words: The Communist Party Case. We have more rights stated in our legal documents. I am sure that, in practice, the difference is minimal. The point I was making was that despite you having more rights stated in legal documents, you in practice have less rights and your legal documents are ineffective at actual protection. Also I double post because I'm double winning. (actually I'm sorry I didn't see both responses at the same time)
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jun 14, 2011 20:12:25 GMT -5
You can't really use that as an example in this kind of argument. It falls flat. Um no it doesn't. Because you had the same relevant constitution at the time that an ideology was illegal. Therefore the constitution did not actually protect your rights. Ergo not falling flat. Being relevant and incisive. Which is how I roll. Our laws and rights evolve based on Supreme Court cases. I don't know how it works in Australia.
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Jun 14, 2011 20:16:33 GMT -5
Your laws evolve based on cases and precedents, as do ours being common law countries (yeah Henry II) but the claim is that you have more rights based upon your constitution, declaration of rights which are statutory (kind of) instruments not on case law.
Part of my point is that these sort of protections are only so good as they are afforded by courts or that courts are allowed to function. Hello Fiji I'm looking at you.
The US has had and still has these failings. No more rights than us. I suspect the place with the most real rights is somewhere in Scandinavia either that or those fucking Kiwis
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Jun 14, 2011 20:27:02 GMT -5
Chad and DPD - who is CWC? Chris-chan, 'creator' of Sonichu. If you need more info, I'll PM some links. >.>
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Jun 14, 2011 20:28:45 GMT -5
Ja links bitte
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jun 14, 2011 20:40:54 GMT -5
We have more rights stated in our legal documents. I am sure that, in practice, the difference is minimal. The point I was making was that despite you having more rights stated in legal documents, you in practice have less rights and your legal documents are ineffective at actual protection. Also I double post because I'm double winning. (actually I'm sorry I didn't see both responses at the same time) No. Currently in practice we do not have less rights or else WBC would not be allowed to continue, the Neo-nazis and Aryan Nations would all be locked up, every Arab and/or Muslim would be in camps just like the Japanese were in WW2. You cannot throw up something from the past as proof that we do not have less rights in practice.
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Jun 14, 2011 20:54:40 GMT -5
The point I was making was that despite you having more rights stated in legal documents, you in practice have less rights and your legal documents are ineffective at actual protection. Also I double post because I'm double winning. (actually I'm sorry I didn't see both responses at the same time) No. Currently in practice we do not have less rights or else WBC would not be allowed to continue, the Neo-nazis and Aryan Nations would all be locked up, every Arab and/or Muslim would be in camps just like the Japanese were in WW2. You cannot throw up something from the past as proof that we do not have less rights in practice. Why would Arabs or muslims be locked up? You're not at war with any Arab country nor are you engaged in Holy War. Yes what happened to communists under McCarthy is still relevant. Your legal documents have previously proved ineffective at securing the rights they allegedely protect. Yes that is relevant. Now I'm not saying that the US has less freedom than say Syria. But you have states where Athiests can't hold office. C'mon. The US is not the 'free-est', if there is such a thing, country in the world. Not that the US is a bad place. It's a great place, it's just not 'the' greatest place. Nor is Australia. I mean I love it. And it's the place for me but I recognise it could be better.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jun 14, 2011 21:36:25 GMT -5
Keep in mind, LHM, she never told him she had an abortion. She was pregnant, and then she wasn't anymore. He's the one who made the assumption that she had an abortion and decided to make it public. How did he find out she was no longer pregnant? He fucking stalked her! God damn, read some news for fuck's sake
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jun 14, 2011 21:40:08 GMT -5
You can't really use that as an example in this kind of argument. It falls flat. Um no it doesn't. Because you had the same relevant constitution at the time that an ideology was illegal. Therefore the constitution did not actually protect your rights. Ergo not falling flat. Being relevant and incisive. Which is how I roll. But since that was struck down, apparantly rights do work as there are no longer laws against it
|
|