Page 433 of 623 FirstFirst ... 333383423431432433434435443483533 ... LastLast
Results 6,481 to 6,495 of 9344
Like Tree211Likes

Thread: Lord Presents..What Made Your Day + What Ruined Your Day IV

  1. #6481
    Cricketer Of The Year Agent Nationaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,863
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    Courts do interpret what rights are, that's their purpose. But you can't have a right that's created that didn't exist and no one ever voted on. There are many gray areas where such a thing is not possible to determine (e.g how the bill of rights ought to be applied to speech on TV, radio, internet), and it is of course the purpose of the court to make that determination.

    It is not their responsibility, and in fact it is explicitly not their job to decide if X or Y is 'best for the country'. That's the purpose of a legislator and the voters. In fact, a good judge will decide many things that he thinks are wrong because the law says so, even if he disagrees. Otherwise, why even have judges? Just make Congress the final arbiter of what's legal or not. I believe in the UK it's like that (correct me if I am wrong) - no act of Parliament can be overturned by the courts. If you wish to have that system - fine. I disagree with it, but I can understand it. But I prefer having a constitution which places limits on the legislatures and the courts from doing anything they want (at least without a huge effort that's required in passing an amendment).
    In the UK courts can set a precedence (I think). But Fred or Zaremba would be the ones to ask.
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    Yeah, look, it gives me a pain deep inside my uterus to admit it, but it's Ajmal until such time as we get a working throwing law again.
    Never in a million years would I have thought Brumby to admit this!!!!!!

  2. #6482
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    55,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    Yeah; agree with SS here.

    I think some people are missing his point a little, particularly as he didn't express himself very well in his first few posts on the matter.
    Particularly because his issue in the first place was what was basically (in lay language) a disclaimer or carve-out in the ECHR. That is a totally different issue to constitutional interpretation. That is an issue with drafting in the first place, which leaves a national security carve-out, or a public safety carve-out etc.
    "I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."

    Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.

  3. #6483
    Spanish_Vicente sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of Veracity
    Posts
    32,104
    Is very little margin of appreciation left for carve-outs in the name of national security or public security tbh. Seems far easier to restrict expression which is either artistic or religious in nature rather than political.

  4. #6484
    International Coach Shri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,178
    ****ing lawyers. Ffs.


  5. #6485
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Particularly because his issue in the first place was what was basically (in lay language) a disclaimer or carve-out in the ECHR. That is a totally different issue to constitutional interpretation. That is an issue with drafting in the first place, which leaves a national security carve-out, or a public safety carve-out etc.
    Yea I have no problems with legislatures carving out exceptions - there's always a limit and it's appropriate for the legislature to define those limits. My problem was carving out exceptions whose language was so broad that it undermined the right itself. That's why I asked whether phrases like "public morality" were more rigorously defined somewhere in order to make it clear.

    That's why I used the example of the soviet union. Their constitution had more rights but it had an exception for "crisis" which was never defined. So the government just delcared a permanant crisis and thus basically voided the constitution. I am clearly not comparing the EU to the soviet union but I was simply raising the point as to how such a broad exception might render the right meaningless - or at least cause it to be severely curtailed despite its "spirit" clearly calling for people to have freedom to worship as they wish.

    For example, without that exception, if I were on the court, I would rule the France law banning the burka illegal. Now - as a judge, can I dismiss a hypothetical argument by a country that they want to ban churches, mosques and the printing of bibles and qu'rans because they are a secular country and religion is maybe sexist or homophobic ad thus undermines their public morality? Maybe the society has "evolved" so that 90% of the public is atheist and Christians, Muslims, and Jews are mistrusted minority. And the majority claims it will harm the public health if we allow male circumcision and allow parents to teach non scientific principles to children. I am using atheist because I think many of us are but the same arguments were used against the Jews by Christians not too long ago.

    I might be able to reason that and say it, if I had some documentation on what is meant by "public morality", which is what I was asking for.

    Again, I have no problem if the plain meaning of that phrase is clear and legally binding. That's why I asked for it.
    Last edited by silentstriker; 21-03-2012 at 09:46 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing

  6. #6486
    Spanish_Vicente sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of Veracity
    Posts
    32,104
    Sorry, took me a while to get a hold of this. I won't quote the whole thing, but various Directives state that what is meant by the public morals heading is: "that member states shall take appropriate measures...to restrict acts...which might seriously impair the physical or mental development of minors...particularly acts that involve pornography or excessive violence".

    It's also made clear that "any act that prejudices respect for human dignity" will also fall under this category.

  7. #6487
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    55,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Particularly because his issue in the first place was what was basically (in lay language) a disclaimer or carve-out in the ECHR. That is a totally different issue to constitutional interpretation. That is an issue with drafting in the first place, which leaves a national security carve-out, or a public safety carve-out etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by sledger View Post
    Is very little margin of appreciation left for carve-outs in the name of national security or public security tbh. Seems far easier to restrict expression which is either artistic or religious in nature rather than political.
    I said etc. you ****

  8. #6488
    Cricketer Of The Year Agent Nationaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,863
    Quote Originally Posted by sledger View Post
    Sorry, took me a while to get a hold of this. I won't quote the whole thing, but various Directives state that what is meant by the public morals heading is: "that member states shall take appropriate measures...to restrict acts...which might seriously impair the physical or mental development of minors...particularly acts that involve pornography or excessive violence".

    It's also made clear that "any act that prejudices respect for human dignity" will also fall under this category.
    So if member states think that Quran/Bible lessons impair the mental development of minors, they can ban them.

  9. #6489
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    20,235
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux View Post
    So if member states think that Quran/Bible lessons impair the mental development of minors, they can ban them.
    Certainly the legislation should be used to ban the Catholic Church.

  10. #6490
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,894
    Clearly also prejudices respect for dignity of women, homosexuals...

    But I'm sure even those are more tightly defined. And of course you'd have such a problem with any law. As long as there is a clear understanding of what it prohibits or not at the time it was adopted, it makes sense. Someone like Scalia would clearly say that at the time such a convention was adopted, people didn't vote for it to mean that you should ban Christianity or Islam, and thus such a ban would be illegal.
    Last edited by silentstriker; 22-03-2012 at 11:03 AM.

  11. #6491
    Spanish_Vicente sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of Veracity
    Posts
    32,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux View Post
    So if member states think that Quran/Bible lessons impair the mental development of minors, they can ban them.
    It's a paper possibility, but any measure of this sort would undoubtedly be struck down.

  12. #6492
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl;lsFJg/s
    Posts
    28,553
    Made
    BeaudySmith FDMC represent. Taste it Auckland!
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Jeets doesn't really deserve to be bowling.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Well yeah Tendy is probably better than Bradman, but Bradman was 70 years ago, if he grew up in the modern era he'd still easily be the best. Though he wasn't, can understand the argument for Tendy even though I don't agree.
    Proudly supporting Central Districts
    RIP Craig Walsh

  13. #6493
    International Coach G.I.Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    10,947


    It's like having that crazy sob in your group of friends, only you can't stay mad at this fella.
    Last edited by G.I.Joe; 23-03-2012 at 06:50 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    If GI 'Best Poster On The Forum' Joe says it then it must be true.
    Athlai doesn't lie. And he doesn't do sarcasm either, so you know it's true!

  14. #6494
    Hall of Fame Member _Ed_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Auckland, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,887
    That's amazingly fantastic.

  15. #6495
    Hall of Fame Member Johnners's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,056
    Quote Originally Posted by G.I.Joe View Post


    It's like having that crazy sob in your group of friends, only you can't stay mad at this fella.
    Hahaha that's awesome.

    Also reminds me of this for whatever reason.

    Explosive Sledgehammer - YouTube
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Mitch Johnson is ****ing awesome for cricket.
    Quote Originally Posted by pasag View Post
    Ponting's ability to ton up in the first innings of a series should not be understated. So much pressure, so important. What a great!



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Name Game.
    By yaju in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 1109
    Last Post: 09-12-2011, 07:43 AM
  2. Interviews
    By Slats4ever in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 24-09-2004, 04:26 AM
  3. The man for a crisis?
    By marc71178 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-06-2004, 07:03 AM
  4. I Finally Made it !
    By lord_of_darkness in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-08-2003, 03:05 AM
  5. Finally Made It !!! :D
    By lord_of_darkness in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 19-07-2003, 05:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •