"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.
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.
****ing lawyers. Ffs.
This was a serious post:
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.
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.
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.
That's amazingly fantastic.
Also reminds me of this for whatever reason.
Explosive Sledgehammer - YouTube
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)