Bush: constitutional amendment - Gay Marriage Ban

[Said1]

That's exactly what I said, the UK only obtained negative rights via the EU and then it isn't on the same level as the US and Canada.

And it's bureaucracy.

I thought you were speaking of the UK's unwritten constitution and their all laws are common without a judiciary and what not. Some laws are subjected to EU approval, but not all - Patriot Act type laws probably wouldn't fly.

Gimme a break, I've had a sore head all day! :sniff:

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Same-sex Marriage Issue

On the matter of a member above, suggesting that Canada more-or-less uses the laws of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland anyway, I would in fact counter that this is quite incorrect. Those laws passed by the Parliament Assembled of the United Kingdom do not have any force or effect in Canada unless our Parliament Assembled of Canada provides its explicit consent for such to occur.

Even though the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom continued to be the last authority on many matters of the constitution of Canada, the Committee considered only those Statutes that had been passed by Canada after the date of union of the Provinces of Canada; the Government of the United Kingdom had no true authority over the Statutes of Canada, other than being required to enact amendments to our constitution from their own Parliament (and even that practice, along with the practice of referring cases to the U.K.'s Privy Council, has since ceased).

 

[Daz_Hockey]

RE: Bush: constitutional

oh dear, I've incurred the wrath of Fiveparadox....all I'm saying is this: if British Law bans me from owning a gun (no problem, too many nutters with a gun now anyway), if it bans me from carrying an offensive weapon, sure......

there are good and bad points to every democratic country, for example the fact that our value-added tax is added before purchase and the clarity of purchase is much, much easier.

Also, you have to realise (however much maggie thatcher or tony blair tried) britain was for a very long time a socialist country, our government owned the airline, telephone, national health, gas,water, electricity, transport and television, we are much more a "nanny" state than the other two, of course a lot of that, including some very dodgy police acts (such as stop and search) erod our freedoms a lot.

but I still find it hard to believe you are any more "free" than I. no offense FiveParadox, what I meant was your political system was modelled on ours, we dont make your laws.

 

[Jo Canadian]

Click me

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Bush: constitutional

but I still find it hard to believe you are any more "free" than I. no offense FiveParadox, what I meant was your political system was modelled on ours, we dont make your laws.

That's because you neglect the significance of negative rights.

 

[Jay]

The British have negative rights it just isn't done the same way as in the States.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

RE: Bush: constitutional

1. freedom of speech

This SHOULD only stretch so far anyway, people should NOT have the RIGHT to racially, homophobically or in any other way abuse one another.

2. property

We have this, my man, your looking too far back, I can move where ever the hell I like if I have the money.

3. habeas corpus
(freedom to move about right?) course I can move where I like in my country and now the whole of the EU.

4. freedom from violent crime
Goes without saying
5. freedom of worship
ditto
6. a fair trial
Established LONG before the US even exsisted, Magna carta documents, unwritten codes, long long before the US, the very idea CAME from England.
7. freedom from slavery
of course, the abolitionists were much more rampant in England a long time before the US
8.the right to bear arms
that is a unique law given to a country with a history of frontiership, handgun use, not relevant in a country such as the UK.

have I responded appropriatly?, or are there more?..highly ironic coming from a country that by-passes human rights.

 

[I think not]

You're not familiar with the term negative rights, obviously.

 

[Jay]

Maybe, but your going to have to help us out here. From what I can find the UK has these right, but perhaps not written down the same way America has written them down.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Bush: constitutional amendment - Gay Marriage Ban

Maybe, but your going to have to help us out here. From what I can find the UK has these right, but perhaps not written down the same way America has written them down.

Negative rights restrict the government from doing certain things. The UK adopted negative rights through the EU and even then it is light. Daz only highlighted postive rights which I never disputed.

 

[Jay]

Negative rights may be either moral or legal in nature and held to include such rights as the right to freedom of speech, property, habeas corpus, freedom from violent crime, freedom of worship, a fair trial, freedom from slavery and, in the United States, the right to bear arms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_rights

 

[I think not]

Negative rights may be either moral or legal in nature and held to include such rights as the right to freedom of speech, property, habeas corpus, freedom from violent crime, freedom of worship, a fair trial, freedom from slavery and, in the United States, the right to bear arms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_rights

Leave it to wikipedia to contradict itself.

Within the philosophy of human rights, a positive right imposes an obligation on others and the state to do certain things, while a negative right merely obliges others and the state to refrain from certain activities.

 

[Jay]

I think this one we will have to work on over the phone.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

RE: Bush: constitutional

I think the whole subject of "Human negative or positive" rights becomes a bit, how shall we say "iffy" when you compare the US anyway?

I'm defending my own country here because whatever wrongs or however barbaric our former-once-loyal colonial neighbours think of us, we havent recently open a guantaunamo bay, havent subjected human beings to "cruel and unusual" punishment in said camp.

your rights only stretch to "Americans" anyway, what about the mexican puios?, what about those desperatly poor trying to get across the torilla curtain?, I've seen it, I know it's there.

A black south african friend of mine once pointed out the iriony in that Americans were against aparteid in his home country, but perfectly willing to keep the status quo in the south in the 60's.

but as I say, it doesnt matter what I, or the people I know think, Freedom and liberty differ from person to person, country to country, a concept it seems most of america doesnt comprehend

 

[I think not]

Yeah you're very good at point out flaws with the US Daz, in fact, that's all you do. Americans get alot of things, one of which there is no lattitude in defining freedom, it is innate in all living things. Imposing asphyxiating socialist policies are against the core of human beings.

And by the way ol chap, look up what you did in Kenya and then we'll have some tea and krumpets.

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: Bush: constitutional

1. freedom of speech

This SHOULD only stretch so far anyway, people should NOT have the RIGHT to racially, homophobically or in any other way abuse one another.

2. property

We have this, my man, your looking too far back, I can move where ever the hell I like if I have the money.

3. habeas corpus
(freedom to move about right?) course I can move where I like in my country and now the whole of the EU.

4. freedom from violent crime
Goes without saying
5. freedom of worship
ditto
6. a fair trial
Established LONG before the US even exsisted, Magna carta documents, unwritten codes, long long before the US, the very idea CAME from England.
7. freedom from slavery
of course, the abolitionists were much more rampant in England a long time before the US
8.the right to bear arms
that is a unique law given to a country with a history of frontiership, handgun use, not relevant in a country such as the UK.

have I responded appropriatly?, or are there more?..highly ironic coming from a country that by-passes human rights.

What are you quoting above?

 

[Toro]

RE: Bush: constitutional

 

[Daz_Hockey]

RE: Bush: constitutional

ITN, I'm fully aware of what we did in Kenya ol chap, I'm fully aware of what we did all over the world, keep using what we did long ago as stick to beat my country with, go ahead, I'm on about today

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: Bush: constitutional

ITN, I'm fully aware of what we did in Kenya ol chap, I'm fully aware of what we did all over the world, keep using what we did long ago as stick to beat my country with, go ahead, I'm on about today

You mentioned the irony of the South?

 

[Daz_Hockey]

RE: Bush: constitutional

said1, I nicked that from wikipedia's def. of nnegative rights