Re: Tzeentch's Thread of Everchanging Topics

[Emrys]

Good to hear

And if I may come back to Nithel's law-based statement. There are articles on the probibition of discrimination, which is derived from the desire to treat everyone as equally as possible. You could even argue that positive discrimination is somehow an infringement on anti-discrimination. Yet it is nothing new to infringe certain rights, even by law. Putting someone in jail for example could be seen as a restriction to their right of freedom. We all accept it however. infringements are logical, infringements are neccesary. And on that note special regulations for handicapped people are also neccesary to make out society a happier place for everyone. I know you did not mean to say it is injust to help out less lucky people in our society, but I am doubting if I agree with your reasoning when you say this as a rule rules out equallity. I believe that in the great mayority of cases, it is still something that is strived towards.

[Shaelyssa]

We have an expression in Kuwait: "la tilfalsaf" which literally means, "don't philosophize" and is used to mean "don't be silly" for when people are talking about something they know nothing about.

[Grufftoof]

We have an expression in Kuwait: "la tilfalsaf" which literally means, "don't philosophize" and is used to mean "don't be silly" for when people are talking about something they know nothing about.

I bet you hear that all the time.

[Nithel]

yet it is nothing new to infringe certain rights, even by law. Putting someone in jail for example could be seen as a restriction to their right of freedom. We all accept it however. infringements are logical, infringements are neccesary.

That's not correct. Infringement on laws are illegal.

Laws have a hierarchy. To put it very simple: European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) > Constitutional Law > other laws. If someone makes a law that tells you to do something that is forbidden by the ECHR or the constitutional law, a judge is forced to ignore that law. And you can go to a constitutional court to fight that law. Laws that are in direct conflict with the ECHR or the constitutional laws, are laws that you do not need to follow. They're faulty laws made by idiot politicians who didn't took a damn second to check whether their law makes sense -_-

Secondly, laws usually have paragraphes (or other laws) to dictate when this law shouldn't be followed (or what other situations could occur). But this is done by law. This isn't a 'random' infringement because people accept it. It's in the law, it's not a path you can deviate from. The right to freedom for example has in the same paragraphe that one can be put in jail by form a legal arrest.

If you are a victim of a legal arrest, you cannot sue the cops with the argument of Right to Freedom in the ECHR since that same article says you can be arrested.

[Antistia]

Laws have a hierarchy. To put it very simple: European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) > Constitutional Law > other laws. If someone makes a law that tells you to do something that is forbidden by the ECHR or the constitutional law, a judge is forced to ignore that law. And you can go to a constitutional court to fight that law. Laws that are in direct conflict with the ECHR or the constitutional laws, are laws that you do not need to follow. They're faulty laws made by idiot politicians who didn't took a damn second to check whether their law makes sense -_-

An addendum for the situation in the Netherlands:

Treaties > constitutional law > laws made by lower governments. Laws passed by parliament (and approved by government) cannot be declared unconstitutional. They stand and their constitutionality may not be questioned by a judge. They can be declared being in conflict with a treaty the Netherlands is a party to. This means that the law is declared 'non-binding'.

[Thelos]

The purpose of my post was to vindicate the point made by this post:

[…] stating 'men and women are not the same' may have been a better way to put it than 'men and women are not equal'. Equal easily refers to ones worth and equality of rights, whereas 'not the same'... Well, nobody would argue with someone calling a dog and a cat not the same for example xD

To this you replied:

Perhaps, but i'd classify that as semantical BS, because its based solely on the fact that the terms used seem insulting. Unless you actually didn't understand the meaning, then naturally an explanation is in order.

since Equal means "The Same". not equal, means "Not the Same". the severity of the in-equality is redundant in this case.

And as much as I understand your point, that the statement could be misinterpreted due to the context, she specifically added the addendum that she didn't mean that men and women should have unequal rights.

My argument was that, far from being sementical BS, Emerys made a valid complaint about the poor choice of words somebody used. The reason I find that “Are not the same” would have been preferable to “Are not equal” are I feel the same reasons as Emerys pointed out; it has certain nasty connotations that, as made clear by said addendum you mentioned, the poster did not want to imply. Therefore it was a poor choice of words.

I did so by argueing that “Are not equal”, rather than seeming insulting, is insulting, objectively and wholly independent of any one's intentions. Equality has very strong connotations because of its history of use in the fight for universal suffrage and other similar emancipatory movements. “Men are not equal to women” harks back to women's suffrage and other emancipatory movements whether anyone actually wants it to or not; those are the connotations, created by the history of usage of the word, and try as we might this horizon of meaning is not just going to dissapear. It is very much part of a word's meaning, no more or less than a dictionairy definition. Even if logically speaking “Are not equal” and “Are not the same” denote the exact same state of affairs, they mean something different and cause different effects upon the readers. If one of those effects is closer to the author's intention than the other, then surely remarking that one would be a better choice than the other would be a perfectly acceptable and helfpul?

Now that I think about it, you were right that my moaning comes down to semantical bullshit, though I suppose where we disagree is that I find semantical bullshit to be of great importance. Many if not most disagreements I believe can be solved by a more careful choosing of words.

Why is it "pretty Obvious" that "Are different" is preferable in this context? You haven't shown that anywhere.

At least I hope I've shown this somewhere, now

[Shaelyssa]

We have an expression in Kuwait: "la tilfalsaf" which literally means, "don't philosophize" and is used to mean "don't be silly" for when people are talking about something they know nothing about.

:D

I bet you hear that all the time.

Oh you have no idea gruff :/

And on a totally unrelated note, we have another expression "rooh wel yel shaytaan ilabyath" which mean go to hell you white devil

:D

[Emrys]

yet it is nothing new to infringe certain rights, even by law. Putting someone in jail for example could be seen as a restriction to their right of freedom. We all accept it however. infringements are logical, infringements are neccesary.

That's not correct. Infringement on laws are illegal.

Laws have a hierarchy. To put it very simple: European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) > Constitutional Law > other laws. If someone makes a law that tells you to do something that is forbidden by the ECHR or the constitutional law, a judge is forced to ignore that law. And you can go to a constitutional court to fight that law. Laws that are in direct conflict with the ECHR or the constitutional laws, are laws that you do not need to follow. They're faulty laws made by idiot politicians who didn't took a damn second to check whether their law makes senJse -_-

Secondly, laws usually have paragraphes (or other laws) to dictate when this law shouldn't be followed (or what other situations could occur). But this is done by law. This isn't a 'random' infringement because people accept it. It's in the law, it's not a path you can deviate from. The right to freedom for example has in the same paragraphe that one can be put in jail by form a legal arrest.

If you are a victim of a legal arrest, you cannot sue the cops with the argument of Right to Freedom in the ECHR since that same article says you can be arrested.

You explained what I was trying to say. I should have said 'infringements' since they're not -actual- infringements, as they are based on the clauses within the treaty. Yet in the netherlands we have one odd structure that prohibits judges to hold a candle based on our constitution when it comes to laws the government make. They are allowed to judge those laws based on treaty provisions however. Now that i think about it the word 'infringement' was not quite what i was looking for. It is more of a restriction to the laws, mostly based on the laws themselves. Yet some things like imposing a decibel-limit on a newspaper-factory, could be explained as a restriction to the right of free press. What I meant to say was that most rights are restricted by other laws one way or another, as you can see, when it comes to english, I sometimes pick the wrong words as well

I am having a harder time explaining this stuff now that my brain is dulled by damn private law >.>

[Shaelyssa]

2 lawyers and a lawyer to be all on the same forum

Interesting... Very interesting

[Emrys]

Still have a lot to learn when it comes to legal english and criminal law is my prefered field of law

And I like these rights-theories that came with constitutional law, but it is so easy to make a slip of tongue when discussing them, especially if not in your native language : <

To put it more clear (with articles, yay!) the dutch system has this hiearchy:
Direct alplication of treaties based on art. 94 of the dutch constitution (treaties above law)
The constitution
Laws made by the government
Laws made by ministers
Etc etc.

Yet the oddity with our constitution is that a judge can't judge a law made by the government based on if it's applicable with the constitution, based on article 120 of the dutch constitution.

I am not quite sure if other countries have this, but it is deemed odd by many law-students and our teachers :p

[Nithel]

Then I understand what you meant Emrys. I kind of agree with you. Some laws (mostly newer ones) don't make sense and feel weird on other rights. Sometimes this is because essentially they are made by people who sometimes havn't even spent time learning law.

I have made a mistake there to be quite honest. Judges in Belgium are only allowed to ignore a law if it's in direct conflict with the ECHR, in which case, the ECHR takes precedence. Not for the constitution.

If a law is however in conflict with the constituation, one can go to several courts as well as appeal to higher courts eventually up to Court of Cassation (Hof van Cassatie) Which is one of the highest courts in Belgium and plays a big role in how the law should be interpreted.


@ Shael. I'm not a lawyer though. I generally dislike lawyers ( Sorry! )

[Grufftoof]

Shae:

Oop north where I'm from we have a phrase you might want to learn (especially if you come study in this lovely country):

"Shut up you cocksponge"

I think the meaning can probably be determined by even the simplest of sandy-camel types.

2 lawyers and a lawyer to be all on the same forum

Interesting... Very interesting

Interesting? Right...

>.>

ربما يمر هذا من أجل المتعة في الصحراء. ولكن أنا شخصيا النوم.

[Rmuffn]

THIS THREAD.

It's been made.. boring and.. so lawful.

[Seranita]

hehe that made me giggle cocksponge XD

[Lavian]

Feel like playing some league of legends but I havn't played in over a year or something. Always use to roll with Garen as a tank back in the days, so whats the big changes and the heroes to roll for someone who's just starting again?

[Antistia]

THIS THREAD.

It's been made.. boring and.. so lawful.

IS REACHING NEW LEVELS OF AWESOMENESS HEREFORE UNKNOWN TO THIS FORUM.

@ Shael. I'm not a lawyer though. I generally dislike lawyers ( Sorry! )

Why you little!

I am not quite sure if other countries have this, but it is deemed odd by many law-students and our teachers :p

Well, you know, it depends on the way you look at it. It makes little sense as many things that are enshrined in the ECHR are also enshrined in the Dutch constitution. However you could argue that it makes sense from a separation of powers perspective. Allowing judges to do that would allow them to, in effect, sit on the chair of the lawmaker. Personally I don't agree with this argument, following the system of checks and balances it is much more logical to allow judges to do this. It ensures parliament and the government do not overstep their authority.

[Emrys]

I think it's mainly odd since the constitution should be higher hiearchy-wise than the laws created by the government, but there is nothing to guarantee this except for well.. Their word? (And, like you said, many rights listed in the constitution are also listed in the ECHR, but we have our own constitution as well, dammit! )

[Ave/Sariella]

Shouldnt you guys make a thread for these very serious things that seems to have a general topic?

[Seranita]

thats what my on the move thread was origionaly for chaps XD

[Antistia]

I think it's mainly odd since the constitution should be higher hiearchy-wise than the laws created by the government, but there is nothing to guarantee this except for well.. Their word?

That is both true and logical. However, I believe that article 120 was formulated because of a fear that judges would sit on the chairs of lawmakers. Given that they would then have the final word with regards to the legislation of government and parliament. The constitution is still above those laws, the Senate actually tends to review the constitutionality of a legislative proposal making its way through parliament (This was said by one of my constitutional law teachers, who is also a senator for D66). However the hierarchy can't be enforced during a conflict between a law (made by parliament and the government) and the constitution. My own personal view on the hierarchical issue should be clear: The constitution outranks the laws made by parliament and the government, yet its hierarchical position has been completely and utterly gutted by article 120. It's still there, it just rings hollow.

On a sidenote it ought to be noted that the Supreme Court takes the same line with regards to the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands as it does with the Dutch constitution, that is to say, it upholds the spirit of article 120.

So, yes, the hierarchy is present, yet non-enforceable. Which is a pity. I think it would be beneficial to the citizenry if it were enforceable. Not only that, but it is logical. However my book on constitutional law warns that this might lead to what it calls a 'juristenconstitutie', a "Jurist's constitution". I think that's a fair objection to make.

@Ave: I've no problem in any way, shape, or form with such a thread.

[Grufftoof]

There, a gif of Maru.

Now. Can we have some normalcy here?

I've linked an old gif about a fat internet cat. This is what this topic is for, right?

[Seranita]

My eyes deceave me! what is this portal cat!

[Thelos]

[Ave/Sariella]

There, a gif of Maru.

Now. Can we have some normalcy here?

I've linked an old gif about a fat internet cat. This is what this topic is for, right?

Clever...

[Rmuffn]

Feel like playing some league of legends but I havn't played in over a year or something. Always use to roll with Garen as a tank back in the days, so whats the big changes and the heroes to roll for someone who's just starting again?

As Garen? You can't fail spin-to-win.

And well just check the free-rotation-week what's currently up.

There's tons of new champions, heavy bruisers, strong mages. Alot of pain, really.

[Sponsored content]