If you're not in the U.S., what's up in your part of the world? Showing 2,201-2,250 of 3,266

[Philip]

Careful what you wish for....

[Ian]

In the current case, the replacements are unlikely to be worse.

[Papaphilly]

Oh I do not know, we replaced Trump with Biden. Is that an improvement?

[Ian]

Your point, but I did say, in the current case, and I meant here :-(

Please, Not worse!

[J.]

Entropy reigns.

[Ian]

There's certainly no getting around the second law.

[J.]

Debate rages over leaked US belief that Mossad aided protesters
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/art...

[Nik]

J. wrote: "Debate rages over leaked US belief that Mossad aided protesters
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/art..."

Mossad's chief adopted a bold decision letting his subordinates to take part in the protests. Army chiefs didn't crack on those who claimed they won't serve under dictatorship. For this Secretary of Defense was fired but promptly reinstated. The situ of top security brass would become really impossible if they need to choose between obeying the Supreme Court (law) or Executive Branch (their bosses).

[J.]

Isn't Germany in a massive energy crisis due to the war in Ukraine and that pipeline going pop?

'A new era': Germany quits nuclear power, closing its final three plants
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/15/europe...

[Ian]

From what I can make out, they are closing them down because they are not "green". [I could offer a supply paint :-)] What will happen is either there will be cold nights next winter, industry will have to close down, or they will burn lots of lignite. Yes, that environmentally "natural" stuff.

[J.]

The Germans burn lignite, yet the greenies in America praise Europe while condemning us for burning anthracite.

And the Chinese are burning coal so bituminous that they have to put it through presses to burn it in modern boilers.

It's almost like most "environmentalists" are idiots who base their opinions on their emotions.

[J.J.]

"Almost like?"

[Ian]

The fascinating thing about the environmentalists here is they always object strongly to any possible solution to the actual problem because they can find something not "green" about it. Then they proclaim themselves virtuous by riding bicycles, and then spend big going to environmental conferences on the other side of the world, thus burning kerosine.

[Scout]

Yes.

[J.]

Ian wrote: "The fascinating thing about the environmentalists here is they always object strongly to any possible solution to the actual problem because they can find something not "green" about it. Then they ..."

Imagine the mental gymnastics which they must go through to justify all of the heavy industry and agriculture needed to produce their bicycles.

[Papaphilly]

J. wrote: "Imagine the mental gymnastics which they must go through to justify all of the heavy industry and agriculture needed to produce their bicycles. ..."

Nope, non at all. It does not cross their minds.

[Papaphilly]

Ian wrote: "The fascinating thing about the environmentalists here is they always object strongly to any possible solution to the actual problem because they can find something not "green" about it. Then they ..."

There is an old saying about being more Catholic than the Pope.......

[J.]

‘Hostile, authoritarian’ UK downgraded in civic freedoms index
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...

Well, Charles is off to an interesting start.

[Nik]

We can and should ridicule environmental hypocrites, however it’s still a sound concern to take into consideration in any endeavor or activity

[Scout]

Didn't expect that, J. Do they have something similar to the First Amendment?

[Papaphilly]

Pretty much every country recognizes a version of free speech. Some countries explicitly recognizes it and others have more of a common law version. Free speech however is regulated in some form or another in every country. Some countries recognize, but do not allow their citizens actual free speech. Some countries have special cut outs such as the United States and obscenity. Others have religious cutouts or special protections.

A good place to start.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom...

[Ian]

As far as a real freedom of political speech I think you might have to live in one of those few countries that have had the representative republic form of government continuously for more than a hundred and twenty-five years. There aren't very many of them. (I allow countries like Australia that technically almost missed out by aggregating states, but the states qualified easily, so so does Australia.) I think it takes until the children of the last person to experience differently have died that free political speech comes as a given. Not very many countries really qualify and you can be confident they will continue to qualify.

[J.]

Scout wrote: "Didn't expect that, J. Do they have something similar to the First Amendment?"

The UK is a constitutional monarchy which doesn't have a single written document to serve as a constitution. There are laws to protect civil liberties, but one law can be replaced by a different law. I refer you to an experienced hand on the matter of free speech in the UK.
https://youtu.be/h-v8sN5cS0s

[Ian]

I think you have reasonable free speech in the UK and I included it in my list. No country is free of examples of miscarriage of justice, but I think the UK does reasonably well in terms free speech.

As it happens, NZ does not have a written constitution either and I do not think we miss out through it. A written constitution only works as long as everyone thinks it should work because ultimately it requires the justice system and the police/military to comply, and the citizens to accept it. NZ, by and large, are happy we have no constitution written down, and we look at the gun carnage in the US as an example. NZ has a relatively high level of gun ownership, although nowhere nearly as high as the US, but here you have to be licensed, you have to permit inspections from time to time of gun storage, and you have to show responsible behaviour. If you are mentally unstable, and it is known, the guns are removed. Now that does not mean we don't have firearms incidents - obviously we do - but they are rare (although currently gangs are starting to become a problem.) But my point is, we don't feel we need behaviour set in stone by a document written so long ago the writers could not possibly visualize what is happening now. On the other hand, I accept the US needs such a document because otherwise small states would be swamped by big ones.

[J.]

Ian wrote: "I think you have reasonable free speech in the UK and I included it in my list. No country is free of examples of miscarriage of justice, but I think the UK does reasonably well in terms free speec..."

You just described violations of the Second and Fourth Amendments to the US Constitution. You may not put much weight behind 2A, but I'm willing to bet that the Fourth Amendment is up your alley.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Ian]

I agree, except there need to be specific exceptions the citizen agrees to. It is part of the contract of being permitted to own a gun that you state you will look after it, and unless there is some means of verification, the assurance is pointless. Look at the way the US wants to inspect other sites to ensure they are keeping their word. Unless you have some sort of inspection, then the assurance is worthless.

I should add this is not done very often, and it is like a tax audit. If you look like you are behaving responsibly you will be left alone, but there has to be at least a means of verifying.

[Scout]

Invasions of our privacy without legal just cause isn't something U.S. citizens will tolerate. We're protected by our constitution, written so many years ago, but still viable today. Ian and I have had conversations about their lack of a constitution, and I have yet to understand how that works for them, but it obviously does.

[Philip]

In UK and similarly in NZ, Aus, Canada there is no single document that forms the constitution. There is instead and extensive list of documents for UK that includes Magna Carta which limited the power of the monarch. Lots of legislation since.

Freedom of speech is protected in precedent but with limits for inciting violence etc.

Protection of individuals prosecuted is enshrined in numerous laws and additional precedents in courts.

Therefore a UK subject is protected by multiple constitutional laws and government is limited by those same rules. It is the possible erosion of some of these rights that is being argued about. Protests are already limited but some protestors have caused massive disruption e.g. blocking bridges and motorways which has led to further attempts to limit protests - in several cases the blocks caused harm to others e.g preventing ambulances reaching hospital.

The question remains when does an individual's right to free speech outweigh the rest of the populations rights?

[Ian]

Yes, in NZ there is no written constitution, but as an example there is an electoral Act and that states how elections must be run, and when. Thus we must have another election before mid November; I think it will be at the end of October, although the PM can have it sooner, but not later. We also have a Bill of Rights, which covers a lot of rights such as freedom of speech.

We have a right to protest, but there are limitations. Some idiots recently blocked the main motorway into the Business Centre of Wellington protesting about lack of public transport. (They probably would also protest if taxes were increased to pay for what they want.) They glued their hands to the road, and will now face court charges. They have the right to protest, but not to block others from their lawful rights.

[J.]

Philip wrote: "The question remains when does an individual's right to free speech outweigh the rest of the populations rights?"

No, the question is, "When do you have a right to squash the speech and beliefs of your neighbors?"

You don't, and trying is counterproductive.
https://youtu.be/Ui1vmS9Yz5M

[Philip]

J. wrote: "Philip wrote: "The question remains when does an individual's right to free speech outweigh the rest of the populations rights?"

No, the question is, "When do you have a right to squash the speech..."

So, the right of the individual outweighs the right of the rest of the population? The protestors who blocked roads had the right to protest, the right to stand for election for their beliefs, the right to write to their elected representatives, but instead believe their right to protest outweighed the right of someone else to get to hospital. They can believe whatever they want. It's actions that matter and when those actions impact others' rights or beliefs.

I don't like tomatoes. I believe they taste awful. If I carried out a campaign to destroy all tomatoes that would clearly impact those who like tomatoes. If I destroyed tomato shipments I would be acting in favour of my beliefs but carrying out a criminal act. I can protest to have tomatoes banned. I don't think the majority would agree.

[J.]

If you carried out a campaign of tomato destruction, you would be guilty of mass destruction of private property. Depending on the value of the property destroyed, you would be committing a misdemeanor or a felony. Not speech.

[Nik]

The thing with any protest - if it doesn't hurt no one cares. Here, teacher's union can issue whatever warnings, demonstrate, whatever - it's only when they close schools down the government talks to them. Now in high schools students take tests, but don't get their grades because of teachers' protest, and no one gives a damn, except for the students who suffer. Just came back from the demonstration against the Education Secretary, who lives in my neighborhood.

[Ian]

The issue here is shown by my post 2230. Protestors who glue their hands to a motorway cause massive problems for anyone who gets caught in the downstream chaos. Their section is one-way, and there are only very limited exits so there will be a portion of back-up where an ambulance could not get anywhere. Quite correctly these were arrested and will face court charges. Not because they expressed free speech; that they were entitled to do. They were not entitled to prevent others from using a motorway.

[J.]

Because Big Brother loves all of his children.

Kitchen knives could be seized from homes of suspected criminals under new Home Office plans being considered
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...

[Philip]

J. wrote: "Because Big Brother loves all of his children.

Kitchen knives could be seized from homes of suspected criminals under new Home Office plans being considered
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl..."

Relying on Daily Mail is as accurate as Fox about voting machines.

[J.J.]

Ian wrote: "I agree, except there need to be specific exceptions the citizen agrees to. It is part of the contract of being permitted to own a gun that you state you will look after it, and unless there is som..."

a couple comments on the American legal system. Verification like your suggesting would be unconstitutional. First it assumes guilt. The government has to prove your guilt, you are not required to prove your innocence. If the government does not have sufficient cause to obtain a search warrant, it cannot enter your home to check for "crimes" that may or may not exist. There are a couple exceptions, such as if you've been convicted of a gun crime and part of the sentence is that you're not allowed to own a gun and submit to periodic checks. But otherwise, the government has no right to enter your home to make sure you're following the law.

Second if you're suggesting buying an owning a gun comes with the same stipulation that you agree to random checks, it does not in the US. You do not forgo your 4th and 5th Amendment rights simply by exercising your rights in other parts of the Constitution, even the 2nd Amendment rights.

[J.J.]

Ian wrote: "The issue here is shown by my post 2230. Protestors who glue their hands to a motorway cause massive problems for anyone who gets caught in the downstream chaos. Their section is one-way, and there..."

I'd say this one is a little more complicated. Again, in the US, you cannot charge people over a hypothetical. Either someone died because an ambulance was blocked by the protestor, or they didn't. You could site examples when crafting a broader law that bans anyone from blocking a street. And chances are you already have laws against impeding emergency vehicles, so if that hypothetical ambulance shows up, the protestors would have to let it pass. But what if they can't?

What if the protest is so big, the people can't move if they wanted? You have people showing up to the state legislature to protest an unpopular bill on the table. The crowd is so big, it doesn't fit on the capitol grounds and overflows into the street. the 1st Amendment doesn't let the government deny your right to protest simply because there's not enough space for everyone who wants to exercise it. we get the occasional protest around that's like that, so big it takes over streets around the capitol. The thousands of educators who show up to speak out on a bill have the right to do so, and you can't say they have to go home because the city is full.

[Ian]

Motorways here have specific laws to differentiate them from streets. Other than for a mechanical breakdown you cannot have a stationary vehicle and people cannot be walking around on them, let alone lying in the street. There were clear violations of law; my hypothetical was only representing one of the reasons for the law, and not intended as a basis of a charge.

Interestingly enough, we had that problem you mention during the protests outside parliament a little while ago, where protestors' illegal parking blocked a street. Unfortunately, that street was a major connection to the motorway, but fortunately the entrance. Had they blocked a parallel street that carried the exit into the Wellington CBD there would have been chaos. (The street that was blocked could have diversions put in place; it is hard to divert an exit once it is blocked, which could take a few minutes.)

[Papaphilly]

Philip wrote: "J. wrote: "Philip wrote: "The question remains when does an individual's right to free speech outweigh the rest of the populations rights?"..."

It is not about what the bigger audience wants. It is your right to protest your hate of tomatoes. The idea of American protest is very American right from the start of our country. Yes, it can be very irritating when roads are blocked, but it is also very American. There is a very fine line and it is treated differently depending on the group protesting. Yet, it is a fundamental right.

Having to try and explain to people that just do not understand is tough because we do not have the same base. The big difference I see is that you do not have formal guidelines laid out. To me that means anything can be taken away at the whim of someone. We have enumerated rights given to all equally. You guys have expressed plenty of time about our obsession with guns. However, I suggest it is much more than about the guns. It is about how we define ourselves as a people and lots of times it is ugly and nasty sausage making, but it is who we are in the end.

To give food for thought, the Anti-smoking campaign in America started with one non-smoker fed up with smokers filling his air with smoke.

[Papaphilly]

Ian wrote: "The issue here is shown by my post 2230. Protestors who glue their hands to a motorway cause massive problems for anyone who gets caught in the downstream chaos. Their section is one-way, and there..."

So lets look at your example from our perspective. These hypothetical protestors could face charges. If the proverbial ambulance could not get through, they could once again face charges. Yet, if the protest becomes big enough, then not likely. There are too many people involved and unless you can prove that a given behavior caused a given injury, then it is tough. So using the ambulance, we can all agree it is tragic and most of us would agree to charge those that glued their hands to the road. But charge them with what? Murder? Manslaughter, Disorderly Conduct?

[Ian]

It would be basically something like disorderly conduct. Murder is impossible because they do not know the victim, and i think the disconnect with the victim would rule out any reasonable chance of manslaughter

[Philip]

Ian wrote: "It would be basically something like disorderly conduct. Murder is impossible because they do not know the victim, and i think the disconnect with the victim would rule out any reasonable chance of..."

In UK they were charged and recently sentenced

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/eco-activi...

[Ian]

That is the sort of thing I expect to happen here, although the sentence will probably be shorter, say six months.

[Papaphilly]

Philip wrote: "Ian wrote: "It would be basically something like disorderly conduct. Murder is impossible because they do not know the victim, and i think the disconnect with the victim would rule out any reasonab..."

So let me get this straight, the guy is whining because he does not like his sentence? Maybe he should not have broken the law....

[Philip]

Papaphilly wrote: "Maybe he should not have broken the law...."

He'd broken several others and been convicted before hence his longer sentence. Of course some reporting neglected to mention that. Otherwise he would probably have got a suspended sentence or even just a caution.

[Papaphilly]

Philip wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Maybe he should not have broken the law...."

He'd broken several others and been convicted before hence his longer sentence. Of course some reporting neglected to mention that. ..."

I see this guy in the same light with the Shaman guy in D.C. He did it and now he is unhappy with his sentence. the funny thing is the entire history probably was taken into consideration and he ended up with his sentence.

[J.]

Iran seized oil tanker headed for Texas, U.S. Navy says
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/ir...

[Ian]

If it is heading for Texas, it seems unlikely Iran has taken it. Of all the places to go, Texas would seem to me to be the least desirable for Iran. The US Navy would presumably clear it long before they arrived.

[Papaphilly]

Ian wrote: "If it is heading for Texas, it seems unlikely Iran has taken it. Of all the places to go, Texas would seem to me to be the least desirable for Iran. The US Navy would presumably clear it long befor..."

It is not an American flagged ship. The Navy will not get involved.