sox-and-the-city Wrote:Like i said about the blood thing, i don't much care for it personally, i can just see why it's there... Doesn't mean i necessarily approve, i'm just not complaining about unfairness.
Yeah ... going back to my best mate's mother as the example I originally used, it's like ... if we were to be discussing this topic, and I were to say "I can't give blood", then I might as well (in her eyes) add "because I represent a group of dirty, dirty b@stards" at the end - it would only reinforce her pre-existing prejudice.
That's another reason why, as I say, I'm like a dog with a bone with it ... I really don't care that we can't give blood - I'm never going to campaign against it, nor am I going to lose sleep over it - it's just at the back of my mind like a niggling itch that says it just isn't right.
The idea of a gay clothes section is a REALLY really good !! I've never ever thought of that before :redface:, but yeah ! HELL yeah :biggrin:.
xxx
!?!?! Shadow !?!?!
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
•
Shadow Wrote:... The idea of a gay clothes section is a REALLY really good !! I've never ever thought of that before :redface:, but yeah ! HELL yeah :biggrin:. I'd settle for interesting clothes. What is the male fixation with dark, dun and boring? Just don't get me started on shoes ... :mad:
•
Great reply from sox-and-the-city.
Rights are difficult. What the law may offer, practice can remove. Anyone with an ounce of determination can skirt round most equality legislation with a bit of thought and a lot of deviousness.
I think I would actually like to see a statement of rights for all that doesn't single out the glbt community for special treatment ... or any other community for that matter. I know very little about law, but I suspect this may require the establishment of some form of constitution against which laws and behaviours can be measured. If it were possible, this constitution would allow for freedom of thought, belief and action up to the point where one person's rights impinged on those of another, at which point the law could intervene. The current ad hoc arrangement of singling out minority groups sets up conflicts as people perceive they have lost something as a result of another group merely being offered equality of opportunity.
Unfortunately the law and society seem to be heading in completely the opposite direction. Add another minority to the list of those needing special protection for their rights, further centralise another centre of power, remove the right to trial by jury for certain categories of crime, internment without charge for accusations relating to terrorism, create a threat without and the fear of a threat within, install "safety" cameras with which to keep an eye on the population, ensure that everyone carries a device by which their every move can be followed (mobile phones, bank cards, number plate recognition technology etc.), the largest dna database in the world, biometric identity cards, form alliances with and surrender sovereignty to unimpeachable super-states and multi-national corporations, distract the masses with "reality" television, a national lottery, over-hyped sporting contests, redefine the arts as competition, offer illusions of fame and stardom as an aspirational right ... Big Brother and Room 101 as entertainment :eek:
Sleepwalking our way into a Brave New World or marching into Ecotopia? In some ways, they aren't very different.
Sure I want MY RIGHTS, but I don't want them at the expense of someone else's freedom. It's in the spaces in between where the balance is struck. What would I be prepared to surrender for someone else to be free?
•
marshlander Wrote:Great reply from sox-and-the-city.
Rights are difficult. What the law may offer, practice can remove. Anyone with an ounce of determination can skirt round most equality legislation with a bit of thought and a lot of deviousness.
I think I would actually like to see a statement of rights for all that doesn't single out the glbt community for special treatment ... or any other community for that matter. I know very little about law, but I suspect this may require the establishment of some form of constitution against which laws and behaviours can be measured. If it were possible, this constitution would allow for freedom of thought, belief and action up to the point where one person's rights impinged on those of another, at which point the law could intervene. The current ad hoc arrangement of singling out minority groups sets up conflicts as people perceive they have lost something as a result of another group merely being offered equality of opportunity.
Unfortunately the law and society seem to be heading in completely the opposite direction. Add another minority to the list of those needing special protection for their rights, further centralise another centre of power, remove the right to trial by jury for certain categories of crime, internment without charge for accusations relating to terrorism, create a threat without and the fear of a threat within, install "safety" cameras with which to keep an eye on the population, ensure that everyone carries a device by which their every move can be followed (mobile phones, bank cards, number plate recognition technology etc.), the largest dna database in the world, biometric identity cards, form alliances with and surrender sovereignty to unimpeachable super-states and multi-national corporations, distract the masses with "reality" television, a national lottery, over-hyped sporting contests, redefine the arts as competition, offer illusions of fame and stardom as an aspirational right ... Big Brother and Room 101 as entertainment :eek:
Sleepwalking our way into a Brave New World or marching into Ecotopia? In some ways, they aren't very different.
Sure I want MY RIGHTS, but I don't want them at the expense of someone else's freedom. It's in the spaces in between where the balance is struck. What would I be prepared to surrender for someone else to be free?
Excellent post....  mile: (and I get to sleep with this man! hehehe)
•
marshlander Wrote:I think I would actually like to see a statement of rights for all that doesn't single out the glbt community for special treatment
certainly a school of thought & movement in certain civil rights groups with slogans as
EQUALITY FOR ALL
•
marshlander Wrote:Great reply from sox-and-the-city.
Rights are difficult. What the law may offer, practice can remove. Anyone with an ounce of determination can skirt round most equality legislation with a bit of thought and a lot of deviousness.
I think I would actually like to see a statement of rights for all that doesn't single out the glbt community for special treatment ... or any other community for that matter. I know very little about law, but I suspect this may require the establishment of some form of constitution against which laws and behaviours can be measured. If it were possible, this constitution would allow for freedom of thought, belief and action up to the point where one person's rights impinged on those of another, at which point the law could intervene. The current ad hoc arrangement of singling out minority groups sets up conflicts as people perceive they have lost something as a result of another group merely being offered equality of opportunity.
Unfortunately the law and society seem to be heading in completely the opposite direction. Add another minority to the list of those needing special protection for their rights, further centralise another centre of power, remove the right to trial by jury for certain categories of crime, internment without charge for accusations relating to terrorism, create a threat without and the fear of a threat within, install "safety" cameras with which to keep an eye on the population, ensure that everyone carries a device by which their every move can be followed (mobile phones, bank cards, number plate recognition technology etc.), the largest dna database in the world, biometric identity cards, form alliances with and surrender sovereignty to unimpeachable super-states and multi-national corporations, distract the masses with "reality" television, a national lottery, over-hyped sporting contests, redefine the arts as competition, offer illusions of fame and stardom as an aspirational right ... Big Brother and Room 101 as entertainment :eek:
Sleepwalking our way into a Brave New World or marching into Ecotopia? In some ways, they aren't very different.
Sure I want MY RIGHTS, but I don't want them at the expense of someone else's freedom. It's in the spaces in between where the balance is struck. What would I be prepared to surrender for someone else to be free?
Provocative !!
mile:.
Unless something has changed since I did Constitutional Law (way back in 1999), the main difference between the system of law adopted in England, and that of the United States of America, is that in the USA you have a Bill of Rights - a single document that aims to provide you with a list of written, legally-protected "rights" that are afforded to every citizen of the United States of America.
In England we don't have that - instead we have a system of case law, meaning that under American Law you have written and protected rights. Under ENGLISH Law you have EVERY CONCEIVEABLE RIGHT YOU CAN THINK OF ... except those which are specifically prohibited by the law ...
... see how the systems differ ? Just for those of you that didn't know ...
... that is one of the reasons why English Law is so very, very bulky - when a case comes along that addresses a particular issue - e.g. *randomly plucks an idea* I was speeding through that backlane, yes, but the other car ran a yellow line and hit the side of my car ... what does the law say ? Then the case will ordinarily provide a level of precedence by which future cases can be reviewed ... hence all the citation and so on ...
... I know that American Law has case law, don't get me wrong, but their system is underpinned by their own fundamentally protected basic rights, which ours has never had ...
Having a written document to refer back to like the Bill of Rights is a source of both great stability to the American people and, I'm sure, great frustration at times to many an American Law Draftsman ... as I'm sure everybody appreciates, sometimes the law can be an ass, but sometimes it can be very, very useful.
Obviously the system in England is changing owing to the influence of our European neighbours, and pressure on us to adopt certain analogous approaches on topical issues, such as Anti-Terror Legislation ... but historically at any rate, that's been the main difference.
Your post raises a number of wider issues, such as the trade-off between a desire for, and sense of "security" -v- an increase in Governmental (and other) control over the public en masse ... and that's a minefield all of its own, but fundamentally I agree with what you're saying all round, and yes - sometimes I too think that this splurge on anti-terror does sound more like a convenient opportunity to kill two birds with one stone - since we would have to go after the culprits anyway, taking a stranglehold over people on home turf at the same time is probably politically quite intelligent ...
... and given my loathing of politics, that's not a kind remark on my part.
... good, provocative, insightful thoughts my friend ... mile:.
xx
!?!?! Shadow !?!?!
•
|
