Re. Corpaigh Chogaidh
Aras na bPonairi, Wattlesfordton
> In article <52...@csvax1.cs.tcd.ie> dmag...@csvax1.cs.tcd.ie (Aras na bPonairi, Wattlesfordton) writes:
>>Its far too long since we've had a good argument about Irish politics.
> OK, bait taken ...
>>
>>Surely 20 years is enough for a "peace keeping" force that was sent in to
>>protect the
>>local minority in the six counties and admits to all the above crimes against
>>them.
>
> No doubt it would be far better to leave these people in the capable hands
> of the IRA's tarring & feathering, kneecapping, and assassination squads.
> Only recently we heard of a whole extended family of some 70 Irish
> Catholics fleeing to London in fear of their lives from the IRA.
>
> Personally I would like to see the British Army replaced by a UN force.
> But I doubt you would find soldiers from anywhere had better manners.
>
> Matthew Huntbach
Thanks Matthew for taking the bait. A few wee points:
The IRA only re-emerged as a force to be reckoned with *after* the attacks
on the civil rights demonstrations and *after* the peace keeping army force
took sides against the catholics (remember they were welcomed into nationalist
areas when they arrived first).
The xtended family of which you speak, I think it was less than 70 actually,
were heroin dealers in the Divis area who ignored pleas and warnings to
desist. They co-operated with the police against republicans so were given
free rein. Rough justice maybe but at least they lived, unlike many of
their customers.
Are you really trying to tell me that the English soldiers in Ireland
have good manners? What is the politest way of shooting someone in the back?
Does saying *please* and *thank you* make the routine harassment they admittted
to any better?
--
, , , ,
"Is e an chead bhraon a rinne mo sharu;
chan fhuil dolaidh ar bith sa chuid deireanach"
Another old Armagh proverb
"Ask not what your country can do for you,
But rather what you can do your country for"
New Armagh proverb
Matthew Huntbach
>Are you really trying to tell me that the English soldiers in Ireland
>have good manners? What is the politest way of shooting someone in the back?
What I mean to say is that wars are much the same the whole world over -
nasty. Name a single war where there were no atrocities. Since the IRA
wish the situation in NI to be called a "war" they must put up with
war-type behaviour. Personally I would much prefer the situation to be
treated as a "disputed territory" and settled in a civilised way through
international adjudication.
I should think that if UN troops were introduced they would probably
react in a similar way to the British Army if constantly under the threat
of death through ambush. However, they would be seen to be neutral. The
danger is that since the rest of the world seems unable to comprehend that
there are several hundred thousand Unionists for whom NI is home, a UN
force will be seen to be in favour of Irish unification and will be treated
by the Unionists in a similar way to how the British Army are treated by the
Republicans. Still, it would at least get NI off our hands, and that's
what most people in England want irrespective of how the people in NI might
feel.
Matthew Huntbach
A.J Cunningham
>there are several hundred thousand Unionists for whom NI is home, a UN
>force will be seen to be in favour of Irish unification and will be treated
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your definition of neutrality would seem to be different from
the one in the dictionary. Personally I'm all in favour of getting the
UN peacekeeping force in as a buffer force. The IRA would lose all
credibilty as a liberation organisation then. Unfortunately they don't
have anything like the anti-insurgency experience that the British army
has after twenty years in NI.
Tony
"If the thunder dont get ya then the lightnin' will."
Jim Reid
>Still, it would at least get NI off our hands, and that's what most people
>in England want irrespective of how the people in NI might feel.
And I suppose the opinions of the people of Scotland and Wales
don't count? [After all, they're not members of the English master race.]
England is not the United Kingdom. Remember that fact. Please don't
confuse one with the other unless you want to offend the people who
don't live in the English bit of the UK.
Jim
Matthew Huntbach
>>of death through ambush. However, they would be seen to be neutral. The
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>there are several hundred thousand Unionists for whom NI is home, a UN
>>force will be seen to be in favour of Irish unification and will be treated
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Your definition of neutrality would seem to be different from
>the one in the dictionary. Personally I'm all in favour of getting the
>UN peacekeeping force in as a buffer force.
I'm not doubting the neutrality of a UN peacekeeping force. What I am saying
is how I suspect it would be perceived the the Unionist population. Given
that worldwide opinion is almost unanimously in favour of Irish unification,
largely because it is unaware of the facts about the population in NI, a UN
force would be supposed to be biased in that way, similarly to the way that
British troops are supposed to be biased to the Unionists. If Republicans
generally welcomed UN troops and Unionists didn't then the UN troops would
inevitably be more wary of Unionists, leading to them to treat them in a
rougher and more suspicious way.
Matthew Huntbach
A.J Cunningham
>is how I suspect it would be perceived the the Unionist population. Given
>that worldwide opinion is almost unanimously in favour of Irish unification,
>largely because it is unaware of the facts about the population in NI,
Well that's hardly fair to the rest of the world. I'm sure the
vast majority don't really give a damn one way or the other. As for
being unaware of the facts of the situation well there's too much of
that in this country to worry about the rest of the world.
> a UN force would be supposed to be biased in that way, similarly to the way that
>British troops are supposed to be biased to the Unionists.
Forces like the UDR and the RUC usually are despite what their
officers may say. One thing to remmeber in all of this is that only a
political solution is going to change anything. There can be no military
victory for either side. If the UN came in to keep the peace as part of
a mpolitical initiative then the IRA might agree to a ceasefire.
Personally my only gripe is the amount of blood and money thjis country
has to expend to keep a buch of foul, loudmouthed, religious nutters happy.
Tony
Ian O'Brien
>credibilty as a liberation organisation then. ...
> ...
I don't think it ever really had any credibility as a "Liberation Organisation"
to begin with.
It (The Provisional IRA) was founded in the late 60s (a classic "split") as
a revolutionary movement to ferment further the then very visible discontent
about civil rights issues which were not being dealt with by the UK govt.
Like many such organisations the provos are out to disrupt civil order and
any "liberation" will result from the collapse of the existing order (ie
British Govt. rule in the six counties) not as a result of a carefully
planned coup or military takeover.
--
Ian O'Brien Bath University Confusing Services
ccs...@uk.ac.bath.gdr or ccs...@gdr.bath.ac.uk
Tel: (Bath) 826 290 "I wish to purr-chase some cheesy comestibles"
Martin Ibert
>that worldwide opinion is almost unanimously in favour of Irish unification,
>largely because it is unaware of the facts about the population in NI,
I herewith disagree with the almost unanimous world opinion. As long as the
Irish Republic doesn't change some of its ethic standards, I can fully under-
stand anyone who doesn't want to belong to that country.
I consider a country without divorce and wide availability of contraception
UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION.
As for as I know, even the IRA (or Sinn Fain [forget about the spelling, even I
don't think it's right]) agrees on that.
Comments, anyone? Any Paddies (no offence intended) out there?
Martin "Kraut" Ibert
--
\\ . Martin P Ibert, Westendallee 100 d, 1000 Berlin 19, West Germany //
|| |\ /| E-mail: mar...@netmbx.UUCP ...!unido!tub!tmpmbx!netmbx!martini ||
|| | | | ...!pyramid!tmpmbx!netmbx!martini (preferred path from the U S!) ||
// "If all else fails, read the documentation!" -- (author unknown) \\
David Shepherd
>As for as I know, even the IRA (or Sinn Fain [forget about the spelling, even I
Fein
>don't think it's right]) agrees on [Irish Government policies].
The *Provisional* IRA does not recognise the current Irish government as
being legitimate --- they are called "provisionals" because the recognise
the provisional government declared during the 1916 uprising. I think
they split with the Official IRA (who still maintain a ceasefire) over
ideas for a federal Ireland in which Ulster would retain a degree of
autonomy.
I think that the above is true, but living in the UK mainland I may not be
fully informed about the full situation in Ireland.
david shepherd
INMOS ltd
Matthew Huntbach
>In article <10...@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk> m...@doc.ic.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>>Still, it would at least get NI off our hands, and that's what most people
>>in England want irrespective of how the people in NI might feel.
> ^^^^^^^
>
>confuse one with the other unless you want to offend the people who
>don't live in the English bit of the UK.
>
> Jim
I wrote "England" not "Britain" very deliberately. I am not
Scottish, so how could I possibly presume to speak on
behalf of the Scots. However, I am aware feeling on the
NI situation in Scotland is rather different from England.
It would surely have been more offensive to the Scots had
I assumed they thought identically to the English on this
matter and written "Britain".
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
>vast majority don't really give a damn one way or the other. As for
In my experience it is almost a standard belief among people
who don't know much about the situation that in NI there is a
small garrison of British troops oppressing a large population
all of whom wish to be united with the rest of Ireland.
Realising that this is not the case is the first step to
finding a solution.
Matthew Huntbach
Donal O Coileain
>
>I consider a country without divorce and wide availability of contraception
>UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION.
That's a pretty stupid comment. In the case of divorce, the vast majority of
the population voted AGAINST it's introduction just a few years ago. They
made their democratic choice, what do you propose to do legalize it against
their will ?
>Any Paddies (no offence intended) out there ?
^^^^^^^
another stupid remark
Yes, quiet a few, Mof (or do you prefer Kraut ? no offence etc, etc)
Donal O Coileain. email - col...@apolloway.prl.philips.nl or
collins%nvpna1.prl...@uunet.uu.nl
-----------------o------------------
SERI - collins:nlwaya01 or COLLINS:NVPNASA
Donal O Coileain
>generally welcomed UN troops and Unionists didn't then the UN troops would
>inevitably be more wary of Unionists, leading to them to treat them in a
>rougher and more suspicious way.
The Catholic community welcomed the arrival of British troops in 1969, but
you can hardly say today that British troops are wary of Unionists or treat
them in a rough or suspicious manner.
Lars-Henrik Eriksson
>In article <33...@netmbx.UUCP> mar...@netmbx.UUCP (Martin Ibert) writes:
>>
>>I consider a country without divorce and wide availability of contraception
>>UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION.
>
>That's a pretty stupid comment. In the case of divorce, the vast majority of
>the population voted AGAINST it's introduction just a few years ago. They
>made their democratic choice, what do you propose to do legalize it against
>their will ?
This is an interesting point. Does a majority have the (moral) right
to determine whether the minority may divorce or not? I believe this
should be entirely up to the individual. Things are not right just
because they are supported by a majority.
--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson Internet: l...@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263 Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
kpje...@vax1.tcd.ie
>UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION.
>Martin "Kraut" Ibert
Unfit for you, perhaps, but not for Irish people in general. A referendum was
held in Ireland a few years back on whether or not to introduce divorce and
the Irish people decided against it.
While abortion is illegal, this, in no way, hinders the availabilty of forms
of contraception. As for what Sinn Fein agree upon here is quite irrelevant.
The present day Sinn Fein are simply a political front for the provisional
IRA. A vote for Sinn Fein is a vote for the IRA. The whole Northern Ireland
problem hinges around the IRA. If the IRA packed it in so would the British
Troops. The majority of people in Northern Ireland are sick and tired of the
what has been going on for the past twenty years.
The guy who started this discussion wanted to argue that twenty years down
the road it was time for the troops to go, that now all they were doing was
causing trouble. People like this always go back to arguing that they came to
protect the Catholics, and look at them now. Well, isn't worth pointing out
that they *did* protect catholics when they arrived, and were warmly
welcomed by the catholic community. But that was indeed 20 years ago, they
are not here anymore to serve that purpose, they are here to assist the RUC
in their struggle against the IRA, that's the only reason.
Basically, if the IRA weren't around neither would the British troops.
The IRA represent a small minority of the catholic community. Their
supporters are mostly a hardcore whose families have been torn apart by
the troubles and have not been able to see beyond a military solution.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Jeacle Undergraduate Programmer, Trinity College, Dublin.
kpje...@vax1.tcd.ie kpje...@maths.tcd.ie
Home: (01) 77 53 65 SnailMail: 6 Chatham Street, Dublin 2.
Donal O Coileain
>This is an interesting point. Does a majority have the (moral) right
>to determine whether the minority may divorce or not? I believe this
>should be entirely up to the individual. Things are not right just
>because they are supported by a majority.
Well at the moment divorce is illegal in the Republic of Ireland. Don't you
think it would set a dangerous precedent if the minority of the population
(in the question of divorce in Ireland (Rep of), around 10% of the population)
were able to change the law against the wishes of the majority ?
Lars-Henrik Eriksson
>>This is an interesting point. Does a majority have the (moral) right
>>to determine whether the minority may divorce or not? I believe this
>>should be entirely up to the individual. Things are not right just
>>because they are supported by a majority.
>
>Well at the moment divorce is illegal in the Republic of Ireland. Don't you
>think it would set a dangerous precedent if the minority of the population
>(in the question of divorce in Ireland (Rep of), around 10% of the population)
>were able to change the law against the wishes of the majority ?
Let me reformulate myself. Does a majority have the (moral) right to make
laws that determine whether the minority may divorce or not?
I Turton
>................. As for what Sinn Fein agree upon here is quite irrelevant.
>
>The present day Sinn Fein are simply a political front for the provisional
>IRA.
public broadcasting nets?
> A vote for Sinn Fein is a vote for the IRA. The whole Northern Ireland
>problem hinges around the IRA. If the IRA packed it in so would the British
>Troops. The majority of people in Northern Ireland are sick and tired of the
>what has been going on for the past twenty years.
I may be wrong but it seems that over the past couple of weeks the protestant
UVF or some such have killed quite a few people, quite possibly with the help
of the security forces. Thus it seems to me that the problems would not end if the IRA just stopped. It also wouldn't help deal with the discrimination that the
catholic population suffers at the hands of the protestant minority.
>Karl Jeacle Undergraduate Programmer, Trinity College, Dublin.
--
Ian Turton Dept of Geophysics and geology
I Turton @uk.edinburgh JCMB, Kings Buildings
I...@uk.edinburgh.cs.tardis Mayfield Rd, Edinburgh
***If you don't like my views sue my boss, he'll love it.***
S Matthews
>In article <33...@netmbx.UUCP> mar...@netmbx.UUCP (Martin Ibert) writes:
>>
>>I consider a country without divorce and wide availability of contraception
>>UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION.
>
>That's a pretty stupid comment. In the case of divorce, the vast majority of
>the population voted AGAINST it's introduction just a few years ago. They
>made their democratic choice, what do you propose to do legalize it against
>their will ?
That is not a stupid comment, your respose might be so clasifiable.
Divorce can be regarded as a basic human right (in fact in some sense I
think it is so described in the European Convention - I don't know;
if you do, please post rather than flame). Whether it is or not, in
most parts of Europe it would be regarded as one.
Human rights are not decided by majority vote.
Or, more accurately, if one country decides not to allow what most other
countries that it aassociates with regard as a Human Right, then it can
expect those countries to regard it as semi civilised, and a claim that
the decision was democratic will not deflect criticism.
Ireland has a tradition as long as the country of mixing state with
religion, to the detriment of Human Rights. In Ireland's case it tends
to be the lesser[*] Human Rights rather than the bigger ones that sufffer;
anything that goes against a conservative reading of Catholic dogma.
Sean
P.S. it is also worth pointing out that, while contraceptives are
legally allowed to be sold to unmarried people in the Republic of
Ireland, it is not very easy to get them outside of Dublin. Even if
pharmacists want to sell them they suffer powerful social preasure not
to.
[*] what you call a lesser Human right of course depends on your
particular situation at the time.
Jim Reid
>you can hardly say today that British troops are wary of Unionists or treat
>them in a rough or suspicious manner.
This may very well have something to do with the fact that terrorists among
the Unionist community are less likely to go about bombing troops and
police, not to mention the sniper and land mine attacks, than the
terrorists among the Republican community.
Jim
Rodney Orr
> Well at the moment divorce is illegal in the Republic of Ireland. Don't you
> think it would set a dangerous precedent if the minority of the population
> (in the question of divorce in Ireland (Rep of), around 10% of the population)
> were able to change the law against the wishes of the majority ?
Well it may be a matter of personal taste, but the assumption behind the
above statement that the majority can impose its will on a minority
seem even more dangerous. I wonder does Donal defend the 'rights' of the
majority in Northern Ireland to impose their will on the minority quite so
enthusiastically?
I feel that true democracy is more that `majority rule'.
Rodney Orr
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney Orr RT3113, British Telecom Research Labs., Martlesham Heath,
Ipswich IP5 7RE, U.K. Tele: +44 473 645091
e-mail: ro...@axion.bt.co.uk (...!mcvax!ukc!axion!rorr)
~o^o~ is watching!
Martin Ibert
You say that if the IRA called it quits, so would the British Army. Okay,
let's say that's right.
But there was violence against the Catholics when the British Army arrived.
What makes you think that state would reappear if the Army left.
I understand that violence nowadays is mostly (not entirely) confined to the
warring tribes themselves (comments from the scene?). Maybe it gave way to
oppression of the whole catholic population once the Army left?
(I put this up for discussion. I am not saying the British Army should stay. I
know too little about the situation to have a well-founded opinion.)
--
\\ . Martin P Ibert, Westendallee 100 d, 1000 Berlin 19, West Germany //
|| |\ /| E-mail: mar...@netmbx.UUCP ...!unido!tub!tmpmbx!netmbx!martini ||
|| | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------- ||
Charles Bryant
>>
>>I consider a country without divorce and wide availability of contraception
>>UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION.
>
>That's a pretty stupid comment.
Considering the rate of emigration from Ireland, a lot of people must see
*something* wrong with it. Though I expect unemployment is a much bigger
influence than divorce or the availability of contrception.
--
Charles Bryant. (c...@dce.ie)
Working at Datacode Electronics Ltd. (Modem manufacturers)
Lars-Henrik Eriksson
>P.S. it is also worth pointing out that, while contraceptives are
>legally allowed to be sold to unmarried people in the Republic of
>Ireland, it is not very easy to get them outside of Dublin. Even if
>pharmacists want to sell them they suffer powerful social preasure not
>to.
Am I to understand that it is legal in Ireland to sell contraceptives
to singles, but not to married people?!? Weird!
Donal O Coileain
>Divorce can be regarded as a basic human right.
>Or, more accurately, if one country decides not to allow what most other
But it wasn't the Irish government, or some civil servant who denied divorce
to the population of the Irish Republic, it was the Irish people
themselves. Just a few years ago the issue went to a vote and something
like 90% (does someone have a more accuate figure) of the vote was against
divorce. Clearly the Irish people don't want or are not ready to legalise
divorce in their country. If the Irish people do not want divorce, no
matter how basic a human right it may be considered in other countries, what
is there to do ? Wait until there is a 'real' European Parliment with the
power to force the Irish government to legalise divorce against the will of
the Irish people ?. At any rate to label the whole country as INHABITABLE
because of this is ridiculous.
>Ireland has a tradition as long as the country of mixing state with
>religion, to the detriment of Human Rights. In Ireland's case it tends
>to be the lesser[*] Human Rights rather than the bigger ones that sufffer;
>anything that goes against a conservative reading of Catholic dogma.
Ok but times are changing, 10 years ago issues such as divorce and abortion
wouldn't even have reached the polling booth.
Donal O Coileain
>because of this is ridiculous.
BTW, just in case it is not commonly known, to legalise divorce in Ireland
requires a change to the constitution, which is why the Irish people were
asked to vote in the first place. Does someone know (perhaps from Trinity)
what is (exactly) written into the Irish constitution regarding divorce ?
Richard Tobin
>to the population of the Irish Republic, it was the Irish people
>themselves.
No, it was some of them. Maybe 90% if you're right.
> Just a few years ago the issue went to a vote and something
>like 90% (does someone have a more accuate figure) of the vote was against
>divorce. Clearly the Irish people don't want or are not ready to legalise
>divorce in their country.
No, clearly 90% of them don't.
> If the Irish people do not want divorce, no
>matter how basic a human right it may be considered in other countries, what
>is there to do ?
If 90% don't want it, then they shouldn't impose their view on the subject
on the other 10%.
The idea is that there are some things that the majority shouldn't impose
on the minority. The problem is not what to do about such things, but
rather how to decide whether something *is* such a thing.
>Wait until there is a 'real' European Parliment with the
>power to force the Irish government to legalise divorce against the will of
>the Irish people ?
Why is this worse than having the 90% force the 10% to not divorce, against
their will?
>At any rate to label the whole country as INHABITABLE
>because of this is ridiculous.
Together with the contraception problem, it's certainly sufficient to
make me unwilling to live there.
-- Richard
--
Richard Tobin, JANET: R.T...@uk.ac.ed
AI Applications Institute, ARPA: R.Tobin%uk.a...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Edinburgh University. UUCP: ...!ukc!ed.ac.uk!R.Tobin
Irek Defee
>In article <6...@prles2.UUCP> col...@nvpna1.UUCP (Donal O Coileain) writes:
>>divorce in their country.
>No, clearly 90% of them don't. ...
>>At any rate to label the whole country as INHABITABLE
Ok, let me remind you that EUROPE looks COMPLETELY INHABITABLE for
fundamentalist muslims since only MONOGAMY in marriage is allowed.
This must look ridiculous and strange for them. Their places in turn look
obviously INHABITABLE for (nonmuslim) Europeans, not because of polygamy
(sounds :-), but because of sexism - they don't allow one female to marry
several males ;-). To make Europe COMPLETELY HABITABLE place for everybody one
should thus legalize 'bunched' marriages (and divorces). Simply, a bunch of
guys (according to learned sources in sci.lang this term may be used
for both genders) gets married and divorced (in fragments or completely).
By definition bunch>=2guys, which nicely generalizes standard thing :-).
Seriously, for some folks divorce is not obvious much the same as for some
other monogamy is not obvious. In fact it looks that there are no obvious
things in life except OBVIOUS BRAINWASHING made by one's social environment.
Thus it is better to stop MUTUAL BRAINWASHING in the situation when EVERYBODY
IS already ENOUGH BRAINWASHED.
kpje...@vax1.tcd.ie
> But they [Sinn Fein] are elected representatives of the people and as such
>elected to deal with. How long will it be before the Tories ban all oppostion
The people who elected them in the first place are the IRA supporters, so in
order to represent those people, they must represent the IRA, thus giving the
terrorists free access to TV and radio.
>the UVF or some such have killed quite a few people, quite possibly with the
>help of the security forces. Thus it seems to me that the problems would not
>end if the IRA just stopped.
The few people who the unionists have killed have all been connected (according
to the unionists, that is) to the IRA, so it's a case of tit-for-tat killings.
If the IRA stopped, the UVF and others would have no reason to kill.
>Ian Turton Dept of Geophysics and geology
>I Turton @uk.edinburgh JCMB, Kings Buildings
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Jeacle Undergraduate Programmer, Trinity College, Dublin.
Matthew Huntbach
>>But it wasn't the Irish government, or some civil servant who denied divorce
>>to the population of the Irish Republic, it was the Irish people
>>themselves.
>on the other 10%.
The argument used against divorce in the Irish referendum was
that it is not merely a matter of the two people getting
divorced, it affects the whole of society. It was argued that
divorce is wrong because a society in which divorce exists is
a less happy society than one where it does not. The evidence
on the effect of divorce on children seems to back this up.
I don't agree with the Irish ban on divorce, but I can see that
there is a legitimate argument for it and its existence does
not necessarily imply the Irish are a race of barbarians.
Matthew Huntbach
The Cornflake Fascist
> S Matthews writes:
>>P.S. it is also worth pointing out that, while contraceptives are
>>legally allowed to be sold to unmarried people in the Republic of
>>Ireland, it is not very easy to get them outside of Dublin. Even if
>>pharmacists want to sell them they suffer powerful social preasure not
>>to.
> Am I to understand that it is legal in Ireland to sell contraceptives
> to singles, but not to married people?!? Weird!
No, no, he's just emphasising that _unmarried_ people can now get
contraceptives here. Before, only married people could get contraceptives
(which is weird - it's unmarried people who usually don't want a baby!). In
Dublin they're easily availible - even Virgin, the record store sells them. In
the country there's a lot of elderly pharmacists who wouldn't touch 'those
French letter thingies' for the fear that God would strike them down... I'm not
sure about the law for contraceptives other than condoms for the unmarried -
anyone out there know? ( Not that I need them, ahem, ahem :->)
--
"Haven't you heard of the healing power of laughter?"
- The Joker
P a u l M o l o n e y pmol...@vax1.tcd.ie
Duncan C White
An interesting discussion on democracy has begun to appear: how far the wishes
of the majority can override those of minorities, in a democracy.
It first appeared in the Magnus Kempe vs. everyone-else debate on Randism,
when....
In article <12...@rwthinf.UUCP>, mat...@rwthinf.UUCP (Oliver Bonten) wrote:
>But what if a group of individuals agrees voluntary on sacrificing some of
>their original rights to the community, call it a "welfare state" and begin
>growing kids. And, two decades later, the kids don't agree to the system
>they live in, especially don't want to give away the above mentioned rights.
>I think, they have three choices: 1) (unwillingly) accept the system,
>2) become a majority and change it or 3) leave.
(A thinly disguised account of how a democracy might set up a welfare state,
leading to future ructions).
Magnus Kempe responded:
>Your position amounts to: unlimited rule by the majority. That is not
>new, just another variant of statism. FYI, slavery was made possible
>by that kind of thinking [and there was a good majority of Germans
>who supported Hitler, too -- which doesn't mean you do, or would have
>done, of course -- I'm just pointing out examples of unlimited majority
>rule; for more, check your history books.]
This got me thinking about the issues. Unlimited rule by **anyone** sounds
very dangerous to me: it is very likely to lead to serious problems in time.
But is democracy "unlimited rule by the majority"? Not, surely, if a
constitution lays down certain basic rights for every citizen, and lays down a
strict democratic procedure for alterations to the constitution (eg. 95% have
to vote in favour of a specific alteration, in order for that alteration to be
made to the constitution).
Then, the Divorce debate spawned several articles by the following people:
Donal O Coileain: col...@nvpna1.prl.philips.nl:
Lars-Henrik Eriksson: l...@sics.se
Rodney Orr: ro...@zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk
Richard Tobin: ric...@aiai.ed.ac.uk
In Article <6...@prles2.UUCP>, Donal wrote:
>..... In the case of divorce, the vast majority of
>the population voted AGAINST it's introduction just a few years ago. They
>made their democratic choice, what do you propose to do legalize it against
>their will ?
Lars-Henrik followed up, in article <1989Sep5.1...@sics.se>:
>This is an interesting point. Does a majority have the (moral) right
>to determine whether the minority may divorce or not? I believe this
>should be entirely up to the individual. Things are not right just
>because they are supported by a majority.
Here, Lars-Henrik is talking about morals, and probably only about divorce.
(I think he believes divorce to be a human right - see below).
Donal is talking about law-making in a democracy. In a democracy, (IMHO) when
the majority vote upon an issue, the result should then become law. Then,
everyone (whether they voted for, against, abstained, or didn't vote) should
obey that law.
They may hold beliefs contrary to it, and they may campaign against it (both
fine given freedom of speech as a fundamental right), but their actions must
be in accordance with the law.
This suffices for most common cases, but occasionally, someone will feel so
strongly about a law being Wrong (ie. incompatible with their beliefs) that
they will find themselves unable to comply with the law.
(eg. conscientious objectors in wartime)
Then, of course, the judicial system must prosecute them for breaking a law.
Sometimes there may be an escape clause in the constitution allowing people
to make a special plea in such cases: if there is not, then they should be
convicted exactly as should any other guilty person.
Of course, a system such as I have described does allow a human right to be
abolished, when the appropriate majority is attained. Some may argue that
human rights are Absolute, and can never be abolished - but I side with Irek
Defee, who argues that human rights evolve over time, and are therefore not
absolute. (Just very slow-changing).
Donal then continued, in article <6...@prles2.UUCP>:
>... Don't you
>think it would set a dangerous precedent if the minority of the population
>(in the question of divorce in Ireland (Rep of), around 10% of the population)
>were able to change the law against the wishes of the majority ?
Rodney joined in, following this up, in <25...@zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk>:
>Well it may be a matter of personal taste, but the assumption behind the
>above statement that the majority can impose its will on a minority
>seem even more dangerous. I wonder does Donal defend the 'rights' of the
>majority in Northern Ireland to impose their will on the minority quite so
>enthusiastically?
>
>I feel that true democracy is more that `majority rule'.
It's not clear whether these statements are only about divorce, or are intended
to be general. Rodney's second sentence is another example (a very contentious
one, to be sure) and so makes me think he means his statements generally.
I'd like to ask him, if he does mean that the majority should not be able to
impose its will (by voting on new laws) on a minority, how does he think a
democracy should be run? If a new law shouldn't be made in accordance with
the wishes of the majority, then how should it be made? And if a law is made,
supported by the majority, but a minority disagree with it, can they simply
disobey it?
(And if he asks me the question he asked Donal, I'd have to answer: yes.
As long as a majority in Northern Ireland wish to remain in Britain, that
should remain British Government policy.)
In article <8...@skye.ed.ac.uk> Richard joins in:
>If 90% don't want it, then they shouldn't impose their view on the subject
>on the other 10%.
Well, hang on, presumably the question was "do you believe that divorce should
be available in Ireland for anyone", not "do you wish to be able to divorce in
future".
The 90% not only didn't want it for themselves, but they did not wish it to be
legal for others. (Presumably, they had a religious and moral belief that
divorce was Wrong).
Richard continues:
>The idea is that there are some things that the majority shouldn't impose
>on the minority. The problem is not what to do about such things, but
>rather how to decide whether something *is* such a thing.
Ah, yes. Now there's the crucial point: "some things" (fundamental human
rights) must be (nearly) laid down in stone and guaranteed to everyone.
Only an exceptional majority should be able to alter their status.
(Since this involves modifying the constitution).
But that leaves, as Richard says, an important question : is divorce (to take
an obvious example) a fundamental human right, or not? This is something that
can, and should, be debated. In addition, different countries are likely to
come to different conclusions about this.
As a matter of fact, does anyone know if divorce actually is a right under
international human rights agreements?
My own feeling is that divorce is probably not a fundamental human right.
Richard, presumably, feels that it is.
Lars-Henrik also thinks it is, I imagine.
Your thoughts, everyone?
Duncan.
[ Reply to: d...@doc.ic.ac.uk or ...!ukc!icdoc!dcw ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duncan White, | "But Holmes, that means Sir Charles painted
Dept. Of Computing, | the hound before his death."
Imperial College, | "Yes, Watson: he is unlikely to have painted
London SW7 | it AFTER his death!"
England. | Dudley Moore/Peter Cook
Rodney Orr
Duncan makes some interesting observations on the arguments put
forward and makes some points of his own. He also questions some
of the points made by myself and others and so this is my response.
I was drawn into this argument when Donal made a comment which I
felt was a little too sweeping in its consequences.
>An interesting discussion on democracy has begun to appear: how far the wishes
>of the majority can override those of minorities, in a democracy.
>
>[A lot of text deleted - basically questioning the rights of majorities to
> pass laws and change constitutions; rules to try to ensure that a high
> level of consensous is achieved before constitutions are changed and
> finally whether minorities can ignore laws they don't agree with and
> what happens then.... phew!]
>
>Of course, a system such as I have described does allow a human right to be
>abolished, when the appropriate majority is attained. Some may argue that
>human rights are Absolute, and can never be abolished - but I side with Irek
>Defee, who argues that human rights evolve over time, and are therefore not
>absolute. (Just very slow-changing).
Well on reflection I find it difficult to disagree with your comments. I
am not going to try to argue that minorities have any special right to ignore
laws they disagree with and expect to avoid sufferring the legal consequences.
However majorities (especially where these are based arround some ethnic or
religious divide) need to make very special efforts to ensure that they are not
`oppressing' minorities (perhaps unintentionally).
A little more on this subject later.....
>Donal then continued, in article <6...@prles2.UUCP>:
>
>>... Don't you
>>think it would set a dangerous precedent if the minority of the population
>>(in the question of divorce in Ireland (Rep of), around 10% of the population)
>>were able to change the law against the wishes of the majority ?
>
>Rodney joined in, following this up, in <25...@zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk>:
>
>>Well it may be a matter of personal taste, but the assumption behind the
>>above statement that the majority can impose its will on a minority
>>seem even more dangerous. I wonder does Donal defend the 'rights' of the
>>majority in Northern Ireland to impose their will on the minority quite so
>>enthusiastically?
>>
>>I feel that true democracy is more that `majority rule'.
>
>It's not clear whether these statements are only about divorce, or are intended
>to be general. Rodney's second sentence is another example (a very contentious
>one, to be sure) and so makes me think he means his statements generally.
I certainly feel that divorce (along with things like contraception,
homosexuality, abortion etc) are areas where simple blanket bans make bad
law. In my opinion, such laws (especially imbedded in a consitution) are
definitely unjust and the fact that, in the case of divorce, apparently 90% of
Irish voters think otherwise will not convince ME that they are just (sorry if
that sounds arrogant - its not ment to be)
However I don't agree with the person who said that they made Ireland
uninhabitable (for him). There are much worse injustices in Europe and
the world generally.
So yes, I was thinking at a general level and questioning Donal's assumption
that the majority always has the right to enforce its ideas; especially in
the context of Ireland which has a number of (apparently) permanent
majority & minority communities. It seems to me that there are areas
of legitimate private concern which the state should only act to regulate
(not ban) - divorce is one of them; the state should certainly act to ensure
that children are given the best possible protection in a divorce.
However that is just my opinion and I see problems with it as indicated
below.....
>I'd like to ask him [i.e. me], if he does mean that the majority should not be able to
>impose its will (by voting on new laws) on a minority, how does he think a
>democracy should be run? If a new law shouldn't be made in accordance with
>the wishes of the majority, then how should it be made? And if a law is made,
>supported by the majority, but a minority disagree with it, can they simply
>disobey it?
Well I'm afriad that Duncan has me here. As I have indicated I don't think
that minorities can just ignore laws and, simply because they are a minority,
get away with it. Consitutions which state basic principles to protect
minorities (e.g. USA) and demand a high level of consensous to change are
probably the best we can achieve (provided there is a well informed
electorate who have been made aware of the issues and implications of
new laws and who are sensitive to minority feelings).
>(And if he asks me the question he asked Donal, I'd have to answer: yes.
>As long as a majority in Northern Ireland wish to remain in Britain, that
>should remain British Government policy.)
Perhaps I should have been more clear here - I wasn't arguing about
the right of the NI majority to remain British if they wanted - that is, in
my view, a valid `majority' decision. I was refering to certain past
(and some would claim still happening) practices where the majority
had discrimatory practices against the minority. However, following an e-mail message from Donal and some reflection, my question was probably
irrelevant :-). The Republic's laws on divorce, are certainly based upon
Catholic dogma, but I wouldn't attempt to claim they are specifically
anti-Protestant (although in my view they do show a certain blindness to
the sensitivities of others as I have indicated).
>In article <8...@skye.ed.ac.uk> Richard joins in:
>
>[text deleted...]
>>The idea is that there are some things that the majority shouldn't impose
>>on the minority. The problem is not what to do about such things, but
>>rather how to decide whether something *is* such a thing.
>
>Ah, yes. Now there's the crucial point: "some things" (fundamental human
>rights) must be (nearly) laid down in stone and guaranteed to everyone.
>Only an exceptional majority should be able to alter their status.
>(Since this involves modifying the constitution).
>
>But that leaves, as Richard says, an important question : is divorce (to take
>an obvious example) a fundamental human right, or not? This is something that
>can, and should, be debated. In addition, different countries are likely to
>come to different conclusions about this.
>
>As a matter of fact, does anyone know if divorce actually is a right under
>international human rights agreements?
>
>My own feeling is that divorce is probably not a fundamental human right.
>Richard, presumably, feels that it is.
>Lars-Henrik also thinks it is, I imagine.
Well, I hesitate to call divorce a `fundamental human right' but I do feel
it is certainly one which the state/majority should not make absolute
dictates on. Perhaps it should be called a `fundamental human expectation'?
>
>
>Your thoughts, everyone?
>
> Duncan.
It is an important question that Duncan asked - and perhaps one
which will become even more important with increased european union.
(e.g. should a european-wide consensous that divorce is a `human right'
be enough to force Ireland to change its constitution?).
Rodney
PS One thing which slightly puzzles me about the R. of Ireland's position on
divorce is how it treats foreigners who have been divorced and re-married
and who then move to work in Ireland. Are such people treated as
bigamists? What is the status of any children of the 2nd marriage - do
they forfeit inheritance rights in Ireland? I suppose the same question applies
to Irish people who move to the UK (say), get divorced & return to Ireland.
Magnus Kempe
minority, one should always hold two principles in mind:
i) the ultimate minority is the individual, and
ii) if one man does not have the right to prevent nor force another
man's particular kind of action, neither do 1'000'000 men: a non-
existent right is a zero; the sum of 1'000'000 zeroes is still a
zero.
---- ----
In the context of the "irish divorce" debate, we may now apply those
two principles, for example (note: we may apply them in Ireland, as well
as in any other country on Earth, because all men have the same nature,
and, therefore, all men have the same natural rights):
Does a man have the right to prevent or force another man into some
kind of association -- including life with another man (woman :-) ?
The answer is, quite obviously, no (otherwise, man does not have the
right of free association -- i.e. the right to choose with whom he
wants to share parts of his values, whatever the importance of those
values.)
Note: the argument of uniting 95% of the population in order to change the
constitution, instead of 51%, is futile, when it comes to initiate the
usage of force against any individual. 95% of zeroes is worth just as much
as 51% of zeroes: exactly nothing.
Note bis: the fact that divorce [as well as abortion] is opposed on
religious grounds demonstrates clearly that, in a free country, the state
should have nothing to do with the church. Otherwise, beliefs are used to
violate some men's rights -- i.e. irrationality and mysticism are allowed
to destroy man and his faculty of reason.
---- ----
The issue of man's rights and of the alleged "rights of the collective"
have been dealt with by Ayn Rand in her two essays
"Man's Rights"
and
"Collectivized 'Rights'".
These essays may be found in her books entitled
_For The New Intellectual_
&
_Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_
Good Premises -- Magnus eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral crime peculiar to
our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We do not claim -- we *prove*."
-- Hugh Akston, in _Atlas Shrugged_, by Ayn Rand
Richard Tobin
>Ok, let me remind you that EUROPE looks COMPLETELY INHABITABLE for
>fundamentalist muslims since only MONOGAMY in marriage is allowed.
Well, I'm not sure whether this is true, but it may be. I certainly
think that the law should be much less involved in all these things.
Polygamy (usually polygyny, in practice), monogamy, no marriage at all
all seem fine to me, if that's what the people involved want...
Irek Defee
> Does a man have the right to prevent or force another man into some
> kind of association -- including life with another man (woman :-) ?
Yeah, and why the hell they legalise only (hetero)monogamy in Europe?
>...should have nothing to do with the church. Otherwise, beliefs are used to
>violate some men's rights...
Yeah, this is also in the (hetero)monogamy case.
>The issue of man's rights and of the alleged "rights of the collective"
>have been dealt with by Ayn Rand in her two essays
I see the point without invoking this goddess here agaain. Was she
saying something about the legalized tyranny of (hetero)monogamy, too?
Martin Ibert
>Ah, yes. Now there's the crucial point: "some things" (fundamental human
>rights) must be (nearly) laid down in stone and guaranteed to everyone.
>Only an exceptional majority should be able to alter their status.
>(Since this involves modifying the constitution).
NO! NO! NO! NO majority may ever be allowed to abolish human right. There may
be times when you would find an overwhelming majority for something absolutely
hideous just because people are feeling strongly that the worst possible
should be done to someone special (I think of the RAF terrorists here in Ger-
many, right after or during their worst campaign).
Fortunately the West German Grundgesetz ("Basic Law", Constitution) lays down
Basic Rights that can never be abolished as long as the Grundgesetzt holds
(that's written in the Grundgesetz). Among them:
Dignity of man (=human being, "Mensch")
Freedom of doing what you like (as long as you don't intrude on other
people's rights)
Right to live (as soon as you are born!) and remain uninjured
Equality of man (=male) and woman
Equality of all humans of all sexes, ancestors, race, religious and
polotical persuasions
Freedom of mind, conscience, worship (includes atheism)
Right to refuse military service on grounds conscience
Freedom of speech and press
Freedom of information (only applies to public sources, may be restric-
ted to protect minors and the "Ehre" (can't translate that) of
others)
Freedom of art and science (as long as you stay true to the Grund-
gesetz)
Protection of matrimony and family (BUT:)
Equality of "legitimate" and "illegitimate" children
Freedom of assembly (unarmed and peaceful, may be restricted regarding
assemblies in the open)
Freedom to form societies, clubs, associations, unions ... (as long as
they are not used against the Grundgesetz)
Secrecy of mail and telecommunication (may be restricted by law)
Right to political asylum
and some more. I am getting tired of typing and translating, and I guess you[
may be tired of reading the stuff.
What's important is that you have the right to do what you want as long as you
don't keep anybodelse from doing what he wants (and enjoying his/her human
rights). That someone thinks what I do is wrong is NO reason to prevent me
from doing it. If I want a divorce (pretty early, considering I am not even
married yet :-), I don't infringe any other person's rights by doing so. So
you can't keep me from seeking a divorce (and getting it, ha ha). It is some
kind of a human right. The fact that matrimony can't keep people from leaving
the state if they so choose.
These right also forbid torture, beating as a punishment, and capital punish-
ment.
The only way to get rid of these rights is to stage a revolution.
Manus Savage
> In article <3...@castle.ed.ac.uk>, egp...@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Turton) writes:
>
>>the UVF or some such have killed quite a few people, quite possibly with the
>>help of the security forces. Thus it seems to me that the problems would not
>>end if the IRA just stopped.
>
> The few people who the unionists have killed have all been connected (according
> to the unionists, that is) to the IRA, so it's a case of tit-for-tat killings.
> If the IRA stopped, the UVF and others would have no reason to kill.
I Don't normally reply to these sort of postings, but this one is ABSOLUTE
RUBBISH. `The Few...killed?' CRAP. The UVF/UDA/UFF/PAF and include the UDR
(since members have been convicted of sectarian killings) have been involved
in hundreds of sectarian killings, especially in Belfast. I'm not going to
start to list incidents, but the Avenue bar the Shankill Butchers and the
Lad gunned down last week in Ardoyne are representative. These are not
isolated incidents --- there has been a sectarian campaign waged in North
Belfast almost since the start of the troubles. As for all the victims
being members of the IRA, more rubbish. The facts show otherwise.
Coming from Belfast I find miss-informed postings (of both types) offensive.
This is a serious subject, people are being killed on an almost daily basis,
please make sure your posting is as factually correct as possible.
______________________________________________________________________________
|Manus Savage RT3121 ________ _______ |
|Room 21,B68, / / / _____/ |
|British Telecom Research Laboratories, / // // / / /___ |
|Martlesham Heath, / // // / /___ / E-Mail:: |
|Ipswich IP5 7RE. / // // / ____/ / |
|Phone (0473) 642590 /_//_//_//______/ msa...@axion.bt.co.uk|
|............................................................................| |
| Once upon a time you dressed so fine, |
| threw the bums a dime in your prime, didn't you? |
| |
| Disclaimer: |
|I disclaim, you disclaim, he disclaims, she disclaims, we disclaim, |
|you disclaim, they disclaim. |
|____________________________________________________________________________|
Dr. Sanio
... [ lots deleted ]
>
>I certainly feel that divorce (along with things like contraception,
>homosexuality, abortion etc) are areas where simple blanket bans make bad
>definitely unjust .. [ exactly! es]
>
>However I don't agree with the person who said that they made Ireland
>uninhabitable (for him). There are much worse injustices in Europe and
>the world generally.
>
into private affairs violates fundamental rights of the individuals concerned,
no matter whether 90% or 99.99% agree. If everybody eats shit, it still
remains shit and I don't wish to be forced to follow.
And it's a common attitude of all, especially religious fanatics to oppress
and humiliate people who do not conform to their obsession.
I, myself strictly agree to anybody who regards a country uninhabitable for
himself (& nobody else) where the integrity of private lifestyle is not
accepted. For example, Iran - another country ruled by religious fanatics, would
be uninhabitable for me, too.
As I'm neither Iranian nor Irish, it's easy for me to avoid living in those
countries. Far worse for free-thinking people living there.
When Irek Defee quoted that human rights are subject of evolution, this does
not mean, IMHO, that any oppression is justified simply because there are
worse injustices. Without utterly serious reasons, there is no justification
to go behind the state of evolution of human rights reached so far.
In Ireland, IMHO, the church (no matter if catholic - in this case - or pro-
testant or islamic, they equally tend to oppress or even erase free-thinking
people if they are allowed to) has the power to act the way it did all the
centuries before, carrying out a quasi-totalitarian regime and forcing people
to subjugation & hypocrisy.
Or is there somebody who denies that there is adultery, separation and the
misery of 'illegitimate' children in Ireland? So, I strictly state that
there is serious oppression of fundamental human rights in that country.
This has nothing to do with the question whether UK regime in Northern
Ireland is legitimate or not.
Anyway, it's hard to find out how changes can be initiated in a country
where so many people conform to injustice. Obviously, it wouldn't be
democratic, too, to force the overwhelming majority of a people to change
their convictions.
>Well, I hesitate to call divorce a `fundamental human right' but I do feel
>it is certainly one which the state/majority should not make absolute
>dictates on. Perhaps it should be called a `fundamental human expectation'?
>
See above. I guess you missed the point. The question, IMHO, would be how
to guarantee the rights of the minorities without offending the principles
of democracy.
I have no simple solutions available, either
regards , es
Lars-Henrik Eriksson
>
>An interesting discussion on democracy has begun to appear: how far the wishes
>of the majority can override those of minorities, in a democracy.
>
>>This is an interesting point. Does a majority have the (moral) right
>>to determine whether the minority may divorce or not? I believe this
>>should be entirely up to the individual. Things are not right just
>>because they are supported by a majority.
>
>Here, Lars-Henrik is talking about morals, and probably only about divorce.
>(I think he believes divorce to be a human right - see below).
As a matter of fact I do not - not in the same way as the human rights
metioned in the UN declaration. Also, I was not talking specifically
about divorce.
I believe that laws should not be made - indeed that it is "wrong" to
make laws - that restrict the freedom of the individual to perform
acts that do not affect others. For this reason I feel that laws
prohibiting divorce, homosexuality, driving without a safety belt etc.
are very suspect.
Of course you can make the point that by performing these acts people
are indirectly affecting others, e.g. by "lowering the moral standard
of society" or something similar. In the case of safety belts, one may
well argue that since people killed or severly wounded in car
accidents cause costs to society (both public and private), people
should be under the obligation to buckle up.
(In case you wonder, I approve of divorce and homosexuality, but I
think that someone who drives around without a safety belt is out of
his mind.)
Laws against murder is of quite a different kind, since murder is an
act that directly affects others. The same thing goes for the highway
code. If people were driving on the side of the road of their fancy,
road traffic would simply be impossible for everyone.
--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson
>The argument used against divorce in the Irish referendum was
>that it is not merely a matter of the two people getting
>divorced, it affects the whole of society. It was argued that
>divorce is wrong because a society in which divorce exists is
>a less happy society than one where it does not. The evidence
>on the effect of divorce on children seems to back this up.
The reason people want a divorce is generally that they can't live
together. I think it is pretty clear (even backed up by studies), that
it is much better for children if their parents divorce that if they
stay married and quarrel all the time.
I don't know about Ireland and the U.K., but in Sweden, the ususal
case is that divorced people get common custody of the children after
the divorce. (Unless, of course one parent tries to show that the
other is "unsuitable" to have custody of the kids, in which case
everything winds up in court).
Karl Tombre
>minority, one should always hold two principles in mind:
>
> i) the ultimate minority is the individual, and
>
> ii) if one man does not have the right to prevent nor force another
> man's particular kind of action, neither do 1'000'000 men: a non-
> existent right is a zero; the sum of 1'000'000 zeroes is still a
> zero.
>
What is this kind of stuff ? But society works this way; if not it
would be anarchy. If I don't want to pay taxes, should I just say "I
don't agree paying taxes" and nobody would have anything to say ???
Democracy just works this way. It isn't perfect, but everything else
done by human hands would just be worse.
As an another example, I am VERY STRONGLY against abortion. I consider
as a murder to take the life of an unborn baby.
But when law was voted here in France that social security should
reimburse (at least partially) abortions, this also means that part of
the money I pay as taxes is used to PAY FOR ABORTIONS !!!! As awful as
it seems TO ME, I still accept the rules of society. Wouldn't it be plain
nonsense to pretend that the majority cannot force me into paying this
part of the taxes ??? Sure they can... and they do !!!
Once again, this is the way democracy works. And I certainly prefer
democracy to a dictator... or to anarchy...
----
When somebody shoots you because he doesn't want anybody to take away
his minority rights to act so, whatever rights you claim to have don't
make any difference !!!
----
Karl Tombre - INRIA Lorraine / CRIN
EMAIL : tom...@loria.crin.fr - POST : BP 239, 54506 VANDOEUVRE CEDEX, France
Teemu Leisti
> Yeah, and why the hell they legalise only (hetero)monogamy in Europe?
As far as I know, it is possible for people of the same sex to marry
each other at least in Denmark.
Teemu Leisti
U of Helsinki, Finland
lei...@cc.helsinki.fi
Christian Murphy
(I've edited out other people's writing to make this easier to follow)
In article <25...@zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk>, ro...@zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk
(Rodney Orr) writes:
>... I
> am not going to try to argue that minorities have any special right to ignore
> laws they disagree with and expect to avoid sufferring the legal consequences.
> However majorities (especially where these are based arround some ethnic or
> religious divide) need to make very special efforts to ensure that they are not
> `oppressing' minorities (perhaps unintentionally).
I'd just like to make a point. It is quite clear that the intention of the no
vote in the divorce referendum was not meant to oppress minorities. It's
interesting that before the actual referendum opinion polls showed that a
majority of people wanted divorce to be made legal.
The 'no' campaigners managed to turn this majority around. How? I believe
that it was by scare-tactics. There was a particular slogan I remember:
"YOU COULD BE DIVORCED AGAINST YOUR WILL"
This was probably not true, but the ammendment to the constitution was very
vague. It just proposed to make divorce legal. The actual legislation to
regulate it would have been done later. So the 'no' vote was by people who
didn't want to lose their spouses or mothers or... etc.
Of course it was never pointed out that marriages break up anyway. Divorce is
just a legal recognition (or should be) of what has happened.
> I certainly feel that divorce (along with things like contraception,
> homosexuality, abortion etc) are areas where simple blanket bans make bad
> law. In my opinion, such laws (especially imbedded in a consitution) are
> definitely unjust and the fact that, in the case of divorce, apparently 90% of
> Irish voters think otherwise will not convince ME that they are just (sorry if
> that sounds arrogant - its not ment to be).
That's alright :-). Just don't mention ab**tion :-)
I think that the voters thought about their own situations, not about the
general principles. Divorce was characterised as anti-family. It may be if it
is too easily obtainable, but if there are no children ,for example....
I think that the Catholic Church played only a marginal role in the vote.
In fact I know at least one priest who voted FOR divorce. So it was not a
simple case of one group oppressing another.
> So yes, I was thinking at a general level and questioning Donal's assumption
> that the majority always has the right to enforce its ideas; especially in
> the context of Ireland which has a number of (apparently) permanent
> majority & minority communities.
In the North anyway. A recent study by Queens University Belfast has predicted
that the Nationalist community in the North will not outnumber the Unionist
community dor the forseeable future (ie. not in our life time).
> It seems to me that there are areas
> of legitimate private concern which the state should only act to regulate
> (not ban) - divorce is one of them; the state should certainly act to ensure
> that children are given the best possible protection in a divorce.
> However that is just my opinion and I see problems with it as indicated
> below.....
>
>...I don't think
> that minorities can just ignore laws and, simply because they are a minority,
> get away with it. Consitutions which state basic principles to protect
> minorities (e.g. USA) and demand a high level of consensous to change are
> probably the best we can achieve (provided there is a well informed
> electorate who have been made aware of the issues and implications of
> new laws and who are sensitive to minority feelings).
This is exactly the problem. However I agree that a constitution is the best
solution (provided there's a legal system to back it up).
>... I wasn't arguing about
> the right of the NI majority to remain British if they wanted - that is, in
> my view, a valid `majority' decision. I was refering to certain past
> (and some would claim still happening) practices where the majority
> had discrimatory practices against the minority. However, following an e-mai
>l message from Donal and some reflection, my question was probably
> irrelevant :-). The Republic's laws on divorce, are certainly based upon
> Catholic dogma
Originally, yes. I'd question whether that is still the case. What made people
vote 'no' was that divorce was 'anti-family'. Being 'pro-family' is not
specifically a Catholic Dogma.
>, but I wouldn't attempt to claim they are specifically
> anti-Protestant (although in my view they do show a certain blindness to
> the sensitivities of others as I have indicated).
>
> Well, I hesitate to call divorce a `fundamental human right' but I do feel
> it is certainly one which the state/majority should not make absolute
> dictates on. Perhaps it should be called a `fundamental human expectation'?
Rule of thumb: if it doesn't do appreciable harm to others, it should be
allowed. Divorce should then be allowed in many cases.
>>
>>
>>Your thoughts, everyone?
>>
>> Duncan.
>
> It is an important question that Duncan asked - and perhaps one
> which will become even more important with increased european union.
> (e.g. should a european-wide consensous that divorce is a `human right'
> be enough to force Ireland to change its constitution?).
It will be changed. It is ridiculous not to allow divorce. As it is , many
people are just living together, despite all the legal problems (specifically
inheritance, but there are others) that they have.
I don't think divorce is a big enough issue for the rest of Europe to impose
*its* will on Ireland.
>
> Rodney
>
> PS One thing which slightly puzzles me about the R. of Ireland's position on
> divorce is how it treats foreigners who have been divorced and re-married
> and who then move to work in Ireland. Are such people treated as
> bigamists?
No. Foreign divorces are recognised. This has led those who can afford it to
get a British divorce (they pretend to be domiciled in Britain and go to court
there). The other (more difficult) back-door is to get an annulment. This
obviously is biased torwards the rich, who can afford it.
> What is the status of any children of the 2nd marriage - do
> they forfeit inheritance rights in Ireland? I suppose the same question applies
> to Irish people who move to the UK (say), get divorced & return to Ireland.
To be domiciled you have to intend to live there for a long time. But nobody
has challenged foreign divorces in a court.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Rodney Orr RT3113, British Telecom Research Labs., Martlesham Heath,
> Ipswich IP5 7RE, U.K. Tele: +44 473 645091
> e-mail: ro...@axion.bt.co.uk (...!mcvax!ukc!axion!rorr)
> ~o^o~ is watching!
Christian Murphy Trinity College,Dublin cpmu...@vax1.tcd.ie
Magnus Kempe
: [I wrote]
: >In every situation where opposition arises between a majority and a
: >minority, one should always hold two principles in mind:
: >
: > i) the ultimate minority is the individual, and
: >
: > ii) if one man does not have the right to prevent nor force another
: > man's particular kind of action, neither do 1'000'000 men: a non-
: > existent right is a zero; the sum of 1'000'000 zeroes is still a
: > zero.
:
: What is this kind of stuff ? But society works this way; if not it
: would be anarchy.
I talked about *rights* and *particular* kinds of action. I agree that
to remove any and all restrictions is anarchy. But the alternative
solution is *not* to either remove or allow any and all restrictions,
whether they are wanted by a dictator, by a majority, or by God. Anarchy
and collectivism-statism are two faces of the same coin: the rejection of
political rights, of individual rights.
The basic political principle that should govern society is the following:
no man has the right to initiate the use of force against another man,
because such an action would prevent the latter from using his faculty of
reason in order to choose his actions, i.e. in order to choose how to
further his own life.
This political principle is the basis for laissez-faire capitalism. The
proper purpose of government, according to that principle, is to protect
individual rights, with the justice, the police, and the army.
---- ----
For the intellectually honest, Ayn Rand has presented the principles of
laissez-faire capitalism in her book
_Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_
Further, Ludwig von Mises has presented the evil of 20th century major
collectivist-statist ideologies -- i.e. fascism, nazism, communism,
socialism, and interventionism (mixed economies) -- in his book
_Planned Chaos_
Hans Huttel
>As far as I know, it is possible for people of the same sex to marry
>each other at least in Denmark.
Well, not in the sense of a marriage involving a wedding ceremony etc.
The Danish law that you are referring to states that two people
of the same sex living together have the same legal rights as an `ordinary'
married couple w.r.t. `divorce settlements' (or whatever you call it in the
MOTSS case), wills etc.
| Hans H\"{u}ttel, Office 1603 JANET: ha...@uk.ac.ed.lfcs
| LFCS, Dept. of Computer Science UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!hans
| University of Edinburgh ARPA: hans%lfcs.e...@nfsnet-relay.ac.uk
| Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, SCOTLAND ... Ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more!
Richard Tobin
>minority, one should always hold two principles in mind:
> ii) if one man does not have the right to prevent nor force another
> man's particular kind of action, neither do 1'000'000 men: a non-
> existent right is a zero; the sum of 1'000'000 zeroes is still a
> zero.
And of course one should remember that not everyone accepts these
principles (Magnus presumably accepts them as axioms, without proof).
The statement of the principle above seems to suggest that there is some
measure of right that can be added together to find the rights of a group;
if you believe that one man has *zero* right to force someone else's
action, such a principle will of course preclude democracy (I assume
Magnus is consistent here and rejects democracy).
If you want to conclude that, for example, no single person can decide
that I have to pay a tax, but that a majority decision can require it,
you will have to decide either that the single person didn't have zero
right to force me, or that rights can't be simply added.
(Of course, Magnus doesn't want to conclude that.)
By the way, some might think that choosing my axioms to produce desired
conclusions is going about it the wrong way. But how else can you decide
what are good axioms other than by the conclusions they lead to?
kpje...@vax1.tcd.ie
>> The few people who the unionists have killed have all been connected (according
>> to the unionists, that is) to the IRA, so it's a case of tit-for-tat killings.
>> If the IRA stopped, the UVF and others would have no reason to kill.
> I Don't normally reply to these sort of postings, but this one is ABSOLUTE
> RUBBISH. `The Few...killed?' CRAP.
Well, Manus, I think you missed my point here. I only used "few" here because
the original poster had used it, and had been refering to the FEW killed in
recent events, Only a fool would say the loyalists had killed a FEW people.
My whole point was in the sentence which followed; i.e. if the IRA gave up
surely the rest would too. I get the feeling you just picked my posting as
a way into the discussion. What you disagreed with is pretty irrelevant to
the point I've been making.
>Coming from Belfast I find miss-informed postings (of both types) offensive.
If you're going to pick out ridiculous things like this, you'd find more
or less everything posted was "absolute rubbish". And you're not the only one
who's lived in NI either.
> |Manus Savage RT3121 ________ _______ |
> |Phone (0473) 642590 /_//_//_//______/ msa...@axion.bt.co.uk|
Magnus Kempe
: [I wrote]
: > ii) if one man does not have the right to prevent nor force another
: > man's particular kind of action, neither do 1'000'000 men: a non-
: > existent right is a zero; the sum of 1'000'000 zeroes is still a
: > zero.
:
: And of course one should remember that not everyone accepts these
: principles (Magnus presumably accepts them as axioms, without proof).
You should ask, not presume. In order to reject the above principle, one
would have to reject *logic*. The principle I have exposed *is* logically
correct: if one man does not have the right to kill another man, neither
does a mob. A right is an absolute (that is what "inalienable rights" means)
and a non-right is just as absolutely a non-right: someone's non-right does
not become a right when associated with someone else's non-right, whatever
the number of associations.
In light of this principle, I reject unlimited majority rule (which is
what democracy means.)
Further, Richard Tobin writes that one could want the "conclusion" that
a majority decision can require that one has to pay a tax, although a
single person couldn't require it (in other terms, he wishes to substitute
the Divine Right of the Tribe for the Divine Right of the King.) Please
note that wishes are not metaphysical: many men may wish the "conclusion"
that they can fly by flapping their arms -- such a wish is *irrational*,
even though it might be held by many men.
---- ----
And in the end, Richard Tobin confesses one of his basic premises:
: By the way, some might think that choosing my axioms to produce desired
: conclusions is going about it the wrong way. But how else can you decide
: what are good axioms other than by the conclusions they lead to?
For your education, here goes:
An axiom is a self-evident truth.
A truth is an identification of a fact of reality.
Thus, an axiom is correct if it is a self-evident identification of a fact
of reality. You believe that axioms (i.e. truths) are correct *because* they
produce *desired* conclusions, which leads you to *assert* axioms in order
to reach your desired conclusions -- i.e. you want truth (reality) to adjust
to your desires.
In other words, you want to substitute your wishes to reality: such
a psychological aberration characterizes schizophrenics.
Kimmo Saarinen
In article <21...@erix.ericsson.se> eua...@euas10.ericsson.se (Magnus Kempe) writes:
>Richard Tobin writes:
>: [I wrote]
>: > ii) if one man does not have the right to prevent nor force another
>: > man's particular kind of action, neither do 1'000'000 men: a non-
>: > existent right is a zero; the sum of 1'000'000 zeroes is still a
>: > zero.
>:
>: And of course one should remember that not everyone accepts these
>: principles (Magnus presumably accepts them as axioms, without proof).
>
>You should ask, not presume. In order to reject the above principle, one
>would have to reject *logic*. The principle I have exposed *is* logically
>correct: if one man does not have the right to kill another man, neither
>does a mob. A right is an absolute (that is what "inalienable rights" means)
>and a non-right is just as absolutely a non-right: someone's non-right does
>not become a right when associated with someone else's non-right, whatever
>the number of associations.
Yes, if we think it from the individual viewpoint. But from the society's
point of view it is not so. If we accept the fact that we can get some
advantage when we form a society compared to getting along with our own,
we also have to accept the rules that is valid in that society. So, if
the individual doesn't respect those rules the society has right to act
according the situation.
>In light of this principle, I reject unlimited majority rule (which is
>what democracy means.)
The way to use power depents on the individuals ability to see those
consequences of different actions (individuals form the society and
in democracy they use power through the society), if the concequences
are not acceptable the action should be rejected. The worst I can
think is the use of power (and force) without thinking about the
possible concequences and ignoring one's responsibility from his/hers
actions.
>And in the end, Richard Tobin confesses one of his basic premises:
>: By the way, some might think that choosing my axioms to produce desired
>: conclusions is going about it the wrong way. But how else can you decide
>: what are good axioms other than by the conclusions they lead to?
>
>For your education, here goes:
> An axiom is a self-evident truth.
> A truth is an identification of a fact of reality.
In mathematics, you *set* the axioms and then you form the calculus
based on the axioms. I think here is the same thing, you set you
axioms or where do you get them, Magnus ? (You bild the system from top
to bottom ? -:)
>Thus, an axiom is correct if it is a self-evident identification of a fact
>of reality. You believe that axioms (i.e. truths) are correct *because* they
>produce *desired* conclusions, which leads you to *assert* axioms in order
>to reach your desired conclusions -- i.e. you want truth (reality) to adjust
>to your desires.
C'mon, you once again assumed (you claim that you are objective !?)
something that is not said. No, you can test your axioms and the whole
systems validity when you compare its results to the reality. Only
reality can prove you system, if you axiomatic system works in the
reality it proves you axioms right. I understood that Richard Tobin
meant this.
>In other words, you want to substitute your wishes to reality: such
>a psychological aberration characterizes schizophrenics.
... like you seems to think ...
>Good Premises -- Magnus eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
>"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral crime peculiar to
> our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We do not claim -- we *prove*."
> -- Hugh Akston, in _Atlas Shrugged_, by Ayn Rand
- Kimmo
--
Kimmo Saarinen ! e-mail ki...@vtsai2.sai.vtt.FI
Technical Research Centre of Finland ! Tel. +358 31 163 357
Medical Engineering Laboratory ! Fax 174 102
P.O.BOX 316, SF-33101 Tampere, Finland ! ... completely mad ...
Christian Murphy
> In article <25...@zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk> ro...@zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk writes:
> ... [ lots deleted ]
>>
>>I certainly feel that divorce (along with things like contraception,
>>homosexuality, abortion etc) are areas where simple blanket bans make bad
>>law. In my opinion, such laws (especially imbedded in a constitution) are
>>definitely unjust .. [ exactly! es]
>>
>>However I don't agree with the person who said that they made Ireland
>>uninhabitable (for him). There are much worse injustices in Europe and
>>the world generally.
>>
> I can't agree, here. I believe that a n y interference of the authorities
> into private affairs violates fundamental rights of the individuals concerned,
> no matter whether 90% or 99.99% agree. If everybody eats shit, it still
> remains shit and I don't wish to be forced to follow.
>
> And it's a common attitude of all, especially religious fanatics to oppress
> and humiliate people who do not conform to their obsession.
>
> I, myself strictly agree to anybody who regards a country uninhabitable for
> himself (& nobody else) where the integrity of private lifestyle is not
> accepted. For example, Iran - another country ruled by religious fanatics, would
> be uninhabitable for me, too.
I must strongly object to the use of the term 'religious fanatic'. As I have
posted before, I don't think that religion per se was responsible for the vote.
Don't you think it's funny that *no-one* has tried to justify the vote itself;
the most that was said was that this was a democratic decision.
I know that in the past the bishops had a lot of power here and that they used
it in digraceful ways. However they have never held public office. Ireland is
becoming more and more secularised.
Uninhabitable? Well, if you think so. I can only say that any country is
uninhabitable. Nowhere is perfect when it comes to human rights. There is no
black and white.
USA: You cannot burn a flag if it happens to be starry and stripey.
FRG: You cannot get a government job if you say things against th Basic Law,
life can be unpleasant if you're from Turkey
GB: Your freedom of speech is severely curtailed if you are an employee of
the government
F: Conscientious objectors get a rough time
> As I'm neither Iranian nor Irish, it's easy for me to avoid living in those
> countries. Far worse for free-thinking people living there.
Basically if you want to have an abortion or you want to have a divorce,
Ireland is not the place to go. But we do have the important rights of freedom
of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom from arbitrary arrest, secret ballot
etc. Ireland is NOT comparable to Iran.
> When Irek Defee quoted that human rights are subject of evolution, this does
> not mean, IMHO, that any oppression is justified simply because there are
> worse injustices. Without utterly serious reasons, there is no justification
> to go behind the state of evolution of human rights reached so far.
>
> In Ireland, IMHO, the church (no matter if catholic - in this case - or pro-
> testant or islamic, they equally tend to oppress or even erase free-thinking
> people if they are allowed to) has the power to act the way it did all the
> centuries before, carrying out a quasi-totalitarian regime and forcing people
> to subjugation & hypocrisy.
>
> Or is there somebody who denies that there is adultery, separation and the
> misery of 'illegitimate' children in Ireland? So, I strictly state that
> there is serious oppression of fundamental human rights in that country.
> This has nothing to do with the question whether UK regime in Northern
> Ireland is legitimate or not.
Actually the law does not rcognise any children as 'illegitimate' anymore.
They have the same rights as any other. Yes the other problems do exist here
and no-one here denies that.
> Anyway, it's hard to find out how changes can be initiated in a country
> where so many people conform to injustice. Obviously, it wouldn't be
> democratic, too, to force the overwhelming majority of a people to change
> their convictions.
These things will happen gradually. The younger generation is completely
different from those that came before. The vast majority of young people would
certainly favour divorce. There are very few new priests, very few under forty.
>>Well, I hesitate to call divorce a `fundamental human right' but I do feel
>>it is certainly one which the state/majority should not make absolute
>>dictates on. Perhaps it should be called a `fundamental human expectation'?
>>
> See above. I guess you missed the point. The question, IMHO, would be how
> to guarantee the rights of the minorities without offending the principles
> of democracy.
The answer is to draw up a constitution with the fundamental rights enshrined
in it. Unfortunately, ours was drawn up in 1938 and many of us are acutely
aware of it's age. It was drawn up when Ireland was overwhelmingly rural and
Catholic. Now a third of our population lives in Dublin and the church's
influence is steadilly waning.
But it does anger me that you say my country is ruled by 'religious fanatics'.
And that YOU are debating what is the solution to OUR problems. That is really
very patronising and insulting.
>
> I have no simple solutions available, either
>
> regards , es
No. No Endloesung for us, eh?
--
Dr. Sanio
>laissez-faire capitalism in her book
> _Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_
>
>Further, Ludwig von Mises has presented the evil of 20th century major
>collectivist-statist ideologies -- i.e. fascism, nazism, communism,
>socialism, and interventionism (mixed economies) -- in his book
> _Planned Chaos_
>
>Good Premises -- Magnus eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
>"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral crime peculiar to
> our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We do not claim -- we *prove*."
> -- Hugh Akston, in _Atlas Shrugged_, by Ayn Rand
Though I conform to some of what you said about the right of inividuals
or minorities, i feel the quotings cited above to be utterly unappropriate
and annoying.
The objectivism debate has been carried out here as well as
in sci.philosophy.tech (where it was not felt welcome, too, by a lot of
people, but anyway ..) .
Please, leave us alone with that subject, here
or try to reopen the discussion in an appropriate group.
What would you think about people who would publish quotings like
"Jesus loves you", "Proletarians of all countries, unite", or
anything similarly useless in this particular discussion?
regards, es
Jeff Dalton
>would have to reject *logic*.
That is not true. One does not have to reject logic in order to reject
premises or conclusions that are false.
>Further, Richard Tobin writes that one could want the "conclusion" that
>a majority decision can require that one has to pay a tax, although a
>single person couldn't require it (in other terms, he wishes to substitute
>the Divine Right of the Tribe for the Divine Right of the King.)
Is this the same Magnus who flamed against ad hominem arguments?
Richard never said anything about "Divine Rights" of any sort,
and that caricature of his argument is nothing but an attempt
at pernicious distortion.
>And in the end, Richard Tobin confesses one of his basic premises:
You should ask, not presume. How do you know it's a basic premise?
>: By the way, some might think that choosing my axioms to produce desired
>: conclusions is going about it the wrong way. But how else can you decide
>: what are good axioms other than by the conclusions they lead to?
Richard has a point. How do you know your premises are correct?
Well, one test is to see if they lead to contradictions. You
have to look at the consequences of premises, even if you think
they are axioms, not just at whether they are self-evident.
Otherwise, you elevate your subjectivity (ie, what you feel
is self-evident) over the truth.
>For your education, here goes:
> An axiom is a self-evident truth.
> A truth is an identification of a fact of reality.
How very nice. The difficult part is getting axioms that
actually are true. Objectivists always seem to pass over that
part and just *assert* that thair so-called axioms are true.
Jeff Dalton
> USA: You cannot burn a flag if it happens to be starry and stripey.
You may not have followed the recent news, but in the US you *can*
burn the flag. That's why the right is up in arms: laws against
flag burning seem to be unconstitutional, and so they want to
ammend the constitution.
Martin Ibert
>posted before, I don't think that religion per se was responsible for the vote.
>Don't you think it's funny that *no-one* has tried to justify the vote itself;
That IS funny. I take it as a hint that "something is rotten in the state of
Ireland".
> USA: You cannot burn a flag if it happens to be starry and stripey.
That's definitely not true. The recent court ruling said you may burn the Flag.
> FRG: You cannot get a government job if you say things against th Basic Law,
Can you elsewhere? The "Radikalenerlass" is misused, sure, but I can accept the
notion that a state does not want to employ those that want to overthrow it.
> life can be unpleasant if you're from Turkey
You don't have to be from Turkey to lead an unpleasant life. Racists are on the
move once again, against anyone who looks foreign.
> GB: Your freedom of speech is severely curtailed if you are an employee of
> the government
We have rules to that effect here in FRG as well.
> F: Conscientious objectors get a rough time
So do German Conscientious objectors.
--
\\ . Martin P Ibert, Westendallee 100 d, 1000 Berlin 19, West Germany //
|| |\ /| E-mail mar...@netmbx.UUCP ...!uunet!unido!tmpmbx!netmbx!martini ||
Dr. Sanio
> I must strongly object to the use of the term 'religious fanatic'. As I have
>posted before, I don't think that religion per se was responsible for the vote.
>Don't you think it's funny that *no-one* has tried to justify the vote itself;
>the most that was said was that this was a democratic decision.
> ....
I read your article where you stated that after my posting. Though you gave
interesting informations, just two remarks:
- The things I criticised (maybe in too strong words) like prohibiting
divorce, contraception etc. perfectly fit into the catholic dogma and not
by chance, as I believe.
- I never doubted that the vote itself was democratic.
> But it does anger me that you say my country is ruled by 'religious fanatics'.
>And that YOU are debating what is the solution to OUR problems. That is really
>very patronising and insulting.
>
I reread my article (not only what you quoted) and couldn't find any statement
which expressed something as cited above. I never asserted that your contry
in general is ruled by religious fanatics and I know very well that you have
free speech etc. . Anyway, I feel any interference of the state into private
affairs to be totalitarian and completely intolerable. And I blamed the church
(like most religious communities) always to try as far as they have the oppor-
tunity to impose their rules upon everybody, regardless whether (s)he believes
in their dogmas or not. And I see a problem about a democratically created
decision which carries out a non-democratic attitude. That's why I stated
that I don't know simple solutions.
I apologize that I obviously offended your patriotic feelings, which was not
my intention at all. Anyway, I couldn't live in a country where the state
interferes that widely into my private affairs, sorry.
Nevertheless, I don't understand why you feel that insulted. If things are chan-
ging towards secularization in your country, nice to hear it (and reason for
me to change my mind about living there), but I wonder if you want these things
to be discussed by foreign contributors at all. I don't want to impose you
any solution, but I feel free to tell my opinions. You are free to criticise
and I appreciate any correction as far as I'm wrong.
> Basically if you want to have an abortion or you want to have a divorce,
>Ireland is not the place to go. But we do have the important rights of freedom
>of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom from arbitrary arrest, secret ballot
>etc. Ireland is NOT comparable to Iran.
Right. Here I widely exaggerated and have to apologize, too.
> Uninhabitable? Well, if you think so. I can only say that any country is
>uninhabitable. Nowhere is perfect when it comes to human rights. There is no
>black and white.
> USA: You cannot burn a flag if it happens to be starry and stripey.
> FRG: You cannot get a government job if you say things against th Basic Law,
> life can be unpleasant if you're from Turkey
> GB: Your freedom of speech is severely curtailed if you are an employee of
the government
> F: Conscientious objectors get a rough time
What you stated about Germany (I leave the others to anybody better informed)
is true. But note that I (as well as lots of others) appreciate any criticism
- especially from abroad - of those things. For a teacher, a postman or
railway employee the FRG may be uninhabitable, too, because (s)he is forced to
accept oppression of free speech, joining legal parties etc. in order not
to loose the job, as far as their opinions are regarded "hostile towards the
constitution" by the government. And the 'legal' justification for that is based
upon the update of a Nazi law. Always feel free to accuse that as well as dis-
crimination of foreigners, racism etc. in my country.
> Actually the law does not rcognise any children as 'illegitimate' anymore.
>They have the same rights as any other. Yes the other problems do exist here
>and no-one here denies that.
Have children descending from a free relationship between partners still
married to other people the same rights of inheritance, being financially
supported by their parents etc. as children out of those previous marriages?
Pls inform.
> No. No Endloesung for us, eh?
no comments. Don't you feel you lost self-control here?
regards, es
Teemu Leisti
> In article <6...@cc.helsinki.fi> LEI...@cc.helsinki.fi (Teemu Leisti) writes:
>>As far as I know, it is possible for people of the same sex to marry
>>each other at least in Denmark.
>
> Well, not in the sense of a marriage involving a wedding ceremony etc.
> The Danish law that you are referring to states that two people
> of the same sex living together have the same legal rights as an `ordinary'
> married couple w.r.t. `divorce settlements' (or whatever you call it in the
> MOTSS case), wills etc.
Do the MOTSS have to register their 'married' status in some way? If
not, wouldn't their situation in case of 'divorce' be different from
MODS (members of different sexes) who have not married and are
separating? This would cause confusion if a court would have to decide
whether the MOTSS were really 'married' or not in case of disagreement.
Or is the situation the same for unmarried and separating MODS?
Richard Tobin
>correct: if one man does not have the right to kill another man, neither
>does a mob.
First of all note how Magnus has changed the example to make it more
emotive (less objective). In the previous message, the issue was
>: > ii) if one man does not have the right to prevent nor force another
>: > man's particular kind of action, neither do 1'000'000 men: a non-
A million men preventing or forcing someone's action has become a "mob"
killing someone.
Without this extra distraction, the principle Magnus claims is that if
one person doesn't have the right to do something, neither does a large
group. You may or may not believe in this principle; Magnus does. He
seems to believe it is inherent in the nature of rights:
>A right is an absolute (that is what "inalienable rights" means)
One may or may not believe this (or alternatively, you might say "I agree
that a right is absolute, but I don't think that "to prevent or force
someone's action" is a non-right).
>And in the end, Richard Tobin confesses one of his basic premises:
>: By the way, some might think that choosing my axioms to produce desired
>: conclusions is going about it the wrong way. But how else can you decide
>: what are good axioms other than by the conclusions they lead to?
>
>For your education, here goes:
> An axiom is a self-evident truth.
> A truth is an identification of a fact of reality.
The trouble with defining an axiom as a self-evident truth is that many
people don't find there are enough self-evident things to deduce much from.
Let's consider the axioms Magnus has mentioned:
(1) Existence exists
(2) Consciousness exists
(3) A is A
There are two problems with these axioms: you can't deduce much from them,
and they aren't self-evident (not to me, anyway).
Many will remember that Magnus commendably accepted my challenge to
prove that monopolies could not arise under capitalism. However, that
proof did not involve axioms like the ones above (indeed, it didn't
explicitly list its axioms at all).
As to the "self-evident" nature of these axioms, I'm afraid I don't
even understand them. I think that people committed to an ideology
often start to use everyday words in rather technical senses, so that
apparently simple statements really mean something less clear. Let's
consider them:
"Existence exists"
What does this mean? In particular, what does "existence" mean? It could
be the property of existing, or the sum-total of all that exists. If it's
the latter, then it's just a tautology - all the things that exist exist.
If it's the former, then it's not clear that it's true. Certainly the
property of existing doesn't exist in the sense that cats do - it's not
a physical object. Or perhaps existence means something else. It's
hardly self-evident...
"Consciousness exists"
Does this mean something more than that conscious beings exist?
"A is A"
Obviously this doesn't just mean that the letter A is the letter A. But
what does it mean? Does it mean everything is itself? Or does it mean
something more complicated (and less self-evident)?
My suspicion here is that these three assertions are meant to be so
trivial as to be indisputable, but in fact mean much more debatable
things.
Mike Williams
>
>"A is A"
>
>Obviously this doesn't just mean that the letter A is the letter A. But
>what does it mean? Does it mean everything is itself? Or does it mean
>something more complicated (and less self-evident)?
| ?- A is A.
{ERROR: illegal arithmetic expression}
no
| ?-
Damnit, didn't mean that either :->
---Mike
Neil Dunbar
>
>"Existence exists"
>
>What does this mean? In particular, what does "existence" mean? It could
>be the property of existing, or the sum-total of all that exists. If it's
>the latter, then it's just a tautology - all the things that exist exist.
>If it's the former, then it's not clear that it's true. Certainly the
>property of existing doesn't exist in the sense that cats do - it's not
>a physical object. Or perhaps existence means something else. It's
>hardly self-evident...
Logical Positivists (esp. A.J. Ayer) are very unhappy with statements like
"the property of existence" - most European languages have the same structure
for proposing the existence of objects as well as proposing a particular
property that they have, (e.g. from "Language, Truth and Logic", "Martyrs
exist" has the same structure as "Martyrs suffer" - a casual glance would
lead someone to suppose that existence is a property in the same way as
suffering, whereas the latter proposition depends on the former, that is,
"If martyrs exist (i.e. are non-fictitious) then they have the property of
suffering").
>
>"A is A"
>
>What does it mean?
I don't know either - it looks like tautology, and if so, nothing useful
can be deduced from it. No doubt Magnus will correct us all if we have
failed to understand his language.
Neil Dunbar,
Scottish HCI Centre,
Edinburgh
Christian Murphy
>> I must strongly object to the use of the term 'religious fanatic'. As I have
>>posted before, I don't think that religion per se was responsible for the vote.
>>Don't you think it's funny that *no-one* has tried to justify the vote itself;
>>the most that was said was that this was a democratic decision.
>... Though you gave
> interesting informations, just two remarks:
> - The things I criticised (maybe in too strong words) like prohibiting
> divorce, contraception etc. perfectly fit into the catholic dogma and not
> by chance, as I believe.
> - I never doubted that the vote itself was democratic.
Well, by chance would be putting it to strongly.
>> But it does anger me that you say my country is ruled by 'religious fanatics'.
>>And that YOU are debating what is the solution to OUR problems. That is really
>>very patronising and insulting.
> I reread my article (not only what you quoted) and couldn't find any statement
> which expressed something as cited above. I never asserted that your contry
> in general is ruled by religious fanatics and I know very well that you have
> free speech etc.
"For example, Iran - another country ruled by religious fanatics, would
be uninhabitable for me, too...As I'm neither Iranian nor Irish, it's easy for
me to avoid living in those countries. Far worse for free-thinking people
living there."
This is what you said. If that is not an assertion that Ireland is ruled by
fanatics,what is? I've no intention of letting you fudge it like this.
> Anyway, I feel any interference of the state into private
> affairs to be totalitarian and completely intolerable. And I blamed the church
> (like most religious communities) always to try...to impose their rules upon
> everybody... And I see a problem about a democratically created
> decision which carries out a non-democratic attitude.
> I apologize that I obviously offended your patriotic feelings, which was not
> my intention at all.
Well I'm not really a great patriot. I object to false accusations like those
you made earlier.
> Nevertheless, I don't understand why you feel that insulted.
The comparison between Ireland and Iran.
> If things are chan-
> ging towards secularization in your country, nice to hear it (and reason for
> me to change my mind about living there), but I wonder if you want these things
> to be discussed by foreign contributors at all.
I don't mind so long as they get their facts right, do not insult or lecture.
The tone seemed to be "your country is uninhabitable, but ours are", which
smacks of jingoism. Also I live here, what does that say about me? That I am
against divorce, contraception, etc.? That I live somewhere unfit for human
habitation?
> I don't want to impose you
> any solution, but I feel free to tell my opinions. You are free to criticise
> and I appreciate any correction as far as I'm wrong.
>> Basically if you want to have an abortion or you want to have a divorce,
>>Ireland is not the place to go. But we do have the important rights of freedom
>>of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom from arbitrary arrest, secret ballot
>>etc. Ireland is NOT comparable to Iran.
> Right. Here I widely exaggerated and have to apologize, too.
Thank you.
>> Nowhere is perfect when it comes to human rights. There is no
>>black and white.
>
>> USA: You cannot burn a flag if it happens to be starry and stripey.
>> FRG: You cannot get a government job if you say things against th Basic Law,
>> life can be unpleasant if you're from Turkey
>> GB: Your freedom of speech is severely curtailed if you are an employee of
> the government
>> F: Conscientious objectors get a rough time
> What you stated about Germany (I leave the others to anybody better informed)
> is true.
Two posters said that what I said about the US was untrue. I stand by what I
said, because of the law passed recently passed by Congress. I don't understand
it, but it's the truth.
> But note that I (as well as lots of others) appreciate any criticism
> - especially from abroad - of those things. For a teacher, a postman or
> railway employee the FRG may be uninhabitable, too, because (s)he is forced to
> accept oppression of free speech, joining legal parties etc.
I think uninhabitable is a wild exageration. After all, people do live there.
(Un)fortunately, human rights violations do not make a place uninhabitable,
especially if only some people's rights are violated.
> Always feel free to accuse that as well as dis-
> crimination of foreigners, racism etc. in my country.
Thank you. I don't suppose it will help. You probably know more about it than
I.
>> Actually the law does not rcognise any children as 'illegitimate' anymore.
>>They have the same rights as any other. Yes the other problems do exist here
>>and no-one here denies that.
> Have children descending from a free relationship between partners still
> married to other people the same rights of inheritance, being financially
> supported by their parents etc. as children out of those previous marriages?
> Pls inform.
I'm not a lawyer but as far as I know they enjoy all the same rights as
'legitimate' children. Unfortunately a lot of this hasn't been tried in the
courts so I can't say that there won't be some snag. It would be a disgrace if
children were to be deprived of anything because their parents weren't married.
>> No. No Endloesung for us, eh?
> no comments. Don't you feel you lost self-control here?
Probably. I have to apologise for that.
> regards, es