Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: New Afghan Law Limits Womens' Rights

  1. #21
    Educator BulletWounD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    02-17-11 @ 09:06 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    984

    Re: New Afghan Law Limits Womens' Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Well you know how it is these days, immigrants don't come to be part of a country anymore, they come to change the country into whatever they feel it should be. Look at the illegals we have in the US, they raise Mexican flags in honor of the country that wouldn't do for them what we do. It's total bull****.
    Well, there are problems with the English Constitution that allow the government to get away with murder as long as they have the majority vote. I'm not saying they should change it, I'm just suggesting that they take a critical look at it.

  2. #22
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: New Afghan Law Limits Womens' Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by BulletWounD View Post
    Well, there are problems with the English Constitution that allow the government to get away with murder as long as they have the majority vote. I'm not saying they should change it, I'm just suggesting that they take a critical look at it.
    The problem is that this is the view of it that prevails among the public and media.

    The lords, before Blair butchered it, or the monarch or the church etc cannot do their role because the media will scream things about it being "undemocratic"(whereas a parliament in Brussels that represent 500 million people will be oh so democratic), and the people will generally agree.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  3. #23
    Educator BulletWounD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    02-17-11 @ 09:06 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    984

    Re: New Afghan Law Limits Womens' Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    The problem is that this is the view of it that prevails among the public and media.

    The lords, before Blair butchered it, or the monarch or the church etc cannot do their role because the media will scream things about it being "undemocratic"(whereas a parliament in Brussels that represent 500 million people will be oh so democratic), and the people will generally agree.
    For instance? I'm not suggesting you strip anything away, but I think the UK could desperately use a "right to privacy" provision for instance. The Labor Party has been trying to build a big brother database state.

  4. #24
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: New Afghan Law Limits Womens' Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by BulletWounD View Post
    For instance?
    I'm not sure what you are asking.

    I'm not suggesting you strip anything away, but I think the UK could desperately use a "right to privacy" provision for instance. The Labor Party has been trying to build a big brother database state.
    What I'm basically saying is our constitution or ancient constitution is ignored, and partially butchered with the removal of the hereditary peers, because many people, even Tories, can't accept anything but the supposed mass, majority or at least the party voted by the mass majority getting its will. The lords has its constitution role, even today, and could block such measures but if it blocked anything that wasn't drastically unpopular if would raise shouts of being "undemocratic".

    Basically a constitution takes a certain amount of respect for it to mean anything. At the moment I don't think the British public will endorse anything but a simple mass, majority assembly having almost all power on most issues.

    One can look at Australia which does have a written constitution somewhat like the US and see the due to the lack of respect for the separation of powers and bicameralism and federalism here among the media and people that the constitution is not too meaningful.
    Last edited by Wessexman; 04-02-09 at 10:40 AM.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  5. #25
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: New Afghan Law Limits Womens' Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    I'm not sure what you are suggesting.


    What I'm basically saying is our constitution or ancient constitution is ignored, and partially butchered with the removal of the hereditary peers, because many people, even Tories, can't accept anything but the supposed mass, majority or at least the party voted by the mass majority getting its will.
    So do you want Kings and Queens in a position of power?

  6. #26
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: New Afghan Law Limits Womens' Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    So do you want Kings and Queens in a position of power?
    Well I'd reform our constitution to a more decentralist version while stressing continuity which would not require real power for the monarch if I had the complete chance but failing that then yes I'd like them to retain their ancient power and role in our constitution. We have a mixed constitution in Britain with a place for democracy in the commons, aristocracy in the lords and monarchy in crown and I'm not ashamed of that. It is far better and safer than having a simple construction of gov't.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  7. #27
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: New Afghan Law Limits Womens' Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Well I'd reform our constitution to a more decentralist version while stressing continuity which would not require real power for the monarch if I had the complete chance but failing that then yes I'd like them to retain their ancient power and role in our constitution. We have a mixed constitution in Britain with a place for democracy in the commons, aristocracy in the lords and monarchy in crown and I'm not ashamed of that. It is far better and safer than having a simple construction of gov't.
    Thank you for the straight forward answer.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •