Laws and rights of a country.

We in south africa have the most detailed constitution in the world, it is very long. this lends to the workings of the country, where every possible type of legislation is covered by the constitution and laws. but, it is the laws that come first, then the rights - if you break the law, you have less rights, right?

So, what should go into a constitution? there are rights for every demographic in this country, for nearly every conceivable event, but the courts are bottlenecked with sifting through this legal system and rights ordeal.

While that is not a problem considered to having each person entitled to their rights, in every way, the constitution makes the methods of learning the legal system take seven years or so. this means we have the most qualified lawyers in the world, yes?

So, instead of changing the constitution or legal system, i am suggesting adding the human rights and laws of the united nation to every country. while it impossible for all third world countries to 'save' all child brides, for example, there is still a good standard of living in the cities. this means if a child is taken as a bride, they could go to the city and find their 'entitlement,' of course.

But, what makes a law right? laws come from society changing the morals of the country to coincide with science and practicality. these laws are a reflection of what the country deems worth having for their people. for example, there is no planned invasion of saudi because they wear burkas, right? of course there will never be, even though this is a gross human rights violation in the eyes of some people.

So, what is right? i have a idea about this, tested a long time ago. if it harms society, it is immoral, harms anyone, in any way, then it is illegal or a sin or whatever and dealt with. this is the law, summed up, for simple people to put their cases together. if nobody is harmed, there is no case, is there? it is all to do with harm.

Now, if nobody got harmed, emotionally or otherwise, then the law has not been broken and therefore everything is fine. i think every country should try to support their views through dialogue with the united nations, fleshing out a private set of interpretations of the law, yes? let's look at saudi again, as an example?

The woman that wear these things in saudi and at religious times, need to wear them why? they say it is modesty, so, every woman is at a ball with a need to 'dress to code.' heard of that right of admission reserved thing? that is done here, you could say - dress code for a market or so, of course.

How about child brides? these would be where the children are married over to the older men because they want to sheppard them into the life they want to afford to them - do you actually think there is 'sexual activity' there? how could a man look at a child and think sexual thoughts, and, if this was the case, we would see media reporting this to us, of course. they merely want the child to grow up with them, getting into their trust quickly, knowing the parents and seeing them, because they are family.

As for 'corrective rape therapy' this is not supported by any culture, being a new type of 'habit' where the men suggest that the lesbian women may be turned straight for the sake of themselves and those around them. this does not work, it harms people, and therefore needs to be punished and denounced or spoken poorly of.

well your talking about three seprate things that stem from completely different circumstances the only thing they really have in common is that they are sexual in nature. Women wearing hijabs is more from religous reasons its not really a crime at all since most women wear it voluntarily not out of fear of punishment. Women have to cover their nipples in america, up until the 20th century it was common for most to cover their heads in public as it says so in the bible. So do many jewish hindu buddhist jainist and sikh women. Child brides are sperated into two groups one being arranged marriage beetween two minors by the parents, the other being as you described an old man buying a young girl as a bride, and your right most of the places where this is practiced the men do normally wait until the girl has had her first period. But that doesn't mean they all do or that the women who weren't can just tell someone and get divorced, they are usually abused and often kill themselves. I feel like shouldnt have to say this but yes men who marry 9 year olds are attracted to children. As for corrective rape therapy that is more of hate crime against LGBT people, it happens to men as well. I know this has been on the rise in south africa and christian pastors spreading the word that gay people cause aids doesn't help, but its fairly new and largely due to the fact that south africa is becoming a haven for lgbt people in Africa where people are flocking from hundreds even thousands of miles away to be in the safe haven of south africa.

BrettNortje said:

We in south africa have the most detailed constitution in the world,...

Click to expand...

And if the law violates peoples Rights? A persons Rights should always be superior to laws. Otherwise laws can be used to suppress peoples Rights. Which means people don't have Rights, they have privileges at best.

BrettNortje said:

So, what should go into a constitution? there are rights for every ...

Click to expand...

"Qualified lawyers in the world"? No. It just means that your lawyers are the best qualified lawyers for your country. But if you're going by how many years a lawyer has to go through schooling to learn how to be a lawyer based on the countries laws then...well, the answer would still be no. Here in America it takes an average 8 years.

BrettNortje said:

So, instead of changing the constitution or legal system, i am suggesting...

Click to expand...

The UN Human Rights charter has a few things in it that would conflict with what we here in the US would consider as being a "Right". The problem here is that not everything will work everywhere, indeed having such a policy of a "one hat fits all" can actually be a detriment.

BrettNortje said:

But, what makes a law right? laws come from ....

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Laws come from governments. Governments are composed of a small percentage of the People in a country. And governments, when giving too much power become corrupt. And when a government is corrupt they don't look out for the interests of The People. They look out for their own selfish interests. Which means they start enacting laws that can harm the People. And if done right the people may not even realize it until its too late. Lord knows how many laws are passed in the name of Good only to turn out to be a law passed on the way to hell.

BrettNortje said:

So, what is right? i have a idea about this....

Click to expand...

Problem with this is that "harms anyone, in any way" could cover a HUGE WIDE range of "harm". For example: Calling someone "stupid" could be considered as harmful under your phrase there. Do you really want or think that someone should be in jail for simply calling someone stupid? I would not support such.

BrettNortje said:

Now, if nobody got harmed, emotionally or otherwise, ....

Click to expand...

Its that "shepherd" thing that makes child brides wrong. It is a form of coercion. If a parent teaches a child that it is ok to murder someone are you going to just blame the child? Or also blame the parent for coercing that child into believing that? No one should have to marry anyone until they have full knowledge of what they are getting into. And children do not have the capability to know such things as such things can only be learned over time. Plus no one should be forced into marriage. Marriage is about loving one another. A child cannot love in that way. They can be tricked into believing that they do. But that doesn't mean that they actually do.

As for wearing the Hijab, most Muslim women do that voluntarily. No harm done.

Note: I had to shorten your quotes due to the 5k Character limit that the board has per post.

Kal'Stang said:

And if the law violates peoples Rights? A persons Rights should always be superior to laws. Otherwise laws can be used to suppress peoples Rights. Which means people don't have Rights, they have privileges at best.

"Qualified lawyers in the world"? No. It just means that your lawyers are the best qualified lawyers for your country. But if you're going by how many years a lawyer has to go through schooling to learn how to be a lawyer based on the countries laws then...well, the answer would still be no. Here in America it takes an average 8 years.

The UN Human Rights charter has a few things in it that would conflict with what we here in the US would consider as being a "Right". The problem here is that not everything will work everywhere, indeed having such a policy of a "one hat fits all" can actually be a detriment.

Not necessarily. Laws come from governments. Governments are composed of a small percentage of the People in a country. And governments, when giving too much power become corrupt. And when a government is corrupt they don't look out for the interests of The People. They look out for their own selfish interests. Which means they start enacting laws that can harm the People. And if done right the people may not even realize it until its too late. Lord knows how many laws are passed in the name of Good only to turn out to be a law passed on the way to hell.

Problem with this is that "harms anyone, in any way" could cover a HUGE WIDE range of "harm". For example: Calling someone "stupid" could be considered as harmful under your phrase there. Do you really want or think that someone should be in jail for simply calling someone stupid? I would not support such.

Its that "shepherd" thing that makes child brides wrong. It is a form of coercion. If a parent teaches a child that it is ok to murder someone are you going to just blame the child? Or also blame the parent for coercing that child into believing that? No one should have to marry anyone until they have full knowledge of what they are getting into. And children do not have the capability to know such things as such things can only be learned over time. Plus no one should be forced into marriage. Marriage is about loving one another. A child cannot love in that way. They can be tricked into believing that they do. But that doesn't mean that they actually do.

As for wearing the Hijab, most Muslim women do that voluntarily. No harm done.

Note: I had to shorten your quotes due to the 5k Character limit that the board has per post.

Click to expand...

Of course, the harm done is not dangerous, but it should come with a penalty of an apology or so, yes? this is what we teach our kids, this is what we expect. the rights of the country's people come after the successful benefits of the majority, as that is also a more important right - that as many people as possible are represented.

The police int he country are in charge of taking care of the harm done to the people, or, preventing harm coming to them, ideally. if the police are looked down upon by the people, as is usually the case, they will feel unappreciated and stressed at trying to help and not being recognized. outright dismissal of police activity would lead to unlawfulness, and, then riots and so forth. this would leave the country in a state like iraq, where the police are replaced by militias of people grouping together with weapons deciding the fate of the people by themselves, without a code of conduct.

Of course, the police, as i have illustrated, are very important. without them, there is no security, and, therefore they should have a lot of leeway cast upon them by the laws of the country. i am not talking a curfew and police state, just more rights - to enable them to enable others, of course.

Police are there to look after the people in ways decreed by the state, which is elected by the people, of which the police are also people. this means they have listened to the officials promises and want to see it done on the street.

Of course, the police are human beings. they merely make mistakes as they do, as anyone would do, yes? this needs to be less thrown up in the media, who probably have a slant with the police due to being blocked by them often, and they resort to - the media - slinging mud at the police, often.

I hope i have shown you that the police are the god guys, and, hope the media is listening. why not paint as good a picture as possible of the police, to help relations between them and the public? then the kids will continue this relay to their kids, and there will be less tension.

BrettNortje said:

Of course, the harm done is not dangerous, but it should come with a penalty of an apology or so, yes? this is what we teach our kids, this is what we expect. the rights of the country's people come after the successful benefits of the majority, as that is also a more important right - that as many people as possible are represented.

Click to expand...

Why give an apology? If you truly believe that it is true then why apologize? Such an apology would be a lie. And I for one am against lying.

And no, the rights of the country's people do not come after the successful benefits of the majority. Peoples Rights are individual based, not collectively based. What you're referring to here is what we call "mob rule". Where the mob can suppress the minority. If the majority is treated differently from the minority (IE: Their voice is listened to and given more credence than a minorities voice) simply because the majority disagrees with the minority then that leads to oppression. Which is not fair at all. And that is why Rights are deemed as being individual Rights, not collective Rights.

BrettNortje said:

The police int he country are in charge of taking care of the harm done to the people, or, preventing harm coming to them, ideally. if the police are looked down upon by the people, as is usually the case, they will feel unappreciated and stressed at trying to help and not being recognized. outright dismissal of police activity would lead to unlawfulness, and, then riots and so forth. this would leave the country in a state like iraq, where the police are replaced by militias of people grouping together with weapons deciding the fate of the people by themselves, without a code of conduct.

Of course, the police, as i have illustrated, are very important. without them, there is no security, and, therefore they should have a lot of leeway cast upon them by the laws of the country. i am not talking a curfew and police state, just more rights - to enable them to enable others, of course.

Police are there to look after the people in ways decreed by the state, which is elected by the people, of which the police are also people. this means they have listened to the officials promises and want to see it done on the street.

Of course, the police are human beings. they merely make mistakes as they do, as anyone would do, yes? this needs to be less thrown up in the media, who probably have a slant with the police due to being blocked by them often, and they resort to - the media - slinging mud at the police, often.

I hope i have shown you that the police are the god guys, and, hope the media is listening. why not paint as good a picture as possible of the police, to help relations between them and the public? then the kids will continue this relay to their kids, and there will be less tension.

Click to expand...

What you're describing here is essentially creating a higher class of people simply because they entered into law enforcement. ("just more Rights" was your statement) I don't agree with that in the slightest. Such was already tried in our World History. Monarchies, Barons, Duchesses etc etc etc all considered themselves as having more Rights, more deserving of having more Rights than the peasants. That led to oppression and the Dark Ages. No thanks.

And thanks but I already know that the police are the good guys. But I also know that police are human beings. Prone to mistakes and corruption. Giving them more Rights than everyone else would simply lead to more corruption. They should have, and deserve the same amount of Rights that everyone else has. They do not deserve, nor should have, more Rights than anyone else.

We have today had a 'police appreciation day' where the fallen were honored. some of the police could have still been alive if there were more measures in place, of course. these measures could have been for the police to phone ahead to find out what the situation was, and get details while there was someone on the way, yes?

The police are given a lot of power in my country, but, there is less need for power and more need for cooperation if you ask me? of course, if there is to be better service delivery in this sector then there needs to be more safety for the police, who fear as much as anyone else.

Maybe if they were to leave their sirens going as they get there and while they are there, they could scare the people committing the crime, or potential criminals, into cooperating more with the police, as the noise would alert everyone to the authority of the police, of course.

Now the target falls on the traffic police - how can we make their lives easier? if we were to erect poles that stretch out over streets, with hanging chains and decorations over them, the driver's will have something to focus on to stop them speeding and make them pay attention more to the roads. or, we could have more of those speed bumps on the streets, where they would at least get a distraction to stop them from lolling into blissful day dreams while driving, of course.

If you were to observe that these hanging plastic poles could be bumped at a speed without damaging them, they could also be fitted with cameras to take details of cars that are speeding, yes? as well as that, they could also observe that most accidents happen in peak hour traffic, yes? this begs the question - does having more drivers on the road mean more accidents - obviously this is the case!

So, to deal with congestion, i am led to investigate traffic lights - does this help? i mean, having it go green for a minute, then red, means a constant stop start and under stress, great acceleration. if they were to replace all traffic lights with stop signs, then, it would be like a continuous flow, where the person may ride the clutch knowing they will be going soon.